Hong, Y; Hammad, A; Zhong, X; Wang, B and Akbarnezhad, A (2020) Comparative modeling approach to capture the differences in BIM adoption decision-making process in Australia and China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(2): 04019099, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The growing rate of building information modeling (BIM) adoption inevitability adds to the importance of understanding the BIM adoption decision-making process. Several models based on systematic surveys are available in the literature to formulate the BIM adoption decision-making process. It is still, however, not clear whether the decision parameters in these models are universally important. This study examines the main attributes of the BIM adoption decision-making process in China and Australia. An adoption model developed earlier for Australia is tested for Chinese data collected from 103 small and medium construction companies (SMEs). By highlighting model fitness issues, the model is then reconstructed for comparing BIM adoption in cross-cultural contexts. Data are analyzed using a logistic regression to understand the main factors impacting BIM adoption. Structural equation modeling based on multigroup analysis is also adopted in the analysis. The analysis indicates that Australian construction SMEs adopt BIM to solve organizational collaboration problems and improve workflow efficiency, whereas Chinese construction SMEs adopt BIM to improve organizational technical ability. The results of this study highlighted the Chinse companies tend to be more careful during the implementation of new technology to minimize uncertainty, whereas BIM adoption decision makers in Australian companies are more focused on change management and empowering subordinates.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modeling adoption; Chinese and Australia construction small and medium enterprises; multigroup analysis |
| Index terms: | construction company, survey, change management, structural equation modelling, China, workflow, collaboration, Australia, decision-making process, logistic regression, new technology, efficiency, building information modelling, modelling, implementation |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, innovation and technology management, analytical methods, data collection methods, organization, decision analysis, statistical analysis, information systems, management, performance management, Geography |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Procurement, Risk Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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