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

IF 1.9 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Chamila D. D. Ramanayaka, O. Olatunji, A. U. Weerasuriya
{"title":"Motivating immersive BIM uptake through user attitude: analysis of initial solution using design science approach","authors":"Chamila D. D. Ramanayaka, O. Olatunji, A. U. Weerasuriya","doi":"10.1108/bepam-10-2021-0126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeBeyond 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/approachExtant 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/valueWhilst 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.","PeriodicalId":46426,"journal":{"name":"Built Environment Project and Asset Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Built Environment Project and Asset Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/bepam-10-2021-0126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeBeyond 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/approachExtant 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/valueWhilst 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.
通过用户态度激发沉浸式BIM吸收:使用设计科学方法分析初始解决方案
目的:除了强制使用之外,行政部门选择接受或拒绝建筑信息模型(BIM)背后的理由是模糊的。对于组织来说,BIM的接受是复杂的,现有的决策模型对于做出现实的选择是不切实际的。一个实际的解决方案必须有助于全面反映内部和外部BIM成功因素。然而,现存的文献主要集中在软件的使用和意识上。因此,本文旨在提出一个评估企业准备程度的新框架,旨在促进BIM的吸收。设计/方法/方法现有的解释性研究不足以评估BIM吸收的软性。因此,设计科学研究被用作替代方法。手段和目的分析用于解决方案孵化和跨学科推理,建立有效的解决方案的战略,对企业的准备。回顾了以往关于BIM、技术接受度(一般)和复杂性的研究。“技术态度”涉及到更多的整体变量,而不是简单地依赖软件使用来反映BIM的接受程度。技术接受模型(TAM)适用于解释BIM的态度属性,但其目前的使用并不理想。将选择性信息加工和无意识思维理论整合到TAM中,从多个角度解释态度形成,形成了一种新的BIM态度量表(BIMAS)。经过验证,提议的框架将有助于对与BIM接受相关的偏见进行客观验证。原创性/价值虽然BIM准备程度的评估主要集中在理论建设上,但实践相关性必须放在BIM开发的最前沿。本研究阐明了设计科学研究可以增强BIM采用模型的实际相关性。与文献中对高管自我偏见的评估相反,必须通过经过验证的量表来评估BIM的接受态度。BIMAS为此提出了一个可测试的解决方案。理论建设研究必须是未来的重点,以提高这一初步解决方案的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信