DTU ProjectLab - User contributions [en-gb]

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T21:58:33Z

ALT:

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015<ref>X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.</ref>

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

Other aspects such as "Waste" and "Value generation" were found only on the "SNA + Lean" searched area.

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

One of the objectives when establishing the searched areas was to identify the different study areas in which the use of SNA techniques has an interest and which journal contributed the most in the available literature.

With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

It has been proved the interest in the field of "Construction Project Management", however in the case of collaborative environments (BIM and Lean Construction) the lack of studies in the use of "SNA" techniques is evident with only 4 papers in the past 4 years, and in all cases their focus more in the aspects related with "Information flows" and "Relationship" that has a qualitative component.

The building industry is experiencing an technological transformation that is affecting different fields, with different speeds in the adoption of this technological advancements depending on the organizations, currently internet and web-based solutions could considered one of the more extended technological advancements, however the article reveals a poor use of this technology with only 3% of their use in SNA techniques.

The insufficient studies in the "Performance" and "Collaboration" aspects are presented as potential opportunities for future research in PPPM domain.

One of the more interesting lines of research would be the use of SNA techniques to identify within project-team networks "Behavior & patterns" and measure "Collaborative" and "Coordination" aspects to find if there is any correlation with the project-team "Performance" and productivity.

== Annotated Bibliography ==

'''Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review''', provides a short and concise overview of the development of "Social Network Analysis", (B. H.Rusell, 2005)

'''Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research''', provides a review of 63 papers in the aplication of SNA techniques in Construction Project Managemanet, (Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, 2016).

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Articles Fall Term 2016

2016-09-26T21:45:44Z

ALT:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Disclaimer!
|-
|''The requirements for the articles written during Fall Term 2015 were not the same as for Fall Term 2016. Please make sure you read the requirements for your own fall term carefully before starting your wiki article.''
|}

Please complete this table with your group number, full name, username and the title of your article.

To create more lines in the table click '''Edit''' and use the following code to create more lines in the table and replace the example text with your own information:

<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap;
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap;
white-space: -pre-wrap;
white-space: -o-pre-wrap;
word-wrap: break-word;">
|-
|Group Number
|First Name
|Last Name
|Username
|Link to Article
|-
</pre>
Create a direct link by making square brackets ([[ ]]) around the title such as [[Title]]

The straight lines ( | ) create columns and the straight line with a dash ( |- ) creates a new row in the table.

( |} ) is only used at the very end to finish the coding for the table.

=Overview of 2016 Wiki articles=

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Fall 2016 Wiki Articles
|-
!Group Number
!First Name
!Last Name
!Wiki User Name
!Link to Wiki article
|-
|09
|Aitor
|Altuna
|aitor.altuna
|[[Knowledge management in projects and organizations]]
|-|
| 06
|Alexander Daniel
|Marcussen
|Alm92
|[[Understand best practices based on network mapping]]
|-
|15
|Alexander
|Michel
|Alexm
|[[Portfolio Management using the BCG-Matrix]]

