Metrics development and modelling the mixed reality and digital twin adoption in the context of Industry 4.0

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the current technology acceptance model (TAM) in the field of mixed reality and digital twin (MRDT) and identify key factors affecting users' intentions to use MRDT. The factors are used as a set of key metrics for proposing a predictive model for virtual, augmented and mixed reality (MR) acceptance by users. This model is called the extended TAM for MRDT adoption in the architecture, engineering, construction and operations (AECO) industry.Design/methodology/approachAn interpretivist philosophical lens was adopted to conduct an inductive systematic and bibliographical analysis of secondary data contained within published journal articles that focused upon MRDT acceptance modelling. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach to meta-analysis were adopted to ensure all key investigations were included in the final database set. Quantity indicators such as path coefficients, factor ranking, Cronbach’s alpha (a) and chi-square (b) test, coupled with content analysis, were used for examining the database constructed. The database included journal papers from 2010 to 2020.FindingsThe extant literature revealed that the most commonly used constructs of the MRDT–TAM included: subjective norm; social influence; perceived ease of use (PEOU); perceived security; perceived enjoyment; satisfaction; perceived usefulness (PU); attitude; and behavioural intention (BI). Using these identified constructs, the general extended TAM for MRDT in the AECO industry is developed. Other important factors such as “perceived immersion” could be added to the obtained model.Research limitations/implicationsThe decision to utilise a new technology is difficult and high risk in the construction project context, due to the complexity of MRDT technologies and dynamic construction environment. The outcome of the decision may affect employee performance, project productivity and on-site safety. The extended acceptance model offers a set of factors that assist managers or practitioners in making effective decisions for utilising any type of MRDT technology.Practical implicationsSeveral constraints are apparent due to the limited investigation of MRDT evaluation matrices and empirical studies. For example, the research only covers technologies which have been reported in the literature, relating to virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), MR, DT and sensors, so newer technologies may not be included. Moreover, the review process could span a longer time period and thus embrace a fuller spectrum of technology development in these different areas.Originality/valueThe research provides a theoretical model for measuring and evaluating MRDT acceptance at the individual level in the AECO context and signposts future research related to MRDT adoption in the AECO industry, as well as providing managerial guidance for progressive AECO professionals who seek to expand their use of MRDT in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). A set of key factors affecting MRDT acceptance is identified which will help innovators to improve their technology to achieve a wider acceptance.

[1]  Erika Parn,et al.  Digitalising asset management: concomitant benefits and persistent challenges , 2018 .

[2]  Lukumon O. Oyedele,et al.  Augmented and Virtual Reality in Construction: Drivers and Limitations for Industry Adoption , 2020 .

[3]  Haitao Wu,et al.  A scientometric analysis and critical review of construction related ontology research , 2019, Automation in Construction.

[4]  João M. F. Rodrigues,et al.  Mobile Five Senses Augmented Reality System: Technology Acceptance Study , 2019, IEEE Access.

[5]  R. Steadman,et al.  Simulation for quality assurance in training, credentialing and maintenance of certification. , 2012, Best practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiology.

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

[7]  Vahid Balali,et al.  Trend Analysis on Adoption of Virtual and Augmented Reality in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry , 2020, Data.

[8]  Louise Wright,et al.  How to tell the difference between a model and a digital twin , 2020, Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences.

[9]  Eunil Park,et al.  An adoption model for virtual reality games: The roles of presence and enjoyment , 2019, Telematics Informatics.

[10]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[11]  Jawad Ali,et al.  Predicting IoT Service Adoption towards Smart Mobility in Malaysia: SEM-Neural Hybrid Pilot Study , 2020, ArXiv.

[12]  Jack Chin Pang Cheng,et al.  State-of-the-Art Review on Mixed Reality Applications in the AECO Industry , 2020 .

[13]  Cagatay Catal,et al.  Evaluation of augmented reality technology for the design of an evacuation training game , 2019, Virtual Reality.

[14]  Hugo Lotriet,et al.  Towards an Understanding, Through Action Research, of the Socio-Organizational Issues Impacting on Mobile Technology Adoption and Diffusion Within a Small-to-Medium South African Construction Company , 2012 .

[15]  Ling Ma,et al.  Exploring Virtual Reality in Construction, Visualization and Building Performance Analysis , 2018 .

[16]  David J. Edwards,et al.  A bibliometric review of the status and emerging research trends in construction safety management technologies , 2020, International Journal of Construction Management.

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

[18]  Kwanghee Jung,et al.  PalmitoAR: The Last Battle of the U.S. Civil War Reenacted Using Augmented Reality , 2020, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[19]  Dave J. Hobbs,et al.  Continuous Presence in Collaborative Virtual Environments: Towards a Hybrid Avatar-Agent Model for User Representation , 2001, IVA.

[20]  Hsueh-Sheng Chang,et al.  Public acceptance of the Cyber Taipei initiative and cyber-government services , 2010 .

[21]  Domitile Lourdeaux,et al.  User Acceptance of Virtual Reality: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model , 2020, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  Deron Liang,et al.  Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  David J. Edwards,et al.  Industry 4.0 deployment in the construction industry: a bibliometric literature review and UK-based case study , 2020 .

[24]  Sanjaya Singh Gaur,et al.  Integrating functional, social, and psychological determinants to explain online social networking usage , 2016, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[25]  Pierre-Yves Laffont,et al.  Piezo-actuated varifocal head-mounted displays for virtual and augmented reality , 2019, OPTO.

