Hua, Y.; Kang, M.; Guo, W. and Zhang, S. (2026) Effect of BIM application maturity on relational norms in construction projects: Mediating role of transaction characteristics. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, pp. 1-20. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) exerts a significant transformation on collaborative paradigms among project stakeholders, manifested through both formal contract and informal relational norms. Specifically, while conventional contract designs exhibit rigidity in structuring participant roles and responsibilities, relational norms demonstrate greater adaptability in BIM-enabled environments. Therefore, this study proposes how BIM application maturity impacts the three dimensions of relational norms, advancing knowledge about the antecedent influences on relational norms. Design/methodology/approach – This study establishes a theoretical framework to investigate how BIM application maturity influences three relational norm dimensions (information exchange, solidarity, flexibility) through transaction characteristics (task interdependence and quality performance ambiguity). To validate the framework, this study collected 180 valid questionnaires from relevant practitioners in the construction industry in China and analyzed the direct effects and mediated effects by adopting the PLS-SEM method. Findings – BIM application maturity has a significant positive effect on the three dimensions of relational norms (information exchange, solidarity, flexibility). BIM application maturity enhances information exchange by heightening task interdependence and reducing quality performance ambiguity, but only task interdependence mediates its effects on solidarity and flexibility. Originality/value – This study integrates technical factors as endogenous variables within relational exchange theory. It bridges the theory's sociological foundations with construction digitalization realities, offering a novel lens to explain how socio-technical systems co-evolve relational governance paradigms. The findings equip practitioners with actionable insights to strategically deploy BIM for optimizing task structures that foster reciprocity, thereby contributing to the formation of good relational norms and enriching research on relationship governance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BIM application maturity; relational norms; transaction characteristics |
| Index terms: | direct effect, quality performance, construction industry, information exchange, China, project stakeholder, governance, integration, construction project, interdependence, practitioner, adaptability, norms, questionnaire, building information modelling, transformation, socio-technical system, digitalization, foundations, dimension, methodology, paradigm |
| Subjects: | digital technology, sociology, practitioner, Geography, user focus, health monitoring assessment and metrics, theoretical framing, data science, data collection methods, education and knowledge transfer, factor and component analysis, information systems, project delivery, industry analysis, research methods, production management, business, organizational analysis, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Roles and Professions, Geographical Context |
| 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