NEEDS AND TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION: OBSERVATIONS FROM BIM EXPERIENCE Vishal Singh Department: Department of Civil and Structural Engineering University/Institution: Aalto University Town/City: Espoo State (US only): Country: Finland Jan Holmström Department: Department of Industrial Engineering and Management University/Institution: Aalto University Town/City: Espoo State (US only): Country: Finland Corresponding author: Vishal Singh,
[email protected] To cite this article: Vishal Singh , Jan Holmström , (2015) "Needs and technology adoption: observation from BIM experience", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 2, pp.128 – 150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2014-0124 Structured Abstract:
Purpose- Despite the recognized role of motivation of actors in technology adoption decisions, there is limited understanding of the psychological processes underlying the motivation. This research explores this gap by investigating BIM adoption from the viewpoint of Maslow’s motivational theory on hierarchy of needs. Design/methodology/approach- This research uses mixed methods. Initially theoretical arguments establish the suitability of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as the conceptual framework to investigate technology adoption. The hypotheses and research questions are investigated using data collected through focus-group-interviews (FGIs), interviews and field observations in Australian AEC. The findings are validated with a survey of BIM adoption cases reported in literature, and additional interviews conducted in Finnish AEC sector. Finally, abductive reasoning is applied to seek the best possible explanation for the observed patterns. Findings- It is found that besides individuals, organizations also demonstrate hierarchical ordering of innovation related needs. Three broad categories of innovation related needs are identified. Using abduction, the innovation-related needs of actors are described in terms of stable and excited states. Research limitations/implications - The findings are primarily based on studies conducted in regions with developed economies. Practical implications - This research shows that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs could be a useful diagnostic framework to assess actors’ response towards technology adoption. Originality- This investigation into the potential usefulness of Maslow’s theory into understanding technology adoption is by itself a novel research contribution. The finding that hierarchical view of needs can partly explain the adoption decisions of both individual and organizational actors is an original contribution. Keywords: BIM, innovation, technology adoption, motivation, needs, Maslow
1
INTRODUCTION
The architecture engineering and construction (AEC) sector struggles with significant gaps between the available technology and the technology used in practice (Peansupap and Walker, 2005; Moore and Dainty, 1999; Taylor and Levitt, 2004). Accordingly, the diffusion of ICT and BIM applications has been the focus of recent research in construction (e.g. Samuelson and Björk, 2014; Bernstein, 2012; Khosrowshahi and Arayici, 2012; Azhar, 2011; Arayici et al, 2011; Gu and London, 2010; Bew and Underwood, 2010; Succar, 2009; CRC, 2009). Technology adoption and innovation diffusion has been studied extensively across diverse disciplines (Rogers, 1962, 1995; Abrahamson, 1991). It is well-established that the key actors in the adoption and diffusion chain include innovators, early adopters, the early majority and the late majority and the laggards, besides the innovation champions (Rogers, 1995; Burt, 1987). Typically the innovators are risk takers, the early adopters are enthusiasts and opinion leaders, early majority are pragmatists, and the rest are conservative and sceptical of the innovation (Rogers, 1995). Rerepresenting Roger and Kincaid’s (1981) diagram, these actors can be organized in a pyramidal adoption structure with the innovators and early adopters at the top of the pyramid, and the laggards and late majority at the bottom of the adoption pyramid, Fig 1. [Insert Fig1] The behavioural characteristics of actors in Fig1 show congruence with Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs. At the bottom of the pyramid, that is, majority of the actors are conservative and sceptical because they are concerned about their primary needs and security. The early majority feels secure enough to adopt new technology and innovation but they need confidence in the innovation. Early adopters or the opinion leaders potentially look for opportunity for leadership and recognition, while the innovators and technology developers are driven by creativity. Based on this correspondence between Maslow’s needs and Rogers’ actors, the hierarchical view of needs is taken as the underlying conceptual framework to study the adoption related needs of the actors and stakeholders, and investigate if the hierarchical view of needs improves our understanding of technology adoption patterns in AEC. This investigation is particularly relevant because Maslow’s theory is one of the seminal works in developmental psychology on motivational theory, and even though motivation is regularly reported as an important factor in technology adoption decisions of actors, there is limited understanding of the psychological processes associated with the motivation for technology adoption in AEC. In addition, it has been found that organizational decision making is tied to individuals’ behaviour (e.g. Samuelson and Björk, 2014; Venkatesh and Goyal, 2010; Carley and Behrens, 1999). Carley and Behrens (1999) state “Organizational decision making is a product of both the way individuals make decisions and the context in which these individuals
