Hosseini, M R; Chileshe, N; Zuo, J and Baroudi, B (2015) Adopting global virtual engineering teams in AEC projects: A qualitative meta-analysis of innovation diffusion studies. Construction Innovation, 15(2), pp. 151-179. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to present an integrated conceptual model in order to highlight the major aspects of diffusion of innovations in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) context. To this end, a critical review of literature is conducted, accompanied by synthesising the findings of previous studies. The driving force behind this study is stemmed from the fragmentation of literature on innovation diffusion, and paucity of research on diffusion of Global Virtual Engineering Teams (GVETs) as the platform for many technological innovations in relevant literature. Thus, the present study is intended to facilitate filling the gap in GVETs literature. That is, the proposed model will offer a foundation for academia for grounding studies on any innovation including GVETs in the literature on innovation diffusion in the AEC context. Design/methodology/approach - This paper draws upon the qualitative meta-analysis approach encompassing a critical review of the relevant literature. To this end, the review builds upon studies found within 15 prestigious journals in AEC. The domain of this review was confined to areas described as “innovation”, “innovation diffusion” and “innovation adoption”, along with keywords used within a broad review of recently published GVETs literature. The rigour of review is augmented by incorporating 35 authoritative works from other disciplines published in 21 well-known journals in the manufacturing, business and management fields. Moreover, the study deploys the peer-debriefing approach through conducting unstructured interviews with five Australian scholars to verify a model presenting an aggregated summary of previous studies. Findings - The key findings of the study include the following items: synthesising the fragmented studies on innovation diffusion in the AEC context. In doing so, a model capturing the major aspects affecting diffusion of an innovation in AEC projects is presented; providing a foundation to address the drawbacks of previous studies within the sphere of GVETs, based on the developed model. Research limitations/implications - The developed model was only enhanced using a small sample size of academics, as such not empirically validated. Originality/value - As possibly, the first literature review of innovation in the AEC context, this paper contributes to the sphere by sensitising the AEC body of knowledge on innovation diffusion as a concise conceptual model, albeit verified through the peer-debriefing approach. This study will also further establish the research field in AEC on GVETs along with other methods reliant on virtual working such as building information modelling (BIM) through providing an expanded foundation for future inquiries and creation of knowledge.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation,diffusion,construction,aec,team working,virtual team |
| Index terms: | sample size, innovation adoption, platform, virtual team, integrated conceptual model, building information modelling, diffusion of innovation, academia, technological innovation, journal, fragmentation, literature review, meta-analysis, interview, innovation diffusion, body of knowledge, methodology |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, knowledge management, innovation and technology management, innovation studies, research design and methodology, business, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, information systems, educational institutions, sociology, research evaluation and metrics, digital design, professional development, research methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Education, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| 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