|-
|
|Amedeo
|Mocchiutti
|
|
|-
|
|Anastasia
|Stella
|
|
|-
|
|Andrzej
|Stanek
|Andstan
|
|-
|13
|Anika Zandra
|Alcoat
|zaac
||[[Risk and Opportunities Management]]
|-
|
|Anna
|Paparizou
|
|
|-
|
|Anne
|Folkvard Petersen
|
|
|-
|10
|Arjun Abraham
|Punnen
|s150918
|[[Leadership and Managing People]]
|-
|14
|Arnaldo
|Landivar Taborga
|s122906
|[[Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM]]
|-
|1
|Stephanie
|Saavedra
|s150994
|[[Project Management tool: Gantt Chart ]]
|-
|
|Aromi
|Salot
|
|
|-
|01
|Artem
|Chernyshev
|ARCR
|[[Risk matrix]]
|-
|5
|Arvin
|Fattah
|Arvin
|[[Fault Tree Analysis in Projects]]
|-
|
|Astrid
|Greve Rokne
|
|
|-
|4
|Birthe
|Wohlenberg
|BWO
|[[Myers-Briggs Type Indicator]]
|-
|7
|Bjarni Jakob
|Gunnarsson
|Bjarni Jakob
|[[Risk management process]]
|-|
|8
|Camilla Engstrøm
|Jensen
|s093234
|[[Tools for visual management in project teams]]
|-
|14
|Camille
|Bortot
|Camille.Bortot
|[[International Project Management ]]
|-
|8
|Carl Johan Fokdal
|Christensen
|CJ
|[[Lean Design Management]]
|-
|01
|Carlos
|Sanchez Garcia
|Carlos145
|[[Value Stream Analysis and Mapping for product development]]
|-
|
|Chalida
|Jaidee
|Chalidaj
|[[The Critical Path Method in project planning]]
|-
|
|Charlotte Cecilie
|Søgaard
|
|
|-
|16
|Christian Haim
|Raben
|Christian
|[[A product rationalization project part of a portfolio optimization program]]
|-
|5
|Christian Lolk
|Thomsen
|
|[[Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for Project selection]]
|-
|3
|Christian Vindegaard
|Grønberg
|Vindegaard
|[[AHP as a Decision Making Tool in Projects, Programs and Portfolios]]
|-|
|2
|Christiane Steenbergh
|Myrup
|Chrisitane
|[[Last Planner System as a project management tool]]
|-
|06
|Christoffer Koza
|Hansen
|Christoffer Koza
|[[Total Quality Management]]
|-|
|
|Clement Victor Emile
|Hammel
|
|
|-
|09
|Davide
|Paganini
|davide.paganini
|[[Resource Allocation in Project Management]]
|-
|
|Edvinas
|Zamaratskis
|
|
|-
|8
|Erika
|di Pietro
|s155375
|[[Sustainability in Project and Portfolio Management]]
|-
|11
|Evdoxia
|Pertsinidou
|S151128
|[[Implementation of the project management phases in volunteer NGOs: The case of BEST]]
|-
|
|Evgeniya Ventsislavova
|Garkova
|s160807
|[[The Kaizen – Toyota KATA method]]
|-
|
|Fabricio Gasparin
|Lucchesi
|
|
|-
|
|Federico
|Riccardo
|
|
|-
|5
|Filip Møller Knudsen
|Knudsen
|Fmk
|[[Risk Management In Construction Projects]]
|-
|
|Filippo
|Gioanina
|
|
|-
|3
|Frederik
|Skjoldborg
|S113430
|[[Challenges_in_cross-cultural_project_management]]
|-
|
|Georg Maximilian Ruven
|Schriewersmann
|Mschriew
|[[Reference class forecasting and the corresponding limitations]]
|-
|1
|Georgios
|Nikou
|Gnikou
|[[Critical Chain Method in Project Scheduling]]
|-
|7
|Gudrún Thóra
|Reynisdóttir
|s124692
|[[Critical-Chain Approach]]
|-
|
|Gunnar Thorlakur
|Thorsson
|
|
|-
|12
|Iðunn Tara
|Ásgrímsdóttir
|IdunnTara
|[[Theory of Constraints in Software Development]]
|-
|
|Ingrid
|Berg
|
|
|-
|13
|Ioannis
|Milakas-Tsamouras
|Z4p2od
|[[Stakeholder Management in Change Programs]]
|-
|01
|Jeanette Garst
|Johansen
|JeanetteGJ
|[[The use of Gantt chart in project management]]
|-
|
|Jens Dines Obel
|Jepsen
|DinesObelJepsen
|[[Logical Framework Approach in Project Planning]]
|-
|13
|João Pedro
|Castro
|JCastro
|[[Integrating Mindfulness in Project and Program Management]]
|-
|
|Jorge Horacio
|Ramirez Basurto
|
|
|-
|11
|Jose de Jesus
|Cruz Contreras
|ppmex84
|[[The light at the end of the tunnel: managing challenges at Heathrow Express Project]]
|-
|10
|Joseph
|Kurian
|s150917
|[[Value Chain Analysis]]
|-
|15
|Kai-Sören Sokolowski
|Sokolowski
|Kai
|[[The agile framework Scrum in the context of lean project management]]
|-
|4
|Katrine Bager
|Olesen
|S113525
|[[The Decision Matrix]]
|-
|10
|Line Hye Sun
|Elmshøj
|s123449
|[[Lessons learned - a tool for sharing knowledge in project management]]
|-
|15
|Magnus
|Schulz
|MSchulz
|[[Earned Value Analysis]]
|-
|15
|Marco
|Carloni
|Marcocarloni
|[[Bubble diagram in portfolio management]]
|-
|13
|Marco
|Ronzoni
|Marcoronzoni
|[[The Delphi Technique in Project Management]]
|-
|8
|Maria Vittoria
|Onori
|M vittoria
|[[Managing Projects with Earned Value Management]]
|-
|11
|Maria
|Saridaki
|SaridakiM
|[[Building Information Modeling in project management]]
|-
|
|Marit Moberg
|Vossgård
|MAVO
|[[Kanban in Project Management]]
|-
|11
|Marouana Oulfat
|Afroukh
|M.Afroukh
|[[Managing Group Development using the Johari Window]]
|-
|16
|Matilde Nygaard
|Pedersen
|Matilde Nygaard
|[[Creating a Learning Organization]]
|-
|
|Mehmet Cagri
|Hekim
|
|
|-
|2
|Mie Louise Elsborg
|Drejer
|Mie Drejer
| [[VDC as a project management tool on construction projects ]]
|-
|
|Miguel Martínez
|Montaña
|
|
|-
|13
|Natacha
|Leduc
|natacha
|[[How to successfully go through the Five Stages of Team Development]]
|-
|13
|Nicklas
|Risager
|Gnoff
|[[The Leader's role and how it differs betwen projects, programs and portfolios]]
|-
|6
|Niels Christian
|Kirk
|Kirk1993
|[[Leading the group]]
|-
|
|Nikolaj Friis
|Hansen
|
|
|-
|9
|Nikolaos
|Gavriilidis
|Nikolaos
|[[Cost Estimation Techniques for Projects]]
|-
|7
|Olöf Run
|Sigurjonsdottir
|s150964
|[[How PERT builds up on CPM]]
|-
|
|Pablo Jose Guerra
|Guerra
|
|
|-
|6
|Phillip
|Hasselbalch
|Tjimo
|[[Best Practices for Project Portfolio Selection]]
|-
|7
|Ragna
|Helgadóttir
|S155273
|[[Lean Management and use of the Last Planner System in Construction Projects]]
|-
|14
|Raivo
|Kalderauskis
|Raivo Kalderauskis
|[[Advantages of BIM for time management of building projects ]]
|-
|14
|Raphaël
|Lassaux
|Lassauxr
|[[Management of remote project]]
|-
|09
|Riccardo
|Ferranti
|rf287
|[[Balanced scorecard in project management]]
|-
|01
|Rikke Klavstrup
|Wittendorff
|RikkeWitten
|[[BIM as a Management Tool in Construction Projects]]
|-
|5
|Robin
|Hertenberger
|RobinH
|[[Stakeholder Management in Wind Power Projects]]
|-
|14
|Romain
|Clouzeau
|Romain Clouzeau
|[[Including Risk Management in Construction Projects]]
|-
|3
|Rosa Elisabeth
|Lindqvist
|Relindqvist
|[[Facilitated Work Sessions]]
|-
|2
|Sanna
|Monjezi
|SMO
|[[Heathrow Terminal 5]]
|-
|16
|Sean
|O'Regan
|OReganS
|[[Stakeholder Expectations Management]]
|-
|16
|Sebastian
|Bauer
|Sebastian Bauer
|[[Roadmapping in Program Management]]
|-
|10
|Selma Lind
|Jonsdottir
|S151176
|[[The Critical Path Method (CPM) in Project Management]]
|-
|05
|Sheren
|Agbarie
|S163647
|[[The work breakdown structure in project management]]
|-
|4
|Signe Skovmand
|Jakobsen
|SSJ
|[[Visual Project Management - War Rooms]]
|-
|3
|Siri
|Lassen-Urdahl
|Sirinthon
|[[The Chunnel Project]]
|-
|-
|12
|Skúli
|Sigurðsson
|30sigurdsson
|[[Blue ocean strategy for project management]]
|-
|16
|Sofia
|Griggio
|SofiaGriggio
|[[The Agile methodology and its frameworks]]
|-
|4
|Sofie
|Olesen
|s104809
|[[Project Management Maturity Model]]
|-
|4
|Somar Faraj
|Hassan
|Somar
|[[TFV-model]]
|-
|15
|Stefan
|Schenk
|Stefan.schenk
|[[Challenges and Execution of Innovation Portfolio Management]]
|-
|5
|Stefan Borch
|Bilfeldt
|Stefan
|[[Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams in Project Portfolio Prioritization]]
|-
|
|Stefán Geir
|Sigfússon
|
|
|-
|9
|Sveinn
|Isleifsson
|Sveinnis
|[[Project Quality Management]]
|-
|10
|Swaroop Kumar
|Sahu
|SKS534
|[[Project Management Triangle]]
|-
|12
|Thorgeir
|Sveinsson
|thorgeir11
|[[Earned Value Management (EVM) in construction projects]]
|-
|
|Timea-Denisa
|Merca
|
|
|-
|
|Timokleia
|Orfanidou
|
|
|-
|6
|Tobias Lyck Bjært
| Sørensen
|Tobias Sørensen
|[[Stakeholder Network]]
|-
|2
|Trine
|Marquardsen
|Trinemarquardsen
|[[Managing Stakeholders in Construction]]
|-
|
|Vittorio
|Albertazzi
|
|
|-
|16
|Wilfried
|Genier
|Wilfried_Genier
|[[Valuation methods in Project Portfolio Optimization - Focus on Real Options]]
|-
|
|Yann Mamy
|Randrianarison
|
|
|-
|
|Yin
|Jia
|
|
|-
|11
|Zsofia Dora
|Helmeczi
|s155698
|[[The use of Last Planner System in highly specialised construction projects]]
|-
|12
|Jakob
|Rolfsson
|s150892
|[[Scrum method]]
|-
|-
|8
|Tabea
|Ramirez Hernandez
|s152377
|[[Project Management in the Fuzzy Front End]]
|-
|-
|12
|Fridrik
|Karlsson
|s150948
|[[Scrum an Agile Framework]]
|-
</pre>

Articles Fall Term 2016

2016-09-26T21:44:43Z

ALT:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Disclaimer!
|-
|''The requirements for the articles written during Fall Term 2015 were not the same as for Fall Term 2016. Please make sure you read the requirements for your own fall term carefully before starting your wiki article.''
|}

Please complete this table with your group number, full name, username and the title of your article.