make decisions.” Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that organizations as actors may also demonstrate hierarchical ordering of innovation related needs if the same is observed with individuals. Thus, we hypothesize that: “The hierarchy of needs framework can partly explain the technology adoption and innovation-related decisions of individuals as well as that of organizations as actors.” However, the question is, even if the hierarchy of needs framework may be found to partly explain the innovation and BIM adoption related needs of the actors, so what? Therefore, we seek to ask what new insights do the hierarchical view of needs provide into actors’ behaviour in BIM adoption and innovation diffusion. That is: “Does the hierarchical view of needs provide new insights into the technology adoption and innovation-related needs of the actors? If yes, what role does the hierarchy of innovation-related needs play in the adoption and diffusion of systemic innovation such as BIM?” Findings reported in this paper are based on data collected in two research projects spread over the last seven years (2007-2014). The first project (2007-2010) investigated the challenges to adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and BIM-based collaboration in Australian AEC projects. The second project (2012-2014) sought to understand the trends in evolution of BIM as a digital infrastructure in the Finnish construction sector. While the level of BIM adoption has increased since the early phase of the research period (2007-2008), the findings reported in this paper focus on the behaviour patterns observed during the study. That is, this paper does not present the current status of BIM adoption in the studied regions. Instead, it presents a theoretical perspective on behavioural patterns observed during this adoption period.
3
BACKGROUND
This research builds on the apparent congruence between two seminal works, namely, Roger’s theory on technology adoption and innovation diffusion, and Maslow’s theory on human needs. This investigation is also significant because innovation and needs are believed to be mutually related such that either innovation is a response to an identified need or innovation leads to the explication of a latent need (O'Sullivan and Dooley, 2008; Heskett, 2002; Sheth, 1981). Therefore, this section looks at related literature on technology, innovation diffusion and needs.
3.1
Technology adoption and innovation diffusion
There is a general consensus that technology adoption and innovation diffusion is a social phenomenon. Rogers’ classical theory explains technology adoption and innovation diffusion in terms of (1) the classic S-shaped cumulative adoption curve, (2) actor categories, (3) adoption decision stages and influence modes, and (4) the role of opinion leaders and change agents. Others (e.g. Renken and Heeks, 2014; Chen et al, 2013; Attewell, 1992; Fichman, 1992;
Katz and Shapiro, 1986) have extended the technology adoption and innovation diffusion research to organizational settings, introducing the effects of factors such as critical mass and knowledge barriers. It is agreed that the patterns in the adoption of systemic innovations such as ICT may exist at various transitional states such that diffusion cannot be described in terms of simple binary states of adoption or non-adoption (London et al, 2004; Swanson, 1994). Organizational technology adoption and diffusion patterns have also been described in terms of leadership and personal characteristics of the actors such as education level, professionalism, specialization, and attitude towards change (Zhang, 2013; Verdegem and De Marez, 2011; Ford and Gioia, 1995; Sharma and Rai, 2003). Despite the range and breadth of studies on technology adoption and innovation diffusion, most research investigate the mechanisms and structural attributes of innovation diffusion in which the actors are involved, but fewer research have been directed at the actors themselves (Wejnert, 2002; Fichman, 2000). In contrast, this research focuses on the actors, whose adoption related decisions are known to be influenced by their social interactions (e.g. Lee et al, 2013; Goldenberg et al, 2010; Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981).
3.2
Hierarchy of needs
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) is a theory from developmental psychology, which suggests that human needs follow a hierarchical ordering such that fulfilment of lower order needs such as food and security takes precedence over higher order needs such as creativity. That is, unless the lower order needs are met for an individual, the higher order needs are not desired by the individual. While Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been widely researched and applied across various fields, it has also been widely debated and criticized for various shortcomings and limitations, including in terms of the generalizability of the specified five levels across different cultural contexts (e.g. Bennis, 1966; Hall and Nougaim, 1968; Hagerty, 1999; Sirgy, 1986; Wicker et al, 1993). Nonetheless, despite the criticisms and shortcomings, the fundamental characteristics of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are commonly accepted (Kenrick et al, 2010), which are: •
Human needs have a hierarchical structure such that there is a preferential order for the needs
•
There are distinct primary needs and secondary needs
Therefore, instead of applying the specific five levels of Maslow’s needs or the further extensions of these need levels since Maslow; we broadly distinguish primary and secondary needs to investigate the innovation-related needs of the actors and their technology adoption behaviour. For example, from the perspective of technology adoption, innovationrelated needs can be termed as primary needs if the need to adopt the innovation or the technology is considered critical by an actor for its survival (e.g. business survival for organizations, job survival for individuals) or sense of belonging within its professional network. Sense of belonging can be viewed both from the perspective of ‘peer association’ as
well as ‘multi-disciplinary association’. From a ‘peer association’ perspective, if the peer group has adopted an innovation, a peer-pressure is created for an actor to adopt innovation as a means to be considered competent or relevant to be part of that peer group. From the viewpoint of multi-disciplinary association, if the rest of the network has decided to adopt an innovation, an actor may need to adopt the innovation to be able to continue doing business within that network of actors. Such classification will be consistent with the lower levels of Maslow’s needs. Similarly, from the perspective of technology adoption and innovation diffusion, secondary needs correspond to needs that go beyond survival issues to aspects such as innovation, creativity and leadership, which once again correspond to the higher level needs in Maslow’s hierarchy.
