Sadeh, H; Zhang, R; Gaedicke, C; Shahbodaghlou, F; Lee, M J and Todorov, D (2026) Embracing generative AI in construction through a quantitative analysis and weighted score ranking of perceptions, applications, and complexities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(5): 04026041, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as generative pretrained transformer-based language models gain prominence, the construction industry faces adoption challenges that differ from deterministic tools. Generative AI (GenAI) is probabilistic, multifunctional, and cognitively demanding, requiring prompting skills, interpretability, and data governance-factors not fully captured by traditional technology acceptance model (TAM) and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) applications. Addressing this gap, this study assesses how US construction professionals perceive both the benefits and complexities of GenAI, identifies which applications they prioritize, and segments adoption profiles across the workforce. A nationwide survey of 97 companies revealed three benefit dimensions-Real-Time Construction Intelligence, Regulatory and Analytical Automation, and Design Acceleration and Enhancement-and three complexity dimensions-Organizational and Change Management, Data and Customization, and Integration and Cultural Alignment-through exploratory factor analysis. Weighted ranking placed Design Time Reduction, Building Information Model (BIM) Enhancement, Risk Assessment Support, Real-Time Cost Control, and Site-Safety Monitoring as top benefits, while Risk Assessment Challenges, Organizational Data Availability, and Real-Time Deployment emerged as leading barriers. Benefits were rated 11.53 points higher than complexities [t(96) = 12.98, p < 0.001; d = 1.318] and were positively correlated (r = 0.613, p < 0.001). Cluster analysis revealed four perception profiles, with the most critical being training moderated polarization and highly familiar users. Theoretically, the findings refine TAM/UTAUT by showing that usefulness manifests as decision support, analytical automation, and design acceleration, while ease of use depends on interpretability, organizational readiness, and role alignment. Practically, firms should begin with a governed retrieval layer that enables GenAI to cite project sources, complement it with role-based prompt-and-verify training, and pilot bounded tasks under human review before scaling.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artificial intelligence adoption; construction 4.0; construction industry; digital transformation in construction; generative artificial intelligence; technology acceptance model |
| Index terms: | decision support, exploratory factor analysis, survey, change management, face, time reduction, integration, cost control, cluster analysis, complexity, quantitative analysis, governance, construction 4.0, customization, transformation, construction professional, monitoring, risk assessment, scaling, technology acceptance model, artificial intelligence, acceleration, construction industry, dimension, automation |
| Subjects: | acoustic properties, financial risk, automation and robotics, organization, digital engineering, psychology, construction manufacturing, professional development, management, statistical analysis, systems engineering, industry analysis, decision analysis, project controls, organizational analysis, control systems, business, data collection methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, artificial intelligence |
| Topics: | Time Control, Organizational Design, Site Management, Digital Applications, Governance, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles |
| 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