Motivating immersive BIM uptake through user attitude: Analysis of initial solution using design science approach

Ramanayaka, C D E; Olatunji, O A and Weerasuriya, A U (2022) Motivating immersive BIM uptake through user attitude: Analysis of initial solution using design science approach. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 12(4), pp. 630-648. ISSN 2044-124X

Abstract

Purpose: Beyond a mandated use, rationales behind executive choice to accept or reject building information modelling (BIM) are ambiguous. BIM acceptance is complex for organisations, and existing decision-making models are impractical to make realistic choices. A practical solution must assist a holistic reflection of internal and external BIM success factors. Nevertheless, extant literature is largely focused on software use and awareness. Thus, this paper aims to suggest a novel framework for assessing firm readiness, aimed at facilitating BIM uptake. Design/methodology/approach: Extant explanatory studies are inadequate in assessing the soft nature of BIM uptake. Thus, a design science research was employed as an alternative methodology. A means-end analysis was utilised for solution incubation, and cross-disciplinary reasoning, the strategy to establish valid solutions on firm readiness. Previous studies were reviewed on BIM, technology acceptance (generally) and complexity. Findings: “Technology attitude” is presented as involving more holistic variables than a simplistic reliance on software use to mirror BIM acceptance. Technology acceptance model (TAM) is appropriate to explain BIM attitude attributes, but its current use is sub-optimal. Selective information processing and unconscious thought theory were integrated into TAM to explain attitude formation from multiple perspectives, resulting in a novel BIM attitude scale (BIMAS). Upon verification, the proposed framework will facilitate an objective authentication of biases that associate with BIM acceptance. Originality/value: Whilst BIM readiness is assessed largely with a primary focus on theory building, practical relevance must be at the forefront of BIM development. This study articulates that design science research can enhance the practical relevance of BIM adoption models. BIM acceptance attitude must be assessed through a verified scale contrary to the assessment of self-biases of executives in literature. BIMAS suggests a testable solution for this. Theory building research must be the future focus to enhance the relevance of this initial solution.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: BIM; design science; firm readiness; pre-maturity; technology acceptance
Index terms: strategy, science, theory building, success factor, building information modelling, reasoning, design science research, information processing, technology acceptance, technology acceptance model, complexity, reflection, decision-making, methodology, bias, executive
Subjects: information systems, systems engineering, cognitive psychology, decision analysis, probability and distributions, professional development, acoustic properties, research methods, management, design practice, health monitoring assessment and metrics, innovation and technology management, data science, practitioner, specialized education
Topics: Digital Applications, Design Practice, Education, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Roles and Professions
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