4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
This research was conducted in multiple phases between 2007- 2014, such that the later phases were planned as a follow-up of the findings from the earlier phases. In the first phase (2007-2008), data was collected through focus group interviews (FGIs) and one-on-one interviews with experts. Two FGIs were conducted in Australia with representatives from leading AEC stakeholders from different backgrounds including architects, academic researchers, contractors, clients, design managers, consultants, facility managers, government agencies, and software vendors. The participants were either early adopters of BIM in Australian AEC industry or were considering BIM adoption. Each FGI included between 12-15 participants and the duration for each FGI was 4-5 hours. A breakdown of the key sessions in the FGIs is presented in Appendix A1. The FGI discussions revolved around the technical requirements for BIM-based collaboration platforms and potential challenges to adopting integrated design practice using such a collaboration platform. The FGI discussions were recorded on tape for transcription and analysis. The FGI discussions were followed by one-on-one interviews and field observations with some of the FGI participants who agreed to show their ongoing BIM adoption and implementation activities in their organization. Based on the data collected in the first phase, an open ended analysis of the data was conducted to identify the main themes and discussion patterns. In phase two (2008-2010) the transcribed data from the first phase was coded using verbal protocol analysis, a research method used in cognitive psychology for behavioural analysis of research participants and their thinking (Crutcher, 1994). The coding scheme for detailed analysis was based on the themes identified through the open ended analysis in phase one, such as technical, cultural, business, procedural and legal issues and requirements. A desktop audit of some of the commonly used BIM tools, together with a pilot study using a commercially available BIM model server was conducted to test the validity of the reported issues, against the technical capabilities and features of the existing tools. The detailed discussion on technical requirements, specific adoption issues and challenges across these themes has been reported earlier (Gu et al, 2008; 2010; Singh et al, 2011). Until this stage the analysis was focused on technical
requirements and specific adoption issues across the identified themes. However, one of the key aspects to emerge from the data was the importance of non-technical challenges that affect adoption-related decisions. In particular, the data revealed that: (1) different actors (both individuals as well as organizations) in the network have different levels of expectations and varied innovation related needs, which determine how important or central the systemic innovation is in their decision process, and (2) the actors’ perceived innovation-related needs were influenced by external factors, including the other actors in the network. These initial findings provided the preliminary pointers towards the stated hypothesis and the main research question, which were further investigated and validated in the third phase. In the third phase (2009-2014), two different approaches to data collection and analysis were adopted. First, all the data collected in the earlier phases, including cases reported in the literature was revisited and analysed from the perspective of innovation-related needs. Second, additional data for validation of findings was obtained from a third follow-up FGI and two validation interviews in Australia (2009-2010) (See Appendix A1), and eleven one-on-one interviews with leading actors in Finnish construction sector (2012-2013) (See Appendix A2) that have been among the pioneers of BIM research and development. The Finnish actor network, comprising of tool vendors, contractors, design consultants, clients, government agencies and research organizations, provided somewhat different context because these actors have a history of working closely with each other since early 1990’s, and the network have been among the innovators and early adopters of construction IT and BIM related technologies. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with personnel at senior/top management role in each of these organizations, and the discussions revolved around their experience and views on the trends of BIM development and use in their actor network. There were no prodding questions around innovation–related needs of the different stakeholders, until the interviewees voluntarily brought similar issues into the discussion. It was expected that these issues will be raised by the research participants. Once these issues were raised by the interviewees, more pointed questions on the topic were posed in continuation with the flow of the discussion. Altogether 35 organizations were represented in the empirical studies, spread across Australia and Finland. Fig2 shows the types of participating organizations and their roles in BIM adoption. Besides the 35 organizations represented in the empirical study, 21 case studies reported in the literature (Appendix A3) were surveyed to analyse the types of organizations involved, the motivation behind use of BIM in those case studies, and the circumstances in which BIM was adopted. A summary of the case survey is presented in Fig3. The role of researchers and research institutes are not explicitly mapped in Fig3, because the researchers reporting these case studies in the literature do not explicitly identify their own role in the case studies. Nonetheless, the researchers’ contribution is implicit in their reporting of the case studies, as champions of the innovative tools and processes.