To create more lines in the table click '''Edit''' and use the following code to create more lines in the table and replace the example text with your own information:

<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap;
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap;
white-space: -pre-wrap;
white-space: -o-pre-wrap;
word-wrap: break-word;">
|-
|Group Number
|First Name
|Last Name
|Username
|Link to Article
|-
</pre>
Create a direct link by making square brackets ([[ ]]) around the title such as [[Title]]

The straight lines ( | ) create columns and the straight line with a dash ( |- ) creates a new row in the table.

( |} ) is only used at the very end to finish the coding for the table.

=Overview of 2016 Wiki articles=

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Fall 2016 Wiki Articles
|-
!Group Number
!First Name
!Last Name
!Wiki User Name
!Link to Wiki article
|-
|09
|Aitor
|Altuna
|aitor.altuna
|[[Knowledge management in projects and organizations]]
|-|
| 06
|Alexander Daniel
|Marcussen
|Alm92
|[[Understand best practices based on network mapping]]
|-
|15
|Alexander
|Michel
|Alexm
|[[Portfolio Management using the BCG-Matrix]]

|-
|
|Amedeo
|Mocchiutti
|
|
|-
|
|Anastasia
|Stella
|
|
|-
|
|Andrzej
|Stanek
|Andstan
|
|-
|13
|Anika Zandra
|Alcoat
|zaac
||[[Risk and Opportunities Management]]
|-
|
|Anna
|Paparizou
|
|
|-
|
|Anne
|Folkvard Petersen
|
|
|-
|10
|Arjun Abraham
|Punnen
|s150918
|[[Leadership and Managing People]]
|-
|14
|Arnaldo
|Landivar Taborga
|s122906
|[[Social Network Analysis(SNA)-Research Opportunities in PPPM]]
|-
|1
|Stephanie
|Saavedra
|s150994
|[[Project Management tool: Gantt Chart ]]
|-
|
|Aromi
|Salot
|
|
|-
|01
|Artem
|Chernyshev
|ARCR
|[[Risk matrix]]
|-
|5
|Arvin
|Fattah
|Arvin
|[[Fault Tree Analysis in Projects]]
|-
|
|Astrid
|Greve Rokne
|
|
|-
|4
|Birthe
|Wohlenberg
|BWO
|[[Myers-Briggs Type Indicator]]
|-
|7
|Bjarni Jakob
|Gunnarsson
|Bjarni Jakob
|[[Risk management process]]
|-|
|8
|Camilla Engstrøm
|Jensen
|s093234
|[[Tools for visual management in project teams]]
|-
|14
|Camille
|Bortot
|Camille.Bortot
|[[International Project Management ]]
|-
|8
|Carl Johan Fokdal
|Christensen
|CJ
|[[Lean Design Management]]
|-
|01
|Carlos
|Sanchez Garcia
|Carlos145
|[[Value Stream Analysis and Mapping for product development]]
|-
|
|Chalida
|Jaidee
|Chalidaj
|[[The Critical Path Method in project planning]]
|-
|
|Charlotte Cecilie
|Søgaard
|
|
|-
|16
|Christian Haim
|Raben
|Christian
|[[A product rationalization project part of a portfolio optimization program]]
|-
|5
|Christian Lolk
|Thomsen
|
|[[Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for Project selection]]
|-
|3
|Christian Vindegaard
|Grønberg
|Vindegaard
|[[AHP as a Decision Making Tool in Projects, Programs and Portfolios]]
|-|
|2
|Christiane Steenbergh
|Myrup
|Chrisitane
|[[Last Planner System as a project management tool]]
|-
|06
|Christoffer Koza
|Hansen
|Christoffer Koza
|[[Total Quality Management]]
|-|
|
|Clement Victor Emile
|Hammel
|
|
|-
|09
|Davide
|Paganini
|davide.paganini
|[[Resource Allocation in Project Management]]
|-
|
|Edvinas
|Zamaratskis
|
|
|-
|8
|Erika
|di Pietro
|s155375
|[[Sustainability in Project and Portfolio Management]]
|-
|11
|Evdoxia
|Pertsinidou
|S151128
|[[Implementation of the project management phases in volunteer NGOs: The case of BEST]]
|-
|
|Evgeniya Ventsislavova
|Garkova
|s160807
|[[The Kaizen – Toyota KATA method]]
|-
|
|Fabricio Gasparin
|Lucchesi
|
|
|-
|
|Federico
|Riccardo
|
|
|-
|5
|Filip Møller Knudsen
|Knudsen
|Fmk
|[[Risk Management In Construction Projects]]
|-
|
|Filippo
|Gioanina
|
|
|-
|3
|Frederik
|Skjoldborg
|S113430
|[[Challenges_in_cross-cultural_project_management]]
|-
|
|Georg Maximilian Ruven
|Schriewersmann
|Mschriew
|[[Reference class forecasting and the corresponding limitations]]
|-
|1
|Georgios
|Nikou
|Gnikou
|[[Critical Chain Method in Project Scheduling]]
|-
|7
|Gudrún Thóra
|Reynisdóttir
|s124692
|[[Critical-Chain Approach]]
|-
|
|Gunnar Thorlakur
|Thorsson
|
|
|-
|12
|Iðunn Tara
|Ásgrímsdóttir
|IdunnTara
|[[Theory of Constraints in Software Development]]
|-
|
|Ingrid
|Berg
|
|
|-
|13
|Ioannis
|Milakas-Tsamouras
|Z4p2od
|[[Stakeholder Management in Change Programs]]
|-
|01
|Jeanette Garst
|Johansen
|JeanetteGJ
|[[The use of Gantt chart in project management]]
|-
|
|Jens Dines Obel
|Jepsen
|DinesObelJepsen
|[[Logical Framework Approach in Project Planning]]
|-
|13
|João Pedro
|Castro
|JCastro
|[[Integrating Mindfulness in Project and Program Management]]
|-
|
|Jorge Horacio
|Ramirez Basurto
|
|
|-
|11
|Jose de Jesus
|Cruz Contreras
|ppmex84
|[[The light at the end of the tunnel: managing challenges at Heathrow Express Project]]
|-
|10
|Joseph
|Kurian
|s150917
|[[Value Chain Analysis]]
|-
|15
|Kai-Sören Sokolowski
|Sokolowski
|Kai
|[[The agile framework Scrum in the context of lean project management]]
|-
|4
|Katrine Bager
|Olesen
|S113525
|[[The Decision Matrix]]
|-
|10
|Line Hye Sun
|Elmshøj
|s123449
|[[Lessons learned - a tool for sharing knowledge in project management]]
|-
|15
|Magnus
|Schulz
|MSchulz
|[[Earned Value Analysis]]
|-
|15
|Marco
|Carloni
|Marcocarloni
|[[Bubble diagram in portfolio management]]
|-
|13
|Marco
|Ronzoni
|Marcoronzoni
|[[The Delphi Technique in Project Management]]
|-
|8
|Maria Vittoria
|Onori
|M vittoria
|[[Managing Projects with Earned Value Management]]
|-
|11
|Maria
|Saridaki
|SaridakiM
|[[Building Information Modeling in project management]]
|-
|
|Marit Moberg
|Vossgård
|MAVO
|[[Kanban in Project Management]]
|-
|11
|Marouana Oulfat
|Afroukh
|M.Afroukh
|[[Managing Group Development using the Johari Window]]
|-
|16
|Matilde Nygaard
|Pedersen
|Matilde Nygaard
|[[Creating a Learning Organization]]
|-
|
|Mehmet Cagri
|Hekim
|
|
|-
|2
|Mie Louise Elsborg
|Drejer
|Mie Drejer
| [[VDC as a project management tool on construction projects ]]
|-
|
|Miguel Martínez
|Montaña
|
|
|-
|13
|Natacha
|Leduc
|natacha
|[[How to successfully go through the Five Stages of Team Development]]
|-
|13
|Nicklas
|Risager
|Gnoff
|[[The Leader's role and how it differs betwen projects, programs and portfolios]]
|-
|6
|Niels Christian
|Kirk
|Kirk1993
|[[Leading the group]]
|-
|
|Nikolaj Friis
|Hansen
|
|
|-
|9
|Nikolaos
|Gavriilidis
|Nikolaos
|[[Cost Estimation Techniques for Projects]]
|-
|7
|Olöf Run
|Sigurjonsdottir
|s150964
|[[How PERT builds up on CPM]]
|-
|
|Pablo Jose Guerra
|Guerra
|
|
|-
|6
|Phillip
|Hasselbalch
|Tjimo
|[[Best Practices for Project Portfolio Selection]]
|-
|7
|Ragna
|Helgadóttir
|S155273
|[[Lean Management and use of the Last Planner System in Construction Projects]]
|-
|14
|Raivo
|Kalderauskis
|Raivo Kalderauskis
|[[Advantages of BIM for time management of building projects ]]
|-
|14
|Raphaël
|Lassaux
|Lassauxr
|[[Management of remote project]]
|-
|09
|Riccardo
|Ferranti
|rf287
|[[Balanced scorecard in project management]]
|-
|01
|Rikke Klavstrup
|Wittendorff
|RikkeWitten
|[[BIM as a Management Tool in Construction Projects]]
|-
|5
|Robin
|Hertenberger
|RobinH
|[[Stakeholder Management in Wind Power Projects]]
|-
|14
|Romain
|Clouzeau
|Romain Clouzeau
|[[Including Risk Management in Construction Projects]]
|-
|3
|Rosa Elisabeth
|Lindqvist
|Relindqvist
|[[Facilitated Work Sessions]]
|-
|2
|Sanna
|Monjezi
|SMO
|[[Heathrow Terminal 5]]
|-
|16
|Sean
|O'Regan
|OReganS
|[[Stakeholder Expectations Management]]
|-
|16
|Sebastian
|Bauer
|Sebastian Bauer
|[[Roadmapping in Program Management]]
|-
|10
|Selma Lind
|Jonsdottir
|S151176
|[[The Critical Path Method (CPM) in Project Management]]
|-
|05
|Sheren
|Agbarie
|S163647
|[[The work breakdown structure in project management]]
|-
|4
|Signe Skovmand
|Jakobsen
|SSJ
|[[Visual Project Management - War Rooms]]
|-
|3
|Siri
|Lassen-Urdahl
|Sirinthon
|[[The Chunnel Project]]
|-
|-
|12
|Skúli
|Sigurðsson
|30sigurdsson
|[[Blue ocean strategy for project management]]
|-
|16
|Sofia
|Griggio
|SofiaGriggio
|[[The Agile methodology and its frameworks]]
|-
|4
|Sofie
|Olesen
|s104809
|[[Project Management Maturity Model]]
|-
|4
|Somar Faraj
|Hassan
|Somar
|[[TFV-model]]
|-
|15
|Stefan
|Schenk
|Stefan.schenk
|[[Challenges and Execution of Innovation Portfolio Management]]
|-
|5
|Stefan Borch
|Bilfeldt
|Stefan
|[[Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams in Project Portfolio Prioritization]]
|-
|
|Stefán Geir
|Sigfússon
|
|
|-
|9
|Sveinn
|Isleifsson
|Sveinnis
|[[Project Quality Management]]
|-
|10
|Swaroop Kumar
|Sahu
|SKS534
|[[Project Management Triangle]]
|-
|12
|Thorgeir
|Sveinsson
|thorgeir11
|[[Earned Value Management (EVM) in construction projects]]
|-
|
|Timea-Denisa
|Merca
|
|
|-
|
|Timokleia
|Orfanidou
|
|
|-
|6
|Tobias Lyck Bjært
| Sørensen
|Tobias Sørensen
|[[Stakeholder Network]]
|-
|2
|Trine
|Marquardsen
|Trinemarquardsen
|[[Managing Stakeholders in Construction]]
|-
|
|Vittorio
|Albertazzi
|
|
|-
|16
|Wilfried
|Genier
|Wilfried_Genier
|[[Valuation methods in Project Portfolio Optimization - Focus on Real Options]]
|-
|
|Yann Mamy
|Randrianarison
|
|
|-
|
|Yin
|Jia
|
|
|-
|11
|Zsofia Dora
|Helmeczi
|s155698
|[[The use of Last Planner System in highly specialised construction projects]]
|-
|12
|Jakob
|Rolfsson
|s150892
|[[Scrum method]]
|-
|-
|8
|Tabea
|Ramirez Hernandez
|s152377
|[[Project Management in the Fuzzy Front End]]
|-
|-
|12
|Fridrik
|Karlsson
|s150948
|[[Scrum an Agile Framework]]
|-
</pre>

