Liu, D; Lu, W and Niu, Y (2018) Extended technology-acceptance model to make smart construction systems successful. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6): 04018035, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Research and development (R&D) of smart construction systems has been constrained by the contentious relationship between system developers and potential industry users. System developers are critical of practitioners' reluctance to embrace new technologies, while practitioners tend to view developers' systems as disruptive. In explaining acceptance or non-acceptance of smart construction systems, the well-established technology-acceptance model (TAM) is a powerful instrument. However, the model fails to capture changes in user acceptance over time. In this study, an extended TAM that can reflect the changes in attitude is modeled from and substantiated by a two-year longitudinal action research study conducted in parallel with the codevelopment of a smart system for prefabrication housing construction. It is discovered that users' attitudes toward a smart construction system are not invariable, nor toward the "perceived usefulness" and "perceived ease of use." Developers should continuously enhance usefulness and user-friendliness of a system to facilitate its adoption. A particularly noteworthy finding is that external isomorphic pressures, including normative, coercive, mimetic, or a combination thereof, can affect users' attitudes toward a smart construction system, and, in turn, influence the uptake of the system. Managers tactically can create such pressures to enhance technology acceptance within their organizations. These findings, in combination with the extended TAM, offer the foundations for development of a general theory on technology infusion in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | action research; isomorphism; smart construction systems; technology-acceptance model |
| Index terms: | new technology, foundations, construction industry, prefabrication, residential construction, perceived usefulness, manager, action research, technology acceptance, construction system, research and development, perceived ease of use, practitioner |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, behavioral psychology, building construction, research management, structural engineering, construction integration, innovation and technology management, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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