[Insert Fig2A] [Insert Fig2B] [Insert Fig3A] [Insert Fig3B] Finally, using abductive reasoning, a behavioural perspective on needs is proposed to account for the empirical data and the observed patterns. Abductive reasoning seeks to infer the best explanation of the observed patterns based on premises that are held to be true (Walton, 2004). In this research, the hierarchical order of needs is held to be a valid premise to understand the adoption patterns.
5
RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
In the empirical study, there was a general consensus across the participants that despite the perceived utility and acknowledged need for BIM and related systemic innovations, the priority for most stakeholders to focus on ongoing projects that bring revenue and require risk mitigation, inhibit adoption across the industry. The long term benefits of adoption are often overlooked in favour of short term goals that are specific to the ongoing projects. A simpler explanation based on the responses is that for early adopters the need for the technology and innovation was high up their priority while for the others the need for the innovation was dominated by their other needs. That is, a hierarchical ordering of innovation-related needs is observed.
5.1. Perceptions about BIM related innovations and innovators In general, consistent with the literature (Damanpour and Aravind, 2006; Abernathy and Utterback, 1978; Utterback and Abernathy, 1975), participants recognize that BIM technology adoption is simultaneously linked to adoption of related process and organizational innovations. The data revealed a prevalent perception among the respondents that a number of BIM and related innovations do not necessarily correspond to user needs. Among other factors, some participants believe that the growing market competition is driving the product vendors to innovate and push new products and upgrades. Similarly, some participants attributed few process and organizational models to researchers’ intellectual ‘need to innovate’, even if the target users may not necessarily need those innovations. Other discussed scenarios revealed a pull process, driven by the ‘need for the innovation’. For example, many organizations got interested in BIM and related innovations to meet new performance targets. In addition, organizations such as government agencies and professional bodies were championing BIM and other systemic innovations to improve the productivity of the AEC sector and boost the economy. These organizations ‘need the diffusion of innovation’ as means to fulfil other needs. Other beneficiaries such as BIM training consultants needed technology
adoption and innovation diffusion to meet their financial and business needs. That is, a BIM ecosystem (Gu et al, 2014) has been created where the roles and influences of different stakeholders in the BIM innovation and adoption chain vary according to their innovation-related needs, Fig4. [Insert Fig4] Further, based on both the empirical data and the case reviews, following patterns in BIM adoption were observed in terms of the actor profiles and their needs:
5.2
Early adopters and champions of BIM in AEC
The early adopters and drivers of BIM were found to typically belong to one of the categories listed in Table1. The innovation champions such as government agencies are facilitating greater visibility and promotion of the technology and related innovations through measures such as regulations, policies and guidelines. Software vendors have been driving the BIM-related innovation, responding to market needs and creating new markets for improved tools. Researchers from academic and research institutes have not only contributed to development of some of these BIM tools and technologies, but they have also been promoting and supporting innovation adoption through case studies, guidelines and supporting process innovations to improve the practice. [Insert Table1] 5.3. Organizational adoption and responses at individual levels Fig5 schematically shows the observed technology and innovation adoption dynamics across organizational and individual levels. The innovative and early adopting firms and organizations (Firm B in Fig 5) were found to attract motivated individuals to join the adoption efforts, both from within and from other organizations. These innovative organizations as well as individuals are driven by their higher order needs such as innovation or leadership. In contrast, few other individuals within the adopting organizations were forced by ongoing organizational changes to adopt the technology or systemic innovation as they sought to retain or secure their jobs, which correspond to their primary needs (survival in employment). [Insert Fig5] Thus, based on the patterns described in Table1 and Fig5, across both the organizational as well as individual actors, BIM related innovations and adoption are found to be driven by secondary needs (e.g. leadership) of some actors, and primary needs (e.g. financial security) of the others, supporting the hypothesis that the hierarchy of needs framework can partly explain the adoption and innovation-related decisions of individuals as well as that of organizations as actors. 5.4. Actor categories, their variable needs and acquired roles
