Lee, S and Yu, J (2016) Comparative study of BIM acceptance between Korea and the United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(3): 05015016, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Substantial research has been performed on data standards and exchanges in the AEC/FM (Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Facilities Management) industry over the past several years. The growing popularity of Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology is based heavily on the perception that it can facilitate the sharing and reuse of information during a project's lifecycle. Although many researchers and practitioners are in agreement about the potential applicability and benefit of BIM in construction, it is still unclear why BIM is adopted, and what factors enhance the implementation of BIM. Thus, BIM acceptance and use remains a central concern of BIM research and practice. BIM was accepted in the United States earlier than in Korea, and BIM users are expected to have a higher maturity and positive perception about utilizing BIM depending on a lengthier utilization period. This means that the mechanism for achieving acceptance of BIM in Korea differs from the mechanism in the United States. Therefore, Korea's BIM acceptance model was compared to that in the United States using structural equation modeling. The key components, including the BIM acceptance model, were identified through a literature review of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and related theories and was consolidated by interviews and pilot studies with professionals in the construction industry. Based on these components, a questionnaire was designed and sent out to workers in construction organizations (such as contractors, architects, construction managers, engineers, and facility managers) in Korea and the United States. A total 164 completed questionnaires were retrieved. Structural equation modeling for hypothesis testing was conducted using commercially-available software. The results from this study can serve as a foundation for research looking into the organizational context to further BIM acceptance in the construction industry. The comparison of the mechanism and subsequent results will serve as a guideline for developing an acceptance strategy that is suitable for Korea.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM acceptance model; building information modeling; information technologies; structural equation modeling |
| Index terms: | manager, United States, interview, structural equation modelling, strategy, literature review, construction manager, practitioner, questionnaire, facilities management, information technology, construction organization, building information modelling, engineer, comparative study, architect, lifecycle, implementation, testing, construction industry, technology acceptance model |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, statistical analysis, information systems, management, Geography, acoustic properties, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, professional practice, project delivery, profession, data collection methods, organization, research design and methodology, computing systems, practitioner |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here