Wong, C F; Lau, S H; Tan, O K and Yap, J B H (2025) Critical factors influencing the adoption of building information modelling (BIM) using technological adoption framework and structural equation modelling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(2), pp. 967-986. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This paper studies the critical factors from the perspectives of technological quality, personal compatibility and organisational commitment using the technological adoption framework (TAF). The proposed TAF studies the critical factors that influence the intention to use building information modelling (BIM) taking into consideration of the "Perceived Ease of Use (PEU)" and "Perceive Usefulness (PU)." Design/methodology/approach: The proposed study is a quantitative research study using the TAF model and the statistical analysis using "Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM)." The questionnaires are developed based on the literature review study and disseminated to the stakeholders in the Malaysian construction industry, including consultants, contractors, and clients. The data collected are analysed using PLS-SEM to identify the correlation between the critical factors influencing BIM adoption and the moderation influence of the PEU and PU towards the "Intention to Use (IU)" BIM. Findings: The data collected from 185 construction industry stakeholders in Malaysia was utilised to develop the structural equation model. The measurement model was analysed in terms of composite reliability, discriminant validity, and collinearity issues. Subsequently, the SEM is analysed, and the findings on the hypothesis on the correlation between the critical factors and the intention to use BIM are examined. The study also examines the mediation effects of the PEU and PU towards the BIM adoption in the Malaysian construction industry. Originality/value: This research conceptual framework, TAF, is derived from the integration of the existing underpinning theories of the technological adoption model and the technology–organisation–environment framework. This new TAF can be used for the study of new technology adoption. This cross-sectional research study is in line with the "Construction 4.0 Strategic Plan" in Malaysia to establish the current BIM adoption scenario and formulate the framework to promote incentives to promote BIM adoption.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adoption barriers; adoption benefits; building information modelling; structural equation model; technological adoption framework |
| Index terms: | structural equation model, construction industry, composite, quantitative research, new technology, building information modelling, Malaysia, construction 4.0, validity, statistical analysis, critical factor, organizational commitment, questionnaire, perceived ease of use, integration, methodology, partial least square, conceptual framework, mediation, structural equation modelling, literature review |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, digital engineering, materials science, innovation and technology management, theoretical framing, research methods, Geography, behavioral psychology, risk assessment, data collection methods, dispute resolution, data analysis and analytics, data science, organizational analysis, sociology, industry analysis, statistical analysis, information systems |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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