IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1316-d210431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Study on the Acceptance of 4D BIM in EPC Projects in China

Author

Listed:
  • Pan Gong

    (School of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Ningshuang Zeng

    (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, D-44780 Bochum, Germany)

  • Kunhui Ye

    (School of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Markus König

    (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, D-44780 Bochum, Germany)

Abstract

The engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) method has the potential to help construction projects achieve sustainable performance, e.g., the contractor’s early involvement, cost savings, and a reduced schedule. However, high uncertainties and complexities are contained in EPC projects. 4D BIM (Building Information Modeling) with abilities to simplify the time and space relationships of construction activities and support multi-party information sharing is beneficial to EPC project management. The behavior pattern of the project personnel toward accepting 4D BIM information systems or tools needs to be explored. Therefore, a research model of the acceptance of 4D BIM in EPC projects with eight latent constructs is proposed through a literature review of technology acceptance theories. Data is collected from a questionnaire survey and interviews. Research hypotheses are examined using PLS-SEM (partial least squares-structural equation modeling). Empirical evidence is collected from China, and implications to the developing countries facing the challenge of developing a technology-intensive construction industry are provided: (1) Adopting 4D BIM in the EPC project is beneficial; (2) the task-technology fit plays a leading role in technology acceptance; (3) the management incentive is inefficient at the operational stage. Suggestions for future research on 4D BIM acceptance in complex construction projects with abundant data and alternative models are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Pan Gong & Ningshuang Zeng & Kunhui Ye & Markus König, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Acceptance of 4D BIM in EPC Projects in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1316-:d:210431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1316/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1316/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kumar, Bipul, 2012. "Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach to Understand the Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products," IIMA Working Papers WP2012-12-08, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. John D'Ambra & Concepción S. Wilson & Shahriar Akter, 2013. "Application of the task‐technology fit model to structure and evaluate the adoption of E‐books by Academics," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 48-64, January.
    4. Necmi K. Avkiran & Christian M. Ringle (ed.), 2018. "Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-319-71691-6, September.
    5. Kuo-Yu Huang & Yea-Ru Chuang, 2016. "A task–technology fit view of job search website impact on performance effects: An empirical analysis from Taiwan," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1253943-125, December.
    6. M. Motiar Rahman & Mohan Kumaraswamy, 2002. "Joint risk management through transactionally efficient relational contracting," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 45-54.
    7. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zezhou Wu & Mingyang Jiang & Yuzhu Cai & Hao Wang & Shenghan Li, 2019. "What Hinders the Development of Green Building? An Investigation of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Mohammad Mayouf & Jamie Jones & Faris Elghaish & Hassan Emam & E. M. A. C. Ekanayake & Ilnaz Ashayeri, 2024. "Revolutionising the 4D BIM Process to Support Scheduling Requirements in Modular Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdul Waheed Siyal & Ding Donghong & Waheed Ali Umrani & Saeed Siyal & Shaharbano Bhand, 2019. "Predicting Mobile Banking Acceptance and Loyalty in Chinese Bank Customers," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, April.
    2. Sudarsan Jayasingh & T. Girija & Sivakumar Arunkumar, 2021. "Factors Influencing Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Electric Two-Wheelers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Nketiah, Emmanuel & Song, Huaming & Cai, Xiang & Adjei, Mavis & Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Obuobi, Bright, 2022. "Citizens’ intention to invest in municipal solid waste to energy projects in Ghana: The impact of direct and indirect effects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).
    4. Debora Bettiga & Lucio Lamberti & Emanuele Lettieri, 2020. "Individuals’ adoption of smart technologies for preventive health care: a structural equation modeling approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 203-214, June.
    5. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    6. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    7. Peter Mantello & Manh-Tung Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2023. "Machines that feel: behavioral determinants of attitude towards affect recognition technology—upgrading technology acceptance theory with the mindsponge model," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Fox, Stephen & Groesser, Stefan N., 2016. "Reframing the relevance of research to practice," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 457-465.
    9. Mäntymäki, Matti & Salo, Jari, 2013. "Purchasing behavior in social virtual worlds: An examination of Habbo Hotel," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 282-290.
    10. Fatima Zahra Barrane & Gahima Egide Karuranga & Diane Poulin, 2018. "Technology Adoption and Diffusion: A New Application of the UTAUT Model," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(06), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Joan Torrent-Sellens & Cristian Salazar-Concha & Pilar Ficapal-Cusí & Francesc Saigí-Rubió, 2021. "Using Digital Platforms to Promote Blood Donation: Motivational and Preliminary Evidence from Latin America and Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Garima Malik & A. Sajeevan Rao, 2019. "Extended expectation-confirmation model to predict continued usage of ODR/ride hailing apps: role of perceived value and self-efficacy," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 461-482, December.
    13. Wang, Guoqiang & Tan, Garry Wei-Han & Yuan, Yunpeng & Ooi, Keng-Boon & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2022. "Revisiting TAM2 in behavioral targeting advertising: A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Riffat Ara Zannat Tama & Md Mahmudul Hoque & Ying Liu & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mark Yu, 2023. "An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    15. Scott, Stephanie & Hughes, Paul & Hodgkinson, Ian & Kraus, Sascha, 2019. "Technology adoption factors in the digitization of popular culture: Analyzing the online gambling market," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    16. Cabrera-Sánchez, Juan-Pedro & Villarejo-Ramos, à ngel F., 2020. "Acceptance and use of big data techniques in services companies," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    17. Alfiero, Simona & Battisti, Enrico & Ηadjielias, Elias, 2022. "Black box technology, usage-based insurance, and prediction of purchase behavior: Evidence from the auto insurance sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    18. Cowan, Kelly R. & Daim, Tugrul U., 2011. "Review of technology acquisition and adoption research in the energy sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 183-199.
    19. Chia-Chien Hsu & Brian Sandford & Chia-Ju Ling & Ching-Torng Lin, 2021. "Can the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Help Explain Subjective Well-Being in Senior Citizens due to Gateball Participation?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Hsu, Sheila Hsuan-Yu & Tsou, Hung-Tai & Chen, Ja-Shen, 2021. "“Yes, we do. Why not use augmented reality?†customer responses to experiential presentations of AR-based applications," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1316-:d:210431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.