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T21:38:04Z

ALT: /* Conclusion */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

Other aspects such as "Waste" and "Value generation" were found only on the "SNA + Lean" searched area.

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

One of the objectives when establishing the searched areas was to identify the different study areas in which the use of SNA techniques has an interest and which journal contributed the most in the available literature.

With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

It has been proved the interest in the field of "Construction Project Management", however in the case of collaborative environments (BIM and Lean Construction) the lack of studies in the use of "SNA" techniques is evident with only 4 papers in the past 4 years, and in all cases their focus more in the aspects related with "Information flows" and "Relationship" that has a qualitative component.

The building industry is experiencing an technological transformation that is affecting different fields, with different speeds in the adoption of this technological advancements depending on the organizations, currently internet and web-based solutions could considered one of the more extended technological advancements, however the article reveals a poor use of this technology with only 3% of their use in SNA techniques.

The insufficient studies in the "Performance" and "Collaboration" aspects are presented as potential opportunities for future research in PPPM domain.

One of the more interesting lines of research would be the use of SNA techniques to identify within project-team networks "Behavior & patterns" and measure "Collaborative" and "Coordination" aspects to find if there is any correlation with the project-team "Performance" and productivity.

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:49:41Z

ALT: /* Discussion */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

Other aspects such as "Waste" and "Value generation" were found only on the "SNA + Lean" searched area.

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

One of the objectives when establishing the searched area of “SNA + Stakeholder” was to identify the different study areas in which the SNA has an interest and which journal contributed the most in the available literature.

With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

Infrause of technology

In the Bim cases, even though information flows is not considered explicitly, the same nature of BIM as process supported by technology , there is an interest in this aspect.

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:47:58Z

ALT: /* Conclusion */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

Other aspects such as "Waste" and "Value generation" were found only on the "SNA + Lean" searched area.

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

One of the objectives when establishing the searched area of “SNA + Stakeholder” was to identify the different study areas in which the SNA has an interest and which journal contributed the most in the available literature.

With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

Infrause of technology

In the Bim cases, even though information flows is not considered explicitly, the same nature of BIM as process supported by technology , there is an interest in this aspect.

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:44:22Z

ALT: /* Findings */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

Other aspects such as "Waste" and "Value generation" were found only on the "SNA + Lean" searched area.