[26]  Masoud Gheisari,et al.  Technology acceptance model for Augmented Reality and Building Information Modeling integration in the construction industry , 2020, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[27]  David J. Edwards,et al.  Patterns and trends in Internet of Things (IoT) research: future applications in the construction industry , 2020, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.

[28]  Alexandra Rese,et al.  Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are potential key performance indicators and who benefits? , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  A. Oke,et al.  Innovations in Teaching and Learning: Exploring the Perceptions of the Education Sector on the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR) , 2020, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity.

[30]  Lukumon O. Oyedele,et al.  A research agenda for augmented and virtual reality in architecture, engineering and construction , 2020, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[31]  Kaj Helin,et al.  User Experience of Augmented Reality System for Astronaut's Manual Work Support , 2018, Front. Robot. AI.

[32]  Noraffandy Yahaya,et al.  Integrating Technology Acceptance Model With Innovation Diffusion Theory: An Empirical Investigation on Students’ Intention to Use E-Learning Systems , 2019, IEEE Access.

[33]  Sara Shirowzhan,et al.  Delay Causes and Emerging Digital Tools: A Novel Model of Delay Analysis, Including Integrated Project Delivery and PMBOK , 2019, Buildings.

[34]  Debajyoti Pal,et al.  Analyzing the Elderly Users’ Adoption of Smart-Home Services , 2018, IEEE Access.

[35]  Alcínia Zita Sampaio,et al.  3D and VR models in Civil Engineering education: Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance , 2010 .

[36]  Judy M. Vance,et al.  Virtual reality for assembly methods prototyping: a review , 2011, Virtual Reality.

[37]  Yi-Kai Juan,et al.  Developing and Evaluating a Virtual Reality-Based Navigation System for Pre-Sale Housing Sales , 2018, Applied Sciences.

[38]  Manuel Castro,et al.  Renewable energy remote online laboratories in Jordan universities: Tools for training students in Jordan , 2020 .

[39]  Fred B. Bryant,et al.  Principles and Practice of Scaled Difference Chi-Square Testing , 2012 .

[40]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[41]  Daniel W. M. Chan,et al.  Adoption and implementation of building information modelling (BIM) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): a review and conceptualization , 2020, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.

[42]  Samad M. E. Sepasgozar,et al.  Integration of BIM and Immersive Technologies for AEC: A Scientometric-SWOT Analysis and Critical Content Review , 2021 .

[43]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[44]  Sebastian Büttner,et al.  smARt.Assembly - Projection-Based Augmented Reality for Supporting Assembly Workers , 2016, HCI.

[45]  Nikolaj Borisov,et al.  Designing a Human Machine Interface for Quality Assurance in Car Manufacturing: An Attempt to Address the "Functionality versus User Experience Contradiction" in Professional Production Environments , 2018, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[46]  Martin Meißner,et al.  Combining virtual reality and mobile eye tracking to provide a naturalistic experimental environment for shopper research , 2017, Journal of Business Research.

[47]  Sungjoo Hwang,et al.  What drives construction workers' acceptance of wearable technologies in the workplace?: Indoor localization and wearable health devices for occupational safety and health , 2017 .

[48]  Ghang Lee,et al.  A BIM- and sensor-based tower crane navigation system for blind lifts , 2012 .

[49]  Yi-Jao Chen,et al.  BIM-based augmented reality inspection and maintenance of fire safety equipment , 2020 .

[50]  Johannes Flacke,et al.  Towards Supporting Collaborative Spatial Planning: Conceptualization of a Maptable Tool through User Stories , 2020, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[51]  Jae Young Choi,et al.  The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties , 2019, Telematics Informatics.

[52]  Yang Lu,et al.  6G: A survey on technologies, scenarios, challenges, and the related issues , 2020, J. Ind. Inf. Integr..

[53]  Jaziar Radianti,et al.  A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda , 2020, Comput. Educ..

[54]  Steven Davis,et al.  Conceptualising information and equipment technology adoption in construction , 2016 .

[55]  Seungyong Lee,et al.  The dichotomy of presence elements: the where and what , 2003, IEEE Virtual Reality, 2003. Proceedings..

[56]  Marcel A. Verheijen,et al.  Flow cell coupled dynamic light scattering for real-time monitoring of nanoparticle size during liquid phase bottom-up synthesis , 2018 .

[57]  Lina Zhou,et al.  Patients' Adoption of WSN-Based Smart Home Healthcare Systems: An Integrated Model of Facilitators and Barriers , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[58]  Said A. Salloum,et al.  Critical Success Factors for Implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Projects in Dubai Government United Arab Emirates (UAE) Health Sector: Applying the Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) , 2019, AISI.

[59]  Arthur G. Money,et al.  Occupational Therapists’ Views on Using a Virtual Reality Interior Design Application Within the Pre-Discharge Home Visit Process , 2014, Journal of medical Internet research.

[60]  Samad M. E. Sepasgozar,et al.  Digital Twin and Web-Based Virtual Gaming Technologies for Online Education: A Case of Construction Management and Engineering , 2020, Applied Sciences.

[61]  Egon Toft,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for the Effect Evaluation of the Intelligent Bed , 2015, Wirel. Pers. Commun..

[62]  Yasemin Afacan,et al.  Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: a comparative study with paper-based design , 2019, International Journal of Technology and Design Education.

[63]  Sepehr Alizadehsalehi,et al.  From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry , 2020 .

[64]  Shubhangi Singh,et al.  What drives FinTech adoption? A multi-method evaluation using an adapted technology acceptance model , 2020 .

[65]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Driver trust & mode confusion in an on-road study of level-2 automated vehicle technology , 2020 .

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