Conceptualising information and equipment technology adoption in construction: A critical review of existing research

Sepasgozar, S M E; Loosemore, M and Davis, S R (2016) Conceptualising information and equipment technology adoption in construction: A critical review of existing research. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 23(2), pp. 158-176. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a critical review of research in information and equipment technology adoption in the construction industry. The study also aims to formulate a conceptual framework of the different stages in the adoption process identify gaps in the existing literature and to provide a holistic picture of contemporary research in technology adoption in construction research literature. Design/methodology/approach - A generic framework is initially proposed containing the fundamental concepts of “pre-adoption”, “adoption” and “post-adoption”. The review separates the literature according to three key perspectives: “socio-economic”; “managerial”; and “psychological”. The applicability of the existing approaches to the construction context is discussed, and then a new conceptual framework for construction is developed. Findings - Significant gaps in the understanding of construction technology adoption are identified that provide an interesting agenda for future research. A Construction Technology Adoption Framework is presented, which draws together all of sub-processes involved in technology adoption. This framework covers key activities of both the vendor and the customer. Research limitations/implications - The study has been restricted to information technologies and construction equipment technology. Other construction technologies, such as formwork systems, have not been examined. Practical implications - The new framework provides a direction for research into the technology adoption process including key sub-processes and potential research areas. The framework also assists vendors to influence customers' decision-making processes, and guides new customers in setting up their own decision procedures. Originality/value - This paper departs from earlier research by focusing on information and equipment technology adoption rather than innovation adoption in general. In addition, this paper considers both sides of the adoption equation (vendor and customer), which is in contrast to previous binary studies which considered one side or the other. It delineates the boundaries of different concepts such as diffusion, adoption, acceptance and implementation, which have been interchangeably used in previous studies. This paper introduces the concept of dissemination to construction, which has previously been investigated in other industries.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: diffusion; construction; implementation; information technology; adoption; companies; equipment
Index terms: boundaries, information technology, conceptual framework, dissemination, methodology, technology adoption, construction technology, implementation, construction industry, formwork, decision-making process, innovation adoption, construction equipment
Subjects: industry analysis, decision analysis, building construction, knowledge translation, construction equipment, research methods, theoretical framing, contractual arrangements, property law, innovation and technology management, computing systems, innovation studies, digital engineering
Topics: Risk Management, Plant and Equipment, Construction Technology, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Legal Issues
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