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:40:32Z

ALT:

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:39:40Z

ALT:

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included <ref> SCImago. (2016). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://www.scimagojr.com< ref>.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:38:12Z

ALT: /* Findings */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included <ref> SCImago. (2016). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://www.scimagojr.com< ref>.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==
<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:36:48Z

ALT: /* References */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included
It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==
<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:35:12Z

ALT: /* References */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included
It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:30:23Z

ALT:

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included
It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==

== References ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:29:26Z

ALT:

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included
It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:27:42Z

ALT: /* Findings */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included <ref> SCImago. (2016). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://www.scimagojr.com< ref>.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:20:34Z

ALT: /* Methodology */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

An structured approach was adopted, in the articles review:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:18:49Z

ALT: /* Introduction & Historical evolution */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network and organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles in regards of '''network aspects''' and '''organizational aspects''', a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:17:30Z

ALT: /* Introduction & Historical evolution */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

Therefore, in order to identify an asses research opportunities in the use of Social Network Analysis in collaborative environments, a review of papers and/or articles was conducted with special attention on '''network aspects''' and '''organizational aspects'''.

== Methodology ==

the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles in regards of '''network aspects''' and '''organizational aspects''', a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:17:14Z

ALT: /* Methodology */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles in regards of '''network aspects''' and '''organizational aspects''', a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T20:05:09Z

ALT: /* Introduction & Historical evolution */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

The interconnection between all actors in a cohesive networks provides mutual support and trust and facilitates coordination and communication<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T19:55:30Z

ALT: /* Social Network Analysis(SNA) */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied, and depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref> the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T19:51:25Z

ALT: /* Social Network Analysis(SNA) */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

Organizations are open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, and as individuals could be influenced by internal or external changes in the organizational environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems or individuals could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes.

Through "Social Network Analysis" this changes and their impact in individuals and/or organizations could be studied.

Depending on the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref> the effect and the propagation of the changes would be different.

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T19:29:43Z

ALT: /* Introduction & Historical evolution */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network ('''intra-organizational''') or with other networks ('''inter-organizational'''), different behavior patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T19:19:55Z

ALT: /* Introduction */

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern in the Building Industry, Teicholz research present a negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T19:08:18Z

ALT:

==Summary==
“Social Network Analysis” (SNA) appears recently as a technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore and investigate the existing use of “Social Network Analysis” in projects with collaborative environments, such as BIM and/or Lean Construction projects.

Stakeholders has a prominent influence in the development of any type of project, their perspective was also included in order to obtain a broad overview of the state of the art in the use of “Social Network Analysis” techniques.

The article provides an overview of the current interests and study areas, identifying research opportunities related with “Performance” and “Collaboration” aspects that have been insufficiently studied.

==Introduction==
Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

In regards of the '''network aspects''', the '''figure 3''' shows a clear distinction between the interests of “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas, however both shared an interest in the “Relationship” aspect.

“SNA + Lean” papers have been focus more in the “Coordination” and “Information flows” and “SNA + BIM” papers were more interested in “Integration” and “Influence & perception” aspects.

In the case of “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area the interest was focused with “Information flows“ and “Relationship” aspects.

In all the cases, it was observed that “Governance”, “Behaviour & Patterns”, “Performance”, “Collaboration”, “Competitiveness” aspects have received insufficient investigation.

In the case of '''organizational environment aspects''' the interest were different between each searched area.

“SNA + Lean” papers were interested in “Improvement”, “Flexibility & adaptability” and “Implementation”, this last aspect was also common for “SNA + BIM” papers that was also interested in “Barriers” and “Drivers” aspects.

“SNA + Stakeholder” papers had a more disperse interest being “Change” and “Improvement” aspects the most important considered in this group of aspects.

== Conclusion ==
== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T17:22:50Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discussion ==
'''Papers distribution over time'''. The yearly distribution of published papers in the period 1974-1999 from the area “SNA + Computer Sciences” displayed in Figure 1 shows a clear progression in the interest of this type of studies.

In '''Figure 2''', two distinctive groups has been identified, the first comprise “SNA + Stakeholder” and “SNA + CPM” searched areas with an interest over 19 and 8 years respectively, it has been observed in both cases a discontinuous progression of publications with a pick of 13 published papers in 2011 in the “SNA + CPM” searched area and with only 1 published papers in 2013 in the “SNA + Stakeholder” searched area.

In the second identified group comprised by “SNA + BIM” and “SNA + Lean” searched areas it has been observed an initial interest in this type of studies since 2013 and 2015 respectively, it seems early to forecast any type of development.

'''Publication contribution'''.With a total of 43 journals and 9 conference proceedings distributed in 11 study areas supports the fact that there is an increasing interest of the this matter in different fields.

The journal that contributed the most was Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada within “Environmental Science” as subject area and with an h-index of 87.

“Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” was the subject area with most published papers, 10.

From an '''organizational level perspective''' only 8 (13%) over 58 published papers considered their strategic importance.

Based on the '''type of research''', all the papers have had a qualitative approach, but only 15 (26%) had considered a quantitative approach or tried to measure some of the aspects in which the study was conceived, coincident most of the cases in some way to measure any type of performance.

In regards of '''technological aspects''', 5 (9%) over 9 (16%) papers that considered this aspect have been using internet or web-based solutions to support their studies and from this 5 papers only 3 (5%) have had a quantitative approach to measure their results.

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T15:40:47Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discusion ==
== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T07:59:09Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Table 3_Summary of group 6.png‎|550px|thumb|Table 3: Papers distribution by Project Management aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discusion ==
== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-26T07:51:59Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”, 52 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Stakeholder” or “Stakeholder”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + BIM” or “BIM”

• Search area “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3 papers, from now on will be referred in tables or figures as “SNA + Lean” or “Lean Construction” or “Lean”

• One paper retrieved in the search area “SNA + Stakeholder” was assigned with its own search area “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”, from now on will be referred in tables and figures “SNA +CPM” or “CPM”

This paper is a review of 63 studies in a CPM context published in the period 1997-2015.

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''.

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3, 7.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5.

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Group 6.Project Management aspects''', in this category were grouped all the concepts that were related with the discipline of Project Management (PM), based on PMBOK 5th edition () standard, initially it was intended to allocate the concepts to each knowledge domain, however as many aspects could be referred to more than one domain this intent was discarded.

'''Table 3''' shows a summary of group 6.

'''Group 7.Technological aspects''', within this aspect different concept were consider and grouped as follows:

• Technology= Technology, Internet, Web-based, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

== Discusion ==
== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

File:Table 3 Summary of group 6.png

2016-09-26T07:33:05Z

ALT: Display a summary of papers by Project Management aspects based on PMBOK 5th edition

Display a summary of papers by Project Management aspects based on PMBOK 5th edition

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-25T14:12:30Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”: 52

• “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2

• “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3

• “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”: 1, a review of 63 papers published in the period 1997-2015

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity
[[File:Figure 3_Distribution of Network aspects.png‎|540px|thumb|left|Figure 3: Distribution of Network aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|550px|thumb|right|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

== Discusion ==
== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-25T13:54:53Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|530px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] ('''Figure 1''').

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===
[[File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 1: Papers distribution by subject area of study (Landivar, 2016)]]
First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|530px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png‎|530px|thumb|Table 2: Papers distribution by network and organizational environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”: 52

• “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2

• “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3

• “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”: 1, a review of 63 papers published in the period 1997-2015

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in '''figure 2'''

The analysis of the retrieved papers shows different aspects of interests that have been grouped in following categories:

'''Group 1.Publication contribution''', to determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

Group 1.1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

Group 1.2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

Group 1.3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from group 1.1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

'''Group 2.Type of research''', qualitative or quantitative, all the papers have a qualitative approach however in regards of the quantitative type, the papers that even though has not explicit mention of the quantitative aspect or intended to measure some of the results obtained in their studies were included.

