Addressing Individual Perceptions: An Application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to Building Information Modelling

Abstract Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a technology with the potential to transform the construction industry, yet its proliferation remains stagnant. Existing research on BIM diffusion focuses on the industry, company, and project levels while disregarding the impact of perceptions at the individual level. This research aims to extend the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use Technology (UTAUT) model to understand the perceptions that individuals have towards working with BIM. A survey was completed by 84 industry stakeholders and the results analysed against a modified UTAUT model that adds the variable of Attitude and employs moderators of Experience and Voluntariness. The results reveal that Performance Expectancy does not directly affect Behavioural Intention, signifying that BIM is perceived as an unrewarded addition to existing work processes. These findings evince the need to redefine strategies, policies, and incentive schemes in order to advance the acceptance of BIM in the U.K. and worldwide.

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Bilal Succar,et al.  Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders , 2009 .

[3]  Sung-Joon Yoon,et al.  Predicting the use of online information services based on a modified UTAUT model , 2014, Behav. Inf. Technol..

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

[5]  Burcin Becerik-Gerber,et al.  The perceived value of building information modeling in the U.S. building industry , 2010, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[6]  Wang Tong,et al.  Examination of UTAUT model in an ERP postadoption environment: An empirical study , 2011, 2011 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE).

[7]  Qingfei Min,et al.  Mobile commerce user acceptance study in China: A revised UTAUT model , 2008 .

[8]  Mustafa Alshawi,et al.  Web-enabled project management: an emerging paradigm in construction , 2003 .

[9]  Carrie Sturts Dossick,et al.  The Realities of Building Information Modeling for Collaboration in the AEC Industry , 2009 .

[10]  Charles M. Eastman,et al.  BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors , 2008 .

[11]  Victoria Savalei,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling , 2010 .

[12]  Thomas Brox,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimation , 2019, Time Series Analysis.

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

[14]  Omar F. El-Gayar,et al.  EXAMINING HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS' ACCEPTANCE OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS USING UTAUT , 2008 .

[15]  Tiago Oliveira,et al.  International Journal of Information Management , 2014 .

[16]  P. Barrett.  Structural equation modelling : Adjudging model fit , 2007 .

[17]  Sherah Kurnia,et al.  Explaining intention to use an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system: an extension of the UTAUT model , 2012 .

[18]  Edward E. Rigdon,et al.  CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling , 1996 .

[19]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Social Support : An Investigation of Network Information Technology Based on UTAUT , 2008 .

[20]  Dawn Iacobucci,et al.  Structural Equations Modeling: Fit Indices, Sample Size, and Advanced Topics , 2010 .

[21]  Y. Tao,et al.  Using UTAUT to explore the behavior of 3G mobile communication users , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[22]  Jaeki Song,et al.  Investigating the role of attitude in technology acceptance from an attitude strength perspective , 2009, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[23]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[24]  Salman Azhar,et al.  Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry , 2011 .

[25]  Vachara Peansupap,et al.  Factors Affecting the Current Diffusion of BIM: A Qualitative Study of Online Professional Network , 2013 .

[26]  Kenneth T. Sullivan,et al.  How To Measure the Benefits of BIM - A Case Study Approach , 2012 .

[27]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[28]  Elisabeth Wilson-Evered,et al.  Predicting uptake of technology innovations in online family dispute resolution services: An application and extension of the UTAUT , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  David Bryde,et al.  The project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM) , 2013 .

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

[31]  Susan A. Brown,et al.  Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology , 2002, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Tao Zhou,et al.  Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[34]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[35]  Kerry London,et al.  Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry , 2010 .

[36]  Lily Shui-Lien Chen,et al.  Applicability of the UTAUT model in playing online game through mobile phones: Moderating effects of user experience , 2011, First International Technology Management Conference.

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

[38]  Bangaly Kaba,et al.  Understanding information and communication technology behavioral intention to use: Applying the UTAUT model to social networking site adoption by young people in a least developed country , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[39]  Carrie Sturts Dossick,et al.  Theoretical Categories of Successful Collaboration and BIM Implementation within the AEC Industry , 2010 .

[40]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

[41]  Pete Smith,et al.  BIM & the 5D Project Cost Manager , 2014 .

[42]  U. Kleinbeck.  The Effects of Motivation on Job Performance , 1987 .

[43]  Suha AlAwadhi,et al.  The Use of the UTAUT Model in the Adoption of E-Government Services in Kuwait , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[44]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  A Model for Mandatory Use of Software Technologies: An Integrative Approach by Applying Multiple Levels of Abstraction of Informing Science , 2010 .

[45]  Anatoliy A. Gruzd,et al.  Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[46]  Christoph Merschbrock,et al.  Succeeding with Building Information Modeling: A Case Study of BIM Diffusion in a Healthcare Construction Project , 2014, 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[47]  Rafael Sacks,et al.  Case studies of BIM adoption for precast concrete design by mid-sized structural engineering firms , 2008, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[48]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[49]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[50]  Wen-Chang Fang,et al.  Measurement of the Knowledge-Sharing Efficacy of Web2.0 Site Constructed on the Basis of Knowledge-Based Systems by Applying the Model of UTAUT: Evidence of the Early Adopters , 2008, 2008 3rd International Conference on Innovative Computing Information and Control.

[51]  Bernadette Szajna,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 1996 .

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