Whyte, J (2003) Innovation and users: Virtual reality in the construction sector. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), pp. 565-572. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Firms in the construction sector act as users of technologies produced outside the sector. This paper considers their role as users and explores their contribution to the 're-innovation' of an emerging information technology - virtual reality. An empirical study of virtual reality use within the construction sector has been conducted using the multiple case study method. Data was collected within 11 lead-user organizations (and four suppliers) and emerging patterns of use are explored. An analytic framework is developed to investigate how two aspects of project-based construction processes - project size and extent of design reuse - affect the technological requirements of users. Divergent requirements are found for the use of virtual reality on different types of projects and, through supplier interaction, these may lead to different families of solutions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; information technology; innovation; users; virtual reality |
| Index terms: | interaction, empirical study, virtual reality, case study, information technology, construction sector, construction process |
| Subjects: | computing systems, virtual reality, data collection methods, research methods, behavioral psychology, industry analysis, building construction |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Site Management, 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