The distribution of papers based on the type of research were:

• Qualitative, 58 papers (100%)

• Quantitative, 15 papers (26%)

'''Group 3.Organizational level aspects''', such as strategic, tactical or operational in this category 8 papers (14%) had explicit mention of the strategic value of the paper, it is assumed that the rest of papers covers also the tactical and the operational levels.

'''Table 1''' shows a summary of group 1, 2 , 3

'''Group 4.Network aspects''', the aspects that could have an influence and affect the equilibrium in this systems have been included in this category.
The following list shows aspects that were grouped in one item:

• Information Flows= Data flows, Knowledge flows, communication

• Relationship= Connectivity, Inter-connectivity

• Collaboration= Sharing, shared information, shared data, shared knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, Big room

• Performance= Team performance, Individual performance, measurements, efficiency, productivity

'''Group 5.Organizational environment aspects''', in this category were grouped all the aspects that could have an impact on the equilibrium of an individual or in an organization network.

Impediment aspects were grouped with Barriers as one item.

'''Table 2''' shows a summary of group 4, 5
[[File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png‎|530px|thumb|left|Figure 4: Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects (Landivar, 2016)]]

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

File:Figure 4 Distribution of Organizational Environment aspects.png

2016-09-25T13:51:54Z

ALT: Shows a radar graph with the distribution of the Organizational Environment aspects

Shows a radar graph with the distribution of the Organizational Environment aspects

File:Figure 3 Distribution of Network aspects.png

2016-09-25T13:50:15Z

ALT: Shows a radar graph with the distribution of the Network aspects

Shows a radar graph with the distribution of the Network aspects

File:Table 2 Summary of group 4 5.png

2016-09-25T13:37:16Z

ALT: Display a summary of papers by network and organizational ennvironment aspects

Display a summary of papers by network and organizational ennvironment aspects

File:Table 1 Summary of group 1 2 3.png

2016-09-25T13:13:28Z

ALT: Display a summary of papers distributed by subject area of study and strategic, quantitative, technological aspects

Display a summary of papers distributed by subject area of study and strategic, quantitative, technological aspects

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-25T09:14:59Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] (Figure 1).

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

[[File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png|420px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA published articles (Landivar, 2016) adapted from (Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)]]
[[File:Economical Activities.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 3: Articles distribution by Economical Activities(United Nations, 2008)]]

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==
Based in the combination of keywords used in the search the following papers were retrieved:

• “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder”: 52

• “Social Network Analysis AND BIM”: 2

• “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction”: 3

• “Social Network Analysis and Construction Project Management”: 1, a review of 63 papers published in the period 1997-2015

The distribution of papers by year can be seen in figure 2
To determine the publication that contributed the most, the amount of papers produced by every journal was accounted, a categorization by the main subject areas of study and the index of research of impact was also included.

It was observed that from the 58 retrieved journals, 10 papers were published in the context of different proceedings, the rest of papers were published in 43 journals.

List 1, journals that published more than 1 paper with an h-index over 90:

• Journal of Cleaner Production with 2 from UK with “Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, Engineering, Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 96

List 2, journals that published more than 1 paper (+ paper from list 1):

• Ecology and Society with 3 papers from Canada with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 87

• Journal of Environmental Planning and Management with 2 papers from UK with “Chemical Engineering, Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 46.

• International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making with 2 papers from Singapore with “Computer Science” as subject area with an h-index of 28

List 3, journals that published papers with an h-index of 90 or above (+ paper from list 1):

• Global Environmental Change with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science, Social Sciences” as subject area with an h-index of 103

• Waste Management with 1 paper from UK with “Environmental Science” as subject area with an h-index of 92

• Industrial Marketing Management with 1 paper from USA with “Business, Management and Accounting” as subject area with an h-index of 90

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png

2016-09-25T09:08:32Z

ALT: ALT uploaded a new version of "File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png"

Evolution of SNA publications from a stakeholder, BIM, Lean Construction and Construction Project Management perspectives in the period 1997-2016.

Adapted Graph from "Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research"(Zheng, Le, Chan, Hu, Li, 2015)

File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png

2016-09-25T09:04:55Z

ALT: ALT uploaded a new version of "File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png"

File:Evolution of SNA published articles complete.png

2016-09-25T08:57:21Z

ALT: Evolution of SNA publications from a stakeholder, BIM, Lean Construction and Construction Project Management perspectives in the period 1997-2016. Adapted Graph from "Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project m...

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-24T22:47:00Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] (Figure 1).

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

[[File:Evolution of SNA+Stakeholders published articles.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA & Stakeholders published articles (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Economical Activities.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 3: Articles distribution by Economical Activities(United Nations, 2008)]]

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

In order to identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, a structured approach was adopted:

• Search process, different iterations and combination of key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.

• Distribution of articles per year

• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal

• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study

• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

The following common keywords were considered in the initial search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as keywords, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in a successive combination with the keywords “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was conducted, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that within the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder”, a total 63 entries were obtained, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries founded in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== Findings ==

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-24T21:50:16Z

ALT:

Construction productivity have been a classic concern with negative growth in the period 1964-2012 <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>, the most likely reasons behind this situation may be the highly fragmented project workflows, procurement systems based on competitive rather than collaborative teams, paper-based project delivery systems (PDS) with a low use of technology in their processes affecting the flow of data and information between the stakeholders creating conflicts and lowering the quality of the projects along all their life cycle.

With the introduction of CPM/PERT in 1958’, the use of technology has been gradually extended in the Project Management discipline <ref> M. Kozak-Holland, “The History of Project Management,” Lessons from Hist., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 640, 2011.</ref>, but is not until the past decade when their use is being more extensive, the evolution of the technology applied in projects is transforming the Building Industry moving from a paper-based towards a BIM-based type of projects shifting to a lean collaborative processes <ref> R. Soares, “Reengineering Management of Construction Projects,” Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, 2013.</ref> <ref> P. Teicholz, “Labor productivity declines in the construction industry: causes and remedies (another look),” AECbytes Viewp., 2013.</ref>.

Since 2000’s it has been observed a continuous growth of complexity in projects<ref> V. R. Santos, António Lucas Soares, and J. Á. Carvalho, “Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2012.</ref><ref>B. Xia and A. P. C. Chan, “Measuring complexity for building projects: a Delphi study,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2012. </ref>caused by the increasingly use of technology, project size/scale, construction methods, stakeholders diversity and overlapping processes in the life cycle of a project, as a result Project Managers have been facing an increase of challenges at strategic, organizational and human resources level<ref>G. R. Jones and J. M. George, “Essentials of Contemporary Management,” Essentials of Contemporary Management, Fifth Edition, 2012.</ref>.

Projects are team-based developed, currently, as a result of the technological advancements projects are producing an immense amount of data, sorting useful data to transform in coordinate and productive information that flows through all the processes along the life cycle of a project is crucial in their success.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) appears as recently technique that explore, maps and measure data & information flows and relationship between organizations, groups, people or other entities.

The aim of this article is to explore different opportunities in the combined use of Data Analysis and SNA for project managers.

== Social Network Analysis(SNA) ==

=== Introduction & Historical evolution ===

[[File:Evolution_of_SNA_published_articles.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 1: Evolution of SNA published articles (Rousseau and Otte, 2002)]]

Organizations are composed by individuals and, based in their ranks, assembled in different groups organized in a hierarchical structure. Work activities and tasks constitutes the main interaction type between these individuals establishing a '''formal network'''.

However, within the same organization, interaction between individuals could be based in their work-space proximity, nationality, sport preference, etc. in this case creating different groups and establishing an '''informal network'''.

