Tavallaei, R; Mashayekhi, A; Harrison, N; Talebian, M and Moser, R (2022) BIM adoption: A case of institutional pressures and top management support. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(9): 04022084, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The influence of institutional context on organizations to systemically change and adopt new technologies has so far received little attention in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. This study investigates the relationships between various institutional pressures, top management support, and the AEC organizational adoption level of building information modeling (BIM). The data were gathered through a survey of 186 BIM managers of AEC organizations in the United States, and the partial least-squares structural equation method (PLS-SEM) was applied to test the research hypotheses. The results show that normative pressure is the prominent institutional pressure affecting the level of BIM adoption in all types of AEC organizations. However, the degree at which and the path through which normative pressures work in these organizations vary based on their business type. For architecture and engineering organizations, the influence of institutional pressures on the organizational level of BIM adoption is mediated through the organization's top management support. However, in contracting organizations, normative pressure and top management support have direct independent effects on the level of BIM adoption. These findings contribute to construction management knowledge by empirically supporting the idea that institutional pressures can be a powerful means to make systemic change to diffuse BIM in the AEC industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture, engineering, and construction industry; building information modeling; institutional pressures; top management support |
| Index terms: | construction industry, new technology, building information modelling, top management, contracting organization, management knowledge, manager, United States, institutional pressure, survey |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, practitioner, innovation and technology management, management, Geography, professional development, sociology, industry analysis, information systems |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions |
| 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