BIDI0002 Digital Innovation: Collaborative Practice
Assignment Brief
Module Lead — Dr Vivi, Qiuchen LU
Critically consider the conditions that are giving rise to (and hindering) the formation of new practices
and technologies, within the context of digital collaboration. Your assignment ought to be supported
with academic research and applied examples (cases) of collaborative practice. You are required
reflect on the one or several (i.e., community, division of labor (DoL), and rules) aspects (e.g.,
primary or secondary contradictions (optional)) based on activity theory.
For example, please refer to Y5 Ivo Tedbury’s (2017) Semblr as an example, provide an interpretation
of its changing collaborative context. You might wish to provide a brief overview, how the
technology might change existing ‘rules’ and ‘community’ (based on activity theory) within
collaborative activities, and speculate on its implications for the changing way built assets are
managed.
Reference
Carpo, M. (2017). The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence. London: MIT Press.
Lu, Q., Chen, L., Lee, S., & Zhao, X. (2018). Activity theory-based analysis of BIM implementation
in building O&M and first response. Automation in Construction, 85, 317-332.
Key Information
Word Limit: 2,500 words (+-10%) excluding the reference list
Deadline: 3.00pm on 3rd May 2022
This written essay is worth 100% of your grade for this module
BIDI0002 Digital Innovation: Collaborative Practice
Assignment Grading Criteria
BENVGSC1: Urban Systems Theory – Coursework Mark Scheme
We are required to use the marking scheme set out by the University of London (which is A: 70 - 100%, B: 60 - 69%, C: 50 - 59%, Fail: 0 - 49%). For example, with the pass
mark at 50%, marks in the 60%s generally seen as merit quality, with a mark of 70% indicating work of distinction quality, most marks fall into the narrow band from 50 to
70, with marks rarely aw r ed above 80%.
A+ (80-100%) A (70-79%) B (60-69%) C (50-59%) Fail (near pass)
(40-49%)
Fail (1-39%)
Quality of
writing –
presentation,
spelling,
punctuation,
grammar and
structure
Exceptionally well
written; stylish with
no errors in spelling,
punctuation or
grammar. The piece of
work is clearly and
logically structured
and is a joy to read.
Very well written with
virtually no errors in
spelling, punctuation
or grammar. The piece
of work is clearly and
logically structured
and flows well.
A good, well written
piece of work with few
errors in spelling,
punctuation or
grammar. The work
shows structure and is
clearly presented.
A more-or-less
competent piece of
work but may contain
some errors in
spelling, punctuation
or grammar. The may
lack structure and
presentation could be
improved.
A more-or-less weak
piece of work
containing a number
of errors in spelling,
punctuation or
grammar. The piece
may lack any kind of
structure.
A poor piece of work.
Written English is bad,
with numerous errors
in spelling,
punctuation and
grammar.
Knowledge and
research
The work shows
extensive knowledge
of the topic chosen
and an in-depth
understanding of the
links between the
problem and a much
wider literature. The
work is also set or
acknowledges its
position within a
wider, social,
economic, political,
scientific or other
paradigm.
The work shows
excellent or very good
knowledge of the
topic chosen and a
clear understanding of
the links between the
problem and the
wider literature in the
area. The work is also
set or acknowledges
its position within a
wider, social,
economic, political,
scientific or other
paradigm.
The work shows good
knowledge of the
topic chosen and an
understanding of the
links between the
problem and some of
the key literature in
the area. The work
may reference a
wider, social,
economic, political,
scientific or other
context influencing
approaches to
problem.
The work shows
adequate knowledge
of the topic chosen
and makes some links
between the problem
and some of the key
literature in the area.
The work might not
fully understand
importance of a wider,
social, economic,
political, scientific or
other context in
situating the problem
The work shows poor
knowledge of the
topic chosen and fails
to make links between
the problem and even
the core literature in
the area.
Understanding of any
wider, social,
economic, political,
scientific or other
context is not
demonstrated
effectively
The work shows that
lectures were either
not attended or not
understood at all.
Virtually no
understanding of the
wider literature or any
relevant social,
economic, political,
scientific or other
context is
demonstrated.
Argument,
synthesis and
analysis
The argument
presented is
exceptionally well
constructed, clear,
focused and
persuasive. It might
The argument
presented is very well
constructed, clear and
persuasive. It might
synthesise a range of
material or establish a
The argument
presented is cogent
and logical. The piece
might synthesise a
well-chosen selection
of material or indicate
The argument
presented may not be
entirely cogent or
logical. The piece
might attempt to
synthesise some
Any argument is hard
to follow or illogical.
Material selected is
narrow or poorly
chosen and little
attempt is made to
An effort at something
has been made, but it
is devoid of any
context, relevance or
anything that
approaches an
(10%)
(35%)
(35%)
We are required to use the marking scheme set out by the University of London (which is A: 70–100%, B: 60–69%, C: 50–59%, Fail: 0–49%). For
example, with the pass mark at 50%, marks of 60%–69% are generally seen as merit quality, with a mark of 70% indicating work of distinction quality, most
marks fall into the narrow band from 50% to 70%, with marks rarely awarded above 80%.
synthesise a broad
range of material or
establish a truly
original perspective on
the topic. Analysis is
bold, sharp and is able
to demonstrate a
critical approach to
established or
orthodox views.
novel perspective on
the topic. Analysis is
ambitious and is able
to demonstrate some
critical evaluation of
established views.
some original thinking
on the topic. Analysis
is coherent and
demonstrates some
critical engagement
with commonly held
views.
material on the topic,
but this may not be
well-chosen. There is
evidence of some
original thinking, but
for the most part,
established views are
regurgitated. Analysis
is cursory and may
contain some
conceptual errors.
Critical engagement is
limited.
synthesise. There is
little evidence of some
original thinking and
the work barely even
recognises established
views on the topic.
Analysis is misguided
and prone to error.
Critical engagement is
non-existent.
argument.
Bibliography/
references
Background reading is
very extensive and
shows an almost
exhaustive
appreciation of the
wider literature, far
beyond that on the
prescribed reading list.
Few or no inaccuracies
in bibliography and
citation of references.
Background reading is
extensive and shows
an excellent
appreciation of the
wider literature. There
are few or no
inaccuracies in the
bibliography and the
citation of references.
Background reading is
broad and shows a
good appreciation of
the wider literature.
There may be some
inaccuracies in the
bibliography and the
citation of references.
Background reading is
evident but may be
limited to the
prescribed reading list.
There may be obvious
inaccuracies in the
bibliography and the
citation of references
Very little background
reading is evident
beyond the material
contained in lectures.
Bibliography may be
incomplete or
inconsistent and
citations poor.
There is no evidence
of wider background
reading at all.
Overall
presentation
The final piece of work
is presented to a
professional standard
and would be
immediately ready for
publication.
The final piece of work
is presented very well
and would only
require minor editing
for publication.
The final piece of work
is presented well but
may require the odd
edit before
publication.
The final piece of work
may lack polish and
would need attention
before reaching
publication standard.
The final piece is
poorly presented and
would need serious
editing before
publication.
The final piece is very
badly presented. Only
a complete re-write
would bring it up to
standard.
(10%)
(10%)
Activity theory
Lecture 04
©The Bartlett UCL
Vivi, Qiuchen LU
Module Lead
Lecturer in Digital Built Asset and Facility Management
The Bartlett Sch of Const & Proj Mgt
Faculty of the Built Environment
Subject: FM professionals who performs building daily O &M and first response;
Object: A completed system, which can maintain, diagnose, repair
and replace building components and FM systems;
Outcome: Meeting the health and safety requirements of users;
Tools: Equipment, information and knowledge that FM professionals
can use to perform the building daily O &M and first response;
Community: Key stakeholders who shares the knowledge, interests,
and stakes to accomplish the building O & M;
Rules: Laws, norms, O &M manuals, agreements, general specification
and guidance that key stakeholders adhere to while engaging in
building daily O &M and first response. Relations between FM
professionals (Subject) and key stakeholders (Community) are mediated
by Rules;
Division of Labor (DoL): The ways to arrange works related to daily
O &M and first response among key stakeholders in the Community.
Relations between the Object and key stakeholders in the Community
are mediated by DoL;
Interaction: Subject, object and community are three main interacting
elements. Therefore, the three main types of interactions are: subject-object,
subject-community, and community-object.
Mediation: Tools, rules, and DoL are three mediating elements. Three
primary mediating relationships are: a tool mediates the interaction
between a subject and the activity object (the subject achieves the
object by using a tool); rules mediate interactions between the subject
and the community; and DoL mediates interactions between the
community and the object of the activity. Secondary mediating relationships
may also exist in the model. For example, rules may
mediate between the community and the object, or between the
subject and the object.
Disturbance: Human activities are reformed and reshaped through
historical development; the activity system becomes unstable accordingly
and makes adjustments in order to get a new status.
Disturbance describes surface problems, which is a significant index
to figure out hidden causes. Hence, it is necessary to identify disturbances
in the comprehensive contextual background from multiple
perspectives before contradiction.
Contradiction: This term indicates the historically accumulated
structural tensions within different elements of an activity system,
between different elements, between different activities or different
development phases of the same activity system, and reflects
in-depth factors resulting in the adjustment of ASM when encountering
changes. There are four types of contradictions, namely
primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary. Each of them indicates
the misfit within an element, the misfit between two elements, the
misfit between different development phases of an activity, and the
misfit between different concurrent activities.
Evolution: Contradictions often exist in different status within human
activities. Hence, evolution may be triggered due to these contradictions.
The adoption of new elements from outside of the system
(e.g., new technology) aggravates contradictions within an activity or
among different activities, which emerges as disturbances and also as
attempts to evolve a new status in this activity system. Evolution
occurs to relieve contradictions within and between elements
and in previous status of an activity.