Individuals and organizations are the main actors from either formal or informal structures and as a result of their interaction within a network or with other networks, different behaviour patterns and influential actors could be identified, the analysis of these network dynamics constitutes the object of study of '''Social Network Analysis (SNA)'''.

According Freeman the historical evolution of '''SNA''' comprises the following periods <ref>B. H.Rusell, “Linton C. Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science-Review,” vol. 27, pp. 377–384, 2005.</ref>[7]:

1. Everything before 1929, focused on the interaction and relationship between actors

2. From 1929 to 1939, focused in a systematic collection of data between this actors

3. From 1940 to 1969, with the introduction of graph theories

4. From 1970 until now, the modern era based on the use of mathematical/computational tools to analyse these interactions

In the past years with the birth of internet and the technological advancements, '''SNA''' gained relevance; research studies have been reformulated and reconsider their approach, being the use of network studies an important part, not only, of sociological studies but also incorporated as a strategy used by different disciplines <ref>R. Rousseau and E. Otte, “Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 441–453, 2002.</ref>[8] (Figure 1).

=== Stakeholders perspective ===

[[File:Evolution of SNA+Stakeholders published articles.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 2: Evolution of SNA & Stakeholders published articles (Landivar, 2016)]]
[[File:Economical Activities.png‎|420px|thumb|Figure 3: Articles distribution by Economical Activities(United Nations, 2008)]]

Open systems <ref>J. Hayes, The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.</ref>, as organizations, could be influenced by internal or external changes in the environment and at the same time the interconnection between systems could be altered as a result of the above mentioned changes. The propagation of changes would be affected by the network type, cohesive or bridging<ref>J. Battilana and T. Casciaro, “The network secrets of great change agents,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 62–68, 2013.</ref>.

== Methodology ==

To identify an asses the outputs of Social Network Analysis-based articles, the following common key words were considered to be used in the search, “Social Network”, “Social Network Analysis” “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction”, “Engineering Systems”, “Construction Project Management”.
• Search process, different iterations and combination of the key words were conducted, the final retrieved articles were consequence of a refine process.
• Distribution of articles per year
• List of journals and account of articles included in each journal
• Categorization of the articles by subject area of study
• Analysis of the abstracts of the retrieved articles, identification of key words an aspects

=== Search process ===

First iteration, through “DTU Findit” database an initial search of articles was conducted with “Social Network” and “Social Network Analysis” as key words, the total amount of entries founded were 113.043 and 1.890 respectively.

In a first view of the searched articles it was noticed that “SNA” was used as keyword in “Social Network Analysis” articles and, in many cases, “Social Network” was referred in “Social Media” articles.

To refine the search “Social Network” was discarded.

A second iteration with the keyword “Social Network Analysis” and the operator “AND” in an independently combination with “Stakeholder”, “BIM”, “Lean Construction” was used, the total amount of entries founded were 2.297, 2 and 5 respectively.

It was observed that with the search “Social Network Analysis AND Stakeholder” there was still some entries referred to “Social Media”; with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” the entries corresponded with the intended search and with the search of “Social Network Analysis AND Lean Construction” there was 2 entries that corresponded with medicine subject areas.

A third iteration was conducted, the prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected in the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 8 entries corresponded with repeated articles in different journals, 2 entries matched with the entries found in the search “Social Network Analysis AND BIM” and 1 entry corresponded with one paper that reviewed the status of research SNA in construction project management context (CPM) that is coincident with the aim of this article.

== References ==

<references />

== Appendix 1 ==

In this section are listed all the documents used in the tables and figures.

On September the 17th “DTU Findit” database has been used for search documents that lately are used in the conformation of tables and figures.

A first search with the phrase “Social Network” was used with a total of 113043 entries.

A second search with the phrase “Social Network Analysis (SNA)” was used with a total of 1890 entries.

The prefix “ab: abstract” and the operator “AND” were selected for a third search on the formula “ab: (SNA) AND Stakeholder” with a total 63 entries, 3 entries corresponded to repeated papers, finally a total of 60 documents were retrieved.

