Howard, Robert W (2021) Of incentive, bias, and behaviour: an empirical economic investigation into project delivery constructs influencing the adoption of building information modelling. PhD thesis, University College London, UK.
Abstract
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a collaborative construction platform allowing for digital databases, real-time change management, and a high degree of information reuse catalysing increased quality of work, enhanced productivity, and lower costs. Yet, overall adoption rates within industry remain vexingly low. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is currently the only contractual incentive vehicle available for BIM, and indeed the full potential of both are only realised when employed together; even so, uptake rates of IPD exist even lower. In response, this research evaluates hitherto ill-explored factors influencing the adoption of BIM by empirically testing hypotheses related to the impacts of three compounding theories upon the BIM decision calculus. Specifically, the incentive theory, the theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), and the status quo bias model. The research approaches BIM adoption holistically at the organizational, individual, transactional, and behavioural levels through a mixed design combining five quantitative, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based studies and one interview-based pre-test/post-test case study with sample populations including a Fortune 100 contractor, internationally renowned trade groups, and arguably the most progressive municipal construction client in the world. Data was collected using purposive sampling and analysed quantitatively through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and qualitatively with Directed Content Analysis (DCA). Primary conclusions are that BIM decisions are hierarchical; BIM adoption involves a general higher-level decision-making requiring stakeholders' consensus; BIM utilization involves a specific lower-level decision-making with managerial discretion; economic incentives and competitive pressure influence higher-level decisions; non-economic factors influence lower-level decisions but are moderated by organizations' type and size; organizations' size and the degree of managerial discretion are inversely related; strength of the effects vary across and within the three theory-based factors that influence BIM adoption; and the effects of leadership and organizational culture remain unaccounted for and require investigation.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; change management; population; productivity; reuse; bias; case study; interview; information modelling |
| Index terms: | interview, integrated project delivery, content analysis, structural equation modelling, change management, economic incentive, population, decision-making, bias, questionnaire, organizational culture, building information modelling, platform, case study, productivity, construction client, database, information modelling, investigation, test case, testing, economic factor, purposive sampling, project delivery |
| Subjects: | research methods, digital design, economic concepts, demography, practitioner, economic analysis, contractual arrangements, professional practice, management, probability and distributions, decision analysis, sociology, data management, statistical analysis, information systems, data collection methods, project delivery, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, 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