Zhao, Y; Hao, S; Chen, Z; Zhou, X; Zhang, L and Guo, Z (2025) Critical factors influencing the internet of things technology adoption behavior of construction companies: Evidence from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(2), pp. 760-784. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Limited use of Internet of Things (IoT) technology on construction sites has restricted its value in the construction industry. To propel its widespread application, this paper explores the influencing factors and action paths of construction companies' IoT technology adoption behavior. Design/methodology/approach: First, literature research, technology adoption theories, and semi-structured expert interviews were employed to build the adoption model. Second, a questionnaire survey was conducted among Chinese construction contractors to collect empirical data. Third, the structural equation model method and regression analysis were used to test the adoption model. Finally, the findings were further validated with interviews, case studies, and field observations. Findings: External environmental pressure (EEP), perceived benefit (PB), top management support (TMS), company resource readiness (CRR), adoption intention (AI), and perceived compatibility (PCA) have a direct positive impact on adoption behavior (AB). In contrast, perceived cost (PC) and perceived complexity (PCL) exert a direct negative impact on AB. The EEP, PB, and PC are critical factors affecting AB, whereas AI is strongly affected by CRR and TMS. Besides, AI plays a part mediating role in the relationship between seven factors and AB. Company size and nature positively moderate AI's positive effect on AB. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the knowledge of IoT technology adoption behavior in the construction sector by applying the technology adoption theories. Exploring the implementation barriers and drivers of IoT technology in construction sites from the perspective of organizational technology adoption behavior and introducing moderating variables to explain adoption behavior are innovations of this paper. The findings can help professionals better understand the IoT technology adoption barriers and enhance construction companies' adoption awareness, demand, and ability. This work also provides a reference for understanding the impact mechanism of the adoption behavior of other innovative technologies in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adoption behavior; construction company; construction sites; internet of things technology; technology-organization-environment; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | construction site, construction company, survey, interview, construction contractor, construction sector, China, complexity, methodology, top management, evidence, questionnaire, critical factor, influencing factor, case study, implementation, internet, construction industry, regression analysis, technology adoption, structural equation model |
| Subjects: | Geography, research methods, practitioner, organization, evaluation and assessment methods, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, management, statistical analysis, systems engineering, industry analysis, computing systems, data collection methods, risk assessment, work location |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Site Management, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, 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