[1]C. Prell, K. Hubacek, C. Quinn, and M. Reed, “‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence data analysis,” Syst. Pract. Action Res., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 443–458, Dec. 2008.
[2]S. Yang and L. Huang, “Web mining as a valuable tool in technology commercialization potential evaluation,” in 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2008, 2008.
[3]D. Vandenbroucke, “A Network Perspective on Spatial Data Infrastructures: Application to the Sub-national SDI of Flanders (Belgium),” Trans. Gis, vol. 13, no. s1, 2009.
[4]D. Vandenbroucke, J. Crompvoets, G. Vancauwenberghe, E. Dessers, and J. Van Orshoven, “A network perspective on spatial data infrastructures: Application to the sub-national SDI of flanders (Belgium),” in Transactions in GIS, 2009, vol. 13, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 105–122.
[5]G. F. Secundo G., “Designing, managing and assessing a {Web} 2.0 learning community to enhance inquiry based learning,” Int. J. Web Based Communities, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164–182, 2010.
[6]Ö. Bodin, “Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance,” Soc. Networks Nat. Resour. Manag. Uncovering Soc. Fabr. Environ. Gov., pp. 1–374, 2011.
[7]Y. M. Chen and M.-Y. Chen, “Social network analysis aided product development project management: IC Substrates case study,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–114, Apr. 2011.
[8]I. H. El-adaway, “Relational contracting and high-performance project outcomes,” in Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 1946–1955.
[9]F. G., T. F.W., and A. D., “Infectious syphilis in New Brunswick: Using data for action in a small Canadian province,” Sex. Transm. Infect., vol. 87, p. A354, 2011.
[10]K. Sedereviciute and C. Valentini, “Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media,” Int. J. Strateg. Commun., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–239, Oct. 2011.
[11]C. Stein, H. Ernstson, and J. Barron, “A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania,” Phys. Chem. Earth, vol. 36, no. 14–15, pp. 1085–1092, Jan. 2011.
[12]K. Vance-Borland and J. Holley, “Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving,” Conserv. Lett., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–288, Aug. 2011.
[13]G. Woodill, D. Ed, S. Analyst, S. Wright, and M. I. St, “Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations in Organizations,” 61st Annu. Iie Conf. Expo Proc., no. March, 2011.
[14]C. Crisostomo, M. R. Bteich, H. Moschitz, and P. Pugliese, “Organic farming policy in Portugal: Analysis of the policy network,” in New Medit, 2012, vol. 11, no. 4 SPECIAL, pp. 27–30.
[15]M. de Miguel Molina, “Proposed use of social network analysis of public policies for the integration of the Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (UFM). Study of the case of the Valencia Region. Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[16]H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders ’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 531–550, Aug. 2012.
[17]T. L. Frantz, “Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling.,” Forsch. Komplementarmed., vol. 19, no. suppl 1, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[18]A. Herrero Blasco, “Propuesta de uso del análisis de redes de actores de políticas públicas para la gestión de la integración de los Menores Inmigrantes No Acompañados (MINA). Estudio del caso de la Comunidad Valenciana Proposed use of social network analysis of public polic,” Rev. Sobre La Infanc. Y La Adolesc., 2012.
[19]N. Meese and C. McMahon, “Analysing sustainable development social structures in an international civil engineering consultancy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 175–185, Mar. 2012.
[20]C. B. Wonodi, L. Privor-Dumm, M. Aina, A. M. Pate, R. Reis, P. Gadhoke, and O. S. Levine, “Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria,” Health Policy and Planning, vol. 27, no. SUPPL.2. pp. ii27–ii38, 01-May-2012.
[21]F. Solis, J. V. Sinfield, and D. M. Abraham, “Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High Performance Teams,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 379–392, Apr. 2013.
[22]M. Caniato, M. Vaccari, C. Visvanathan, and C. Zurbr??gg, “Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment,” Waste Manag., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 938–951, May 2014.
[23]H. Doloi, “A framework for supporting planning and development of infrastructure projects from a societal perspective,” in 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining, ISARC 2014 - Proceedings, 2014, pp. 904–909.
[24]M. Furmankiewicz, ??ine Macken-Walsh, and J. Stefa??ska, “Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross-sectoral partnerships in rural Poland,” Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 345–361, Dec. 2014.
[25]S. Gretzinger, S. Lemke, and W. Matiaske, Managing Human Resource Based Intellectual Capital in a Global Setting: the Impact of Cultural Practices on the Effectiveness of Retention Incentives. Academic Conferences Publishing International, 2014.
[26]D. Jarman, E. Theodoraki, H. Hall, and J. Ali-Knight, “Social network analysis and festival cities: an exploration of concepts, literature and methods,” Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–322, Oct. 2014.
[27]S. F. M. Nogueira and J. C. M. R. Pinho, “Examining tourism stakeholder networks and relationship quality: The specific case of peneda gerês national park (PNPG),” Rev. Port. Estud. Reg., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2014.
[28]H. Quang, X. Shen, and A. Akbarnezhad, Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining : ISARC 2014 theme : automation, construction and environment. 2014.
[29]R. K. Shepherd and S. D. Pryke, “Regional rail planning; a study of the importance of ‘steering’ and ‘pragmatism’ in stakeholder networks,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 616–624, Aug. 2014.
[30]R. Taylor, J. Forrester, L. Pedoth, and N. Matin, “Methods for Integrative Research on Community Resilience to Multiple Hazards, with Examples from Italy and England,” Procedia Econ. Financ., vol. 18, pp. 255–262, 2014.
[31]R. J. Yang, “Stakeholder-associated risk networks in green buildings: China Versus Australia,” Proc. 30th Annu. Assoc. Res. Constr. Manag. Conf. Arcom 2014, 2014.
[32]R. J. Yang and P. X. W. Zou, “Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model,” Build. Environ., vol. 73, pp. 208–222, Mar. 2014.
[33]L. Calvet-Mir, S. Maestre-Andrés, J. L. Molina, and J. van den Bergh, “Participation in protected areas: A social network case study in catalonia, Spain,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, p. art45, 2015.
[34]D. Contandriopoulos and C. Larouche, “009 op: a sociogram is worth a thousand words: proposing a method for the visual analysis of narrative data,” BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 4, p. UCLSymposiumAbstracts9, Apr. 2015.
[35]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, no. 1/2, p. 17, 2015.
[36]E. A. Cudney, S. M. Corns, and S. K. Long, “Improving knowledge sharing in healthcare through social network analysis,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 4, 2015.
[37]H. Doloi and B. Raphael, “Drivers And Impediments Of Building Information Modelling From A Social Network Perspective,” in 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining: Connected To the Future, Proceedings, 2015.
[38]J. Georis-Creuseveau, “Analyse de réseaux sociaux des usages des Infrastructures de Données Géographiques Le cas des acteurs coˆtiers en France et des IDG qu’ils Mobilisent,” CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1535, 2015.
[39]J. Hauck, C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle, “Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 35, pp. 400–410, Nov. 2015.
[40]G. Hosseininia, P. R. Khachak, M. Nooripoor, S. Van Passel, and H. Azadi, “Understanding communicational behavior among rangelands’ stakeholders: application of social network analysis,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 59, no. April, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2015.
[41]C. Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G. Q. Shen, X. Xu, and M. K. Mok, “Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 482–494, Oct-2015.
[42]W. Lyles, “Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1961–1987, Nov. 2015.
[43]M. Petrescu-Prahova, B. Belza, K. Leith, P. Allen, N. B. Coe, and L. A. Anderson, “Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network,” Prev Chronic Dis, vol. 12, no. 8, p. E130, Aug. 2015.
[44]K. Still, J. Huhtamaki, and M. G. Russell, “New insights for relational capital.,” Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 1. pp. 13–28, 2015.
[45]A. von der Fehr, “Validation of Social Networks from a Snowball Sampling Study of Municipal Science Education Stakeholders,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., 2015.
[46]B. Yamkovenko and J. P. Hatala, “Methods for Analysis of Social Networks Data in HRD Research,” Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Feb. 2015.
[47]S. Badi, L. Wang, and S. Pryke, “Relationship marketing in Guanxi networks: A social network analysis study of Chinese construction small and medium-sized enterprises,” Ind. Mark. Manag., May 2016.
[48]Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona, “Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses,” Policy Stud. J., p. n/a–n/a, Jan. 2016.
[49]B. C. Chaffin, A. S. Garmestani, H. Gosnell, and R. K. Craig, “Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 57, pp. 112–121, Mar. 2016.
[50]K. Ekker, “Emergency management training: Handling rich qualitative and quantitative data,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, 2016.
[51]J. Georis-Creuseveau, C. Claramunt, and F. Gourmelon, “A modelling framework for the study of Spatial Data Infrastructures applied to coastal management and planning,” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., pp. 1–17, May 2016.
[52]J. Hauck, J. Schmidt, and A. Werner, “Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, 2016.
[53]B. J. Kreakie, K. C. Hychka, J. A. Belaire, E. Minor, and H. A. Walker, “Internet-Based Approaches to Building Stakeholder Networks for Conservation and Natural Resource Management,” Environ. Manage., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Feb. 2016.
[54]J. N. Lamb, K. M. Moore, J. Norton, E. C. Omondi, R. Laker-Ojok, D. N. Sikuku, D. S. Ashilenje, and J. Odera, “A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 65–81, Jan. 2016.
[55]T. Luthe and R. Wyss, “Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis,” Ecol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, p. art27, 2016.
[56]T. A. Muñoz-Erickson and B. B. Cutts, “Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 18. pp. 56–64, Feb-2016.
[57]A. Paletto, J. Balest, I. Demeo, G. Giacovelli, and G. Grilli, “Power of Forest Stakeholders in the Participatory Decision Making Process: A Case Study in Northern Italy,” Acta Silv. Lignaria Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2016.
[58]J. I. Romero Gelvez and M. Garcia-Melon, “Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Aproach in Environmental Management,” Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 15, no. 04, pp. 1–23, Jul. 2016.
[59]W. Williamson and K. Ruming, “Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney,” J. Urban Technol., pp. 1–21, Jul. 2016.
[60]X. Zheng, Y. Le, A. P. C. Chan, Y. Hu, and Y. Li, “Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1214–1225, Oct. 2016.

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-22T22:35:59Z

ALT:

File:Economical Activities.png

2016-09-22T22:27:17Z

ALT: Distribution of Economical Activities

Distribution of Economical Activities

File:Evolution of SNA+Stakeholders published articles.png

2016-09-22T22:23:15Z

ALT: ALT uploaded a new version of "File:Evolution of SNA+Stakeholders published articles.png"

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-22T21:20:16Z

ALT:

File:Evolution of SNA+Stakeholders published articles.png

2016-09-22T21:16:30Z

ALT:

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-22T19:43:54Z

ALT:

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-22T19:37:19Z

ALT:

Social Network Analysis-Opportunities in PPPM

2016-09-22T19:30:16Z

ALT: