Measurement and exploration of individual beliefs about the consequences of building information modelling use

Information and communication technology (ICT) is becoming increasingly important in construction although the rate of adoption is considered slow and the industry faces specific implementation challenges. Mainstream information systems research has shown that individuals’ beliefs and expectations of the consequences of ICT use predict subsequent usage. We describe the development of scales to measure beliefs about the consequences of building information modelling (BIM) and their use in a survey of employees of a large construction contracting organization in the United Kingdom. Scales for performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, compatibility, and attitude toward using technology were adapted from existing measures. In an analysis of responses from 762 construction employees the scales showed acceptable measurement properties. Expectations about the consequences of BIM use were broadly favourable although there is a need for more data for comparisons. The structure of the responses showed that expectations that BIM would enhance job performance were strongly related to expectations that BIM use was compatible with preferred and existing ways of working. Results also suggest that social influence is complex and may be multidimensional.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  Angeliki Poulymenakou,et al.  Investigating antecedents and drivers affecting the adoption of collaboration technologies in the construction industry , 2007 .

[4]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[5]  C. Fornell,et al.  A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction across Individuals and Product Categories , 1991 .

[6]  Hung-Pin Shih,et al.  Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behavior , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[7]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Derek H.T. Walker,et al.  Innovation diffusion at the implementation stage of a construction project: a case study of information communication technology , 2006 .

[9]  A. F. Salam,et al.  An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[10]  John E. Hunter,et al.  ATTITUDE CHANGE IN HIERARCHICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PERSUASIBILITY, DOGMATISM, AND RIGIDITY , 1976 .

[11]  Brooks C. Holtom,et al.  Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research , 2008 .

[12]  Olle Samuelson ADOPTION PROCESSES FOR EDM, EDI AND BIM IN THE SWEDISH CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY , 2011 .

[13]  Shumaila Y. Yousafzai,et al.  Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 2 , 2007 .

[14]  Yacine Rezgui,et al.  Editorial - Building Information Modeling Applications, Challenges and Future Directions , 2009, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[15]  Henrik Linderoth,et al.  The influence of contextual elements, actors’ frames of reference, and technology on the adoption and use of ICT in construction projects: a Swedish case study , 2010 .

[16]  Neil F. Doherty,et al.  A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[18]  Vachara Peansupap,et al.  Factors Enabling Information and Communication Technology Diffusion and Actual Implementation in Construction Organisations , 2005, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[19]  D. Gann,et al.  Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems , 2000 .

[20]  Graham Winch,et al.  Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction , 1998 .

[21]  Gordon R. Foxall,et al.  Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1 , 2007 .

[22]  V. Vroom Work and motivation , 1964 .

[23]  James P. Walsh,et al.  Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers''belief structures and informatio , 1988 .

[24]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  Interattitude Structure and Attitude Dynamics A Comparison of the Hierarchical and Galileo Spatial-Linkage Models , 2005 .

[25]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[26]  Ray Crotty,et al.  The Impact of Building Information Modelling: Transforming Construction , 2011 .

[27]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Hyojoo Son,et al.  Toward an understanding of construction professionals' acceptance of mobile computing devices in South Korea: An extension of the technology acceptance model , 2012 .

[29]  Hongyi Sun,et al.  An extension of IDT in examining the relationship between electronic-enabled supply chain integration and the adoption of lean production , 2011 .

[30]  Thayaparan Gajendran,et al.  Attitudinal, behavioural, and cultural impacts on e-business use in a project team: a case study , 2011, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[31]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[32]  J. Nunnally Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .

[33]  J. Krosnick,et al.  Survey research. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[34]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  S. Fox,et al.  Interorganizational use of building information models: potential for automational, informational and transformational effects , 2007 .

[36]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  ORGANIZATIONS: A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE , 2007 .

[37]  Stuart D. Green Making Sense of Construction Improvement: Green/Making Sense of Construction Improvement , 2011 .

[38]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[39]  H C Triandis,et al.  Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. , 1980, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[40]  Allan Ashworth,et al.  The Impact of Building Information Modelling: Transforming Construction , 2012 .

[41]  James G. Hunt,et al.  Inside the Black Box of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Change: Using a Cognitive-Processing Model to Assess Attitude Structure , 1996 .

[42]  R. Cattell The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[43]  Q. Huy In praise of middle managers. , 2001, Harvard business review.

[44]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[45]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[46]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  Evaluation of IT costs in construction , 2001 .

[47]  Timo Hartmann,et al.  Aligning building information model tools and construction management methods , 2012 .

[48]  Anthony D. Songer,et al.  Resistance to IT change in the AEC industry: an individual assessment tool , 2008, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[49]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[50]  Stuart D. Green Making Sense of Construction Improvement , 2011 .

[51]  AgarwalRitu,et al.  Reconceptualizing compatability beliefs in technology acceptance research , 2006 .

[52]  Qiping Shen,et al.  Construction IT and the 'tipping point' , 2005 .

[53]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[54]  Тараса Шевченка,et al.  Quo vadis? , 2013, Clinical chemistry.

[55]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[56]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[57]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[58]  Gordon Lowry,et al.  Modelling user acceptance of building management systems , 2002 .

[59]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[60]  A. Bandura Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency , 2024, Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo.

[61]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[62]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[63]  Naveen Donthu,et al.  Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics , 2006 .

[64]  Henrik Linderoth,et al.  User perceptions of ICT impacts in Swedish construction companies: ‘it’s fine, just as it is’ , 2012 .

[65]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[66]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[67]  Hans Voordijk,et al.  The use of interorganisational ICT in United States construction projects , 2010 .

[68]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Reconceptualizing Compatability Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research , 2006, MIS Q..

[69]  Henrik Linderoth,et al.  Understanding adoption and use of BIM as the creation of actor networks , 2010 .

[70]  John W. Payne,et al.  Effort and Accuracy in Choice , 1985 .

[71]  L. Beach,et al.  The effects of strong belief structures on information-processing evaluations and choice , 1993 .

[72]  Andrew Miller,et al.  A perception‐influence model for the management of technology implementation in construction , 2009 .