Actors’ roles in the innovation and adoption chain do not necessarily correspond to their regular roles. In some instances actors in creative roles were found to be conservative, while actors in routine roles and who are typically resistant to change took active innovation and adoption roles. The innovation and adoption related roles and needs of actors were found to vary as a function of their environmental condition. Findings suggested that in the process of technology adoption, supporting process and organizational innovations were created across different parts of the projects and organizations. Some FGI participants reported that even actors such as sub-contractors and operational workers, who normally tend to follow routine activities and who are normally not associated with innovation, are creating complementary innovations when faced with crisis situations such as project delays, cost cutting, and job insecurity. Examples discussed by FGI participants include the case of BIM-enabled fabrication in structural steel where technology adoption and systemic change was facilitated when innovation by one player in the reported supply chain triggered corresponding innovation by other actors, ranging from shop-floor workers to the designers. Similarly, construction managers reported that innovations by site workers trigger innovation spirit across their co-workers, demonstrating what Burt (1987) calls the contagion effect. The effects of network perturbation extended to other roles in the diffusion network. The site supervisor in the discussed case was reported to pro-actively assume the role of innovation champion within his organization, trying to promote the innovation across the other projects. This acquired role of promoting the innovation extended beyond his usual role, suggesting that the change in his environmental conditions acted as an opportunity and a motivational trigger. On the other hand, the principal of an architectural firm reported that some trainee architects in their firm, recruited on probation and uncertain of job security, tend to be conservative or group-think to avoid confrontation, a tendency that reduces innovation and adoption opportunity. Once the same individuals are assured of job-security, their need for creativity and change takes over and they tend to challenge existing solutions, tools and practices, opening up opportunities for innovation and adoption of new tools and processes. Thus, the innovation and adoption behaviours of actors are found to be contingent on environmental factors. Under perturbed conditions actor’s response towards innovative or routine activities tend to change. In Summary, the findings validate the hypothesis that hierarchy of needs can partly explain the innovation and technology adoption behaviour of individual as well as organizational actors. The innovation related needs of both individual and organizational actors can be described in terms of (1) types of need: ‘need to innovate’, ‘need for the innovation’, and ‘need for the diffusion of innovation’, and (2) hierarchy of need: primary needs and secondary needs. Finally, the actors’ need for innovation, both in terms of type and hierarchy, may change as a result of changes in the environmental conditions.
6
DISCUSSION
The main contribution of this paper is establishing the congruence between Maslow’s motivational theory of needs and Roger’s theory on technology adoption and innovation diffusion, with a preliminary validation based on empirical studies on BIM adoption in the AEC sector. This novel approach of studying technology adoption and innovation diffusion from the hierarchy of needs perspective shows three distinct aspects of adoption and innovation-related needs. First, the hierarchical needs perspective can be applied to individuals as well as organizational actors to understand their behaviour and responses towards technology adoption and innovation diffusion. The fact that at both organizational and individual levels, actors are found across both primary and secondary needs for innovation and technology adoption makes organizational change management a challenging task. If the organization and its employees do not share similar drive towards technology adoption, change management can potentially be more challenging. The hierarchy of needs perspective provides a complementary approach to understand organizational change management, but this requires further investigation. Second, the needs of actors in an innovation adoption network can be classified in terms of: need to innovate, need for the innovation, and need for the diffusion of the innovation. These findings may provide useful intervention mechanisms for innovation and technology adoption and management in AEC. The managers intending to introduce systemic tools and methods, such as BIM, in their organization or projects can potentially use Maslow' hierarchy of needs as a conceptual framework to develop diagnostic tools to map technology adoption and innovation-related needs of their stakeholders. For example, managers can apply the hierarchy of needs framework to assess whether the threat to primary needs such as job security perceived to be associated with existing practices is curtailing the willingness of potential adopters to take the steps towards adoption. Furthermore, there are primary and secondary needs across each category, i.e., need to innovate, need for the innovation, and need for the diffusion of the innovation. For example, need to innovate can be a primary need for actors whose assigned job and primary skill is within research and technology development, but for many other actors the need to innovate can be described in terms of their drive to be creative even if their assigned jobs are not necessarily within innovation context. Similarly, adoption or the need for the innovation can be driven by primary need or by the need to conform to the trend, as explained by Moore (1991) in terms of product-centric value and market-centric value. That is, some actors will adopt because of a critical need for the innovation, while others may adopt to confirm to the adoption trends in their network. And finally, the hierarchy of needs for the diffusion of innovation can also vary across actors. For innovation champions the diffusion of innovation might serve secondary needs such as leadership while for suppliers and manufacturers it may serve the primary need of sustaining a business. A schematic clustering of actors
and their innovation-related needs is shown in Fig6. The three need categories are mutually linked, and each of these should be considered from early phases of technology development and innovation process to increase the likelihood of adoption, especially by getting the support and backing of innovation champions and beneficiaries who would be interested in facilitating technology adoption and innovation diffusion. [Insert Fig6] However, currently the early phases of technology development and innovation process are typically focused on the ‘need for the innovation’ through market surveys, use-case scenarios, etc. It is only after the technology is developed or the innovation is ready, the need for the technology adoption and innovation diffusion comes into play, by which time considerable resource and effort has gone into the development activities. Not surprisingly, many technologies and related innovations fail, because the factors and actors corresponding to the ‘need for the diffusion of innovation’ are not taken into consideration. The early consideration of these factors and actors associated with the ‘need for the diffusion of the innovation’ can potentially lead to additional specifications and requirements from the outset, leading to different solutions to begin with. The third aspect of innovation-related needs is related to the role of environmental perturbations. As presented in Section 5.4, evidence suggests that environmental perturbations can foster or inhibit actors’ willingness to innovate and/or adopt innovation. Though this finding reiterates Meyer’s (1982) findings on the significance of ‘environmental jolt’ in innovation and adoption, it gains further significance when viewed from the perspective of hierarchical ordering of innovation-related needs. Findings suggest that under perturbed environmental conditions actors in the innovation chain acquire new roles, which can potentially be very different to their regular roles, or the roles they play when it is ‘business as usual’. Therefore, based on these observed effects of environmental perturbations on innovation-related needs of actors, it is conjectured that actors’ innovation-related needs can be explained in terms of stable and excited states, Fig7. Stable state needs correspond to their needs in unperturbed environmental conditions. For motivated and creative actors the stable state needs correspond to secondary needs, that is, the need for new challenges, innovation and creativity. Whereas, for routine actors, their stable state needs may correspond to primary needs, as work for them could primarily be a means of financial security or livelihood. On the other hand, excited state needs correspond to altered needs of the actors under the influence of external perturbation. For example, when the change in environmental conditions force creative actors to demonstrate conservative and non-creative behaviour, or routine actors to demonstrate creative behaviour, their altered needs correspond to excited state needs. [Insert Fig7]
Therefore, if the conjecture, based on the abduction so far, is valid, a pertinent question for future research would be: how much external perturbation is required to force a change from stable state needs to excited state needs? It is proposed that there must be a threshold of excitation for each actor where their needs change from stable state needs to excited stated needs. This threshold of excitation also needs to be understood through further research.
6.1. Limitations This research may have contextual limitations that must be noted. First, as pointed earlier as well, the findings reported in this paper are based on data collected over a seven year period, and the level of BIM adoption has increased since the early phase of the research period (2007-2008). From that viewpoint, it must be noted that the findings reported in this paper focus only on the behaviour patterns observed during the study, and this paper does not present the current status of BIM adoption in the studied regions. Second, the empirical research is conducted in Australia and Finland, while the case surveys typically correspond to studies based in North America and Europe. As a consequence, the research findings are mainly based on developed regions, and similar studies are needed in other geographical regions where the different socio-economic and socio-cultural context may alter the perception of what is primary and what is a secondary need. Third, the abduction-based conjecture that environmental perturbation alters need state from primary to secondary and vice versa opens new possibilities for further research, and this requires further empirical evidence for inductive validity.
6.2. Future research and propositions This novel investigation into BIM and technology adoption in AEC networks, by revisiting Roger’s technology adoption framework from the viewpoint of Maslow’s motivational theory of needs, opens up new directions for future research in AEC. In particular, the main questions and propositions surround the socio-cognitive mechanism that could explain adoption behaviour, especially, how the environmental perturbations often trigger a change in perceived needs of actors towards innovation or technology adoption. While we can observe that for some actors the change is from secondary needs towards primary needs, for others it is the other way round. To explain this, using abductive reasoning, we hypothesize that actors’ needs can be explained in terms of stable state and excited state needs. We also hypothesize that there exists a threshold of excitation for the environmental perturbation to alter the need state. These hypotheses need further research and validation. More importantly, future research is needed to explore such socio-cognitive mechanisms and their potential role in technology adoption and innovation diffusion.
7
CONCLUSION
The main contribution of this research has been establishing the congruence between Maslow’s motivational theory of needs and Roger’s theory on technology adoption and innovation diffusion, supported by a preliminary empirical validation of this congruence in the context of BIM adoption in AEC sector. This paper shows that technology adoption and the diffusion of systemic innovations in organizational networks can be explained through the hierarchy of innovation-related needs of the different actors. It is shown that actors, both at individual and organizational level, have primary and secondary needs associated with innovation and technology adoption. The primary and secondary needs were found to apply across each of the three types of innovation-related needs that were identified, namely, ‘need to innovate’, ‘need for the innovation’ and ‘need for the diffusion of the innovation’. Further, based on abduction, it is hypothesized that innovation and adoption-related needs of actors can be explained in terms of stable state and excited state needs. Actors that are averse to innovation or innovation adoption in stable state can be driven by external perturbation to excited states of innovation or innovation adoption. Similarly, it is proposed that environmental perturbation could inhibit innovation or innovation adoption behaviour for some actors in excited state, who are otherwise motivated to innovate or adopt innovation in their stable states. The findings from this research may have implications on how systemic innovation diffusion is planned, designed and managed in AEC, but further empirical research is needed, especially from other geographical regions besides Australia and Finland to address some of the contextual limitations of this research.
REFERENCES Abrahamson, E (1991) “Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of innovation”, California Management Review, 16, 3, 586–612. Abernathy, WJ, Utterback, JM (1978) “Patterns of industrial innovation”, Technology Review, 80, 7, 40–47. Attewell, A (1992) “Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing”, Organization Science, 3, 1, 1–19. Bennis, W (1966) Changing Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York. Bernstein, HM (Ed) (2012) “The Business Value of BIM in North America: Multi-year Trend Analysis and User Ratings (2007-2012),” SmartMarket Report, McGraw-Hill Research Findings. Bew, M, and Underwood, J (2010) “Delivering BIM to the UK Market”, In J. Underwood, & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on BIM and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technology, pp. 30-64. Burt, RS (1987) “Social contagion and innovation, cohesion versus structural equivalence”, American Journal of Sociology, 92, 6, 1287–1335.
Carley, KM, Behrens, D (1999) “Organizational and Individual Decision Making”, AP Sage & WB Rouse (eds.), Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. CRC (2009) Collaboration Platform: Final Report, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Australia. URL: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27997/1/27997.pdf Chen, Y, Ruikar, KD, Carrillo, PM (2013) “Strategic ebusiness framework: a holistic approach for organisations in the construction industry,” Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 18, 306-320. Damanpour, F, Aravind, D (2006) “Product and process innovations: a review of organizational and environmental determinants”, J. Hage, M. Meeus (eds), Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38–66. Fichman, RG (1992) “Information Technology Diffusion: A Review of Empirical Research”, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Dallas, 195-206. Fichman, RG (2000) “The Diffusion and Assimilation of Information Technology Innovations”, R, Zmud (ed) Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past, Pinnaflex Publishing: 105-128. Ford, CM, Gioia, DA (1995) Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Goldenberg, J, Libai, B, Muller, E (2010) “The chilling effect of network externalities,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 1, 4–15. Gu, N, Singh, V, London, K, Brankovic, L, Taylor, C (2008) “Adopting building information modelling (BIM) as collaboration platform in the design industry,” Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Chiang Mai (Thailand). Gu, N, Singh, V, London, K, Brankovic, L, Taylor, C (2010) “BIM adoption: expectations across disciplines,” Handbook of research on building information modelling and construction informatics: concepts and technologies, Information Science Reference, 501-520. Gu, N, London, K (2010) “Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry,” Automation in Construction, 19, 8, 988-999. Gu, N, Singh, V and London, K (2014) “BIM Ecosystem: The Coevolution of Products, Processes, and People”, K, Kensek and D, Noble (eds) Building Information Modeling: BIM in Current and Future Practice, pp. 197-211. Hagerty, MR (1999) “Testing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: National Quality-of-Life across Time”, Social Indicators Research, 46, 3, 249-271. Hall, D, Nougaim, K (1968) “An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organizational Setting”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 12-35.
Heskett, J (2002) Toothpicks & Logos: Design in Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, New York. Katz, ML, Shapiro, C (1986) “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities”, Journal of Political Economy, 94, 4, 822-841. Khosrowshahi, F, Arayici, F (2012) “Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK construction Industry”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 19, 6, 610–635. Kimberly, JR, Evanisko, M (1981) “Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations”, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 4, 689–713. Kenrick, DT, Griskevicius, V, Neuberg, SL, Schaller, M (2010) “Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundations”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 3, 292-314. Lee, S, Trimi, S, Kim, (2013) “Innovation and imitation effects' dynamics in technology adoption", Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113, 6, 772 – 799. London, KA, Bavinton, NJ, Mentink, JM, Egan, BJ (2004) “E-business adoption: case study report 2”, A. Guillermo (Ed), Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Brisbane, Qld. Maslow, AH (1943) “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review, 50, 4, 370-96. Meyer, AD (1982) “Adapting to environmental jolt”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 4, 515-537. Moore, DR, Dainty, ARJ (1999) “Integrated Project Teams Performance in Managing Unexpected Change Events”, Team Performance Management, 5, 7, 212-222. Moore, G (1991) Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream consumers, Harper Business, New York. O'Sullivan, D, Dooley, L (2008) Applying Innovation, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California. Peansupap, V, Walker, D (2005) “Exploratory factors influencing information and communication technology diffusion and adoption within Australian construction organizations: a micro analysis”, Construction Innovation, 5, 3, 135–157. Renken, J, Heeks, R (2014) “Champions of information system innovations: thematic analysis and future research agenda,” Proceedings of UK Academy for Information Systems Conference, Paper 42. Rogers, EM (1962) The Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York. Rogers, EM (1995) The Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York. Rogers, EM, Kincaid, DL (1981) Communication Networks: toward a new paradigm for research, Free Press, New York.
Sharma, S, Rai, A (2003) “An assessment of the relationship between ISD leadership characteristics and IS innovation adoption in organizations”, Information & Management, 40, 5, 391–401. Sheth, JN (1981) “Psychology of Innovation Resistance: The Less Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research”, JN, Sheth (ed), Research in Marketing, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT: 273-282. Singh, V, Gu, N, Wang, X (2011) “A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform,” Automation in Construction, 20, 2, 134-144. Sirgy, MJ (1986) “A quality-of-life theory derived from Maslow's developmental perspective”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 45, 3, 329-342. Succar, B (2009) “Building information modeling framework: a research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders,” Automation in Construction, 18, 357-375. Swanson, EB (1994) “Information Systems Innovations Among Organizations”, Management Science, 40, 9, 1069-92. Taylor, JE and Levitt, RE (2004) “Understanding and managing innovations in project-based industries”, Innovations – Project Management Research, Project Management Institute, New York. Verdegem, P, De Marez, L (2011) “Rethinking determinants of ICT acceptance: Towards an integrated and comprehensive overview,” Technovation, 31, 8, 411-423. Walton, D (2004) Abductive reasoning, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Wejnert, B (2002) “Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework,” Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 1, 297–326. Zhang, P (2013) “The affective response model: a theoretical framework of affective concepts and their relationships in the ICT context,” MIS Quarterly, 37, 1, 247–274.
A1 Data collection approaches in different research phases (Phase) (1) FGIs 1 & 2
Follow up interviews (2) Desktop audit Pilot study (3) Q1-Q3 Validation: FGI-3 Validation: interviews
Brief summary Session 1 (2 hrs): Main questions: What it is that this (BIM server) technology needs to have to make it usable in our industry? We want to discuss the relevance of the technology in your current and future work. What are the potential benefits and problems with the technology? How do we get our industry to use this technology? What are the barriers that are stopping us from using this technology? How do we get people to open up about this? How do we get around it? How do we make this technology applicable in two years’ time? Sample emergent questions: With your team out at project X how many of them would agree with you that they would work in a standard format to be able to make this achievable? How many of them would agree to change the way they work? Who’s going to drive the use of this through our industry? What are you saying to the client, who will ultimately pay for it? Are the clients accepting this? Is the client normally the end user or just the developer? So there are examples popping up, but what is the level of collaboration? Session 2 (2 hrs): Product vendors and technology consultants: brief demonstration and Q&A session continuing on themes from session 1 Session 3 (30 minutes-1 hr): Wrap-up session Interviewee driven discussion based on their demonstration and presentation of their ongoing BIM/ ICT implementation activities. Audit of the functions and capabilities of existing BIM applications to validate the technical issues reported by research participants A pilot project to test the usability of a commercially available BIM model server and test some of the non-technical issues reported by research participants as factors inhibiting BIM adoption Revisit, reanalyse data collected from previous phases Only 1 session: same as the 1st session of FGIs 1 and 2. This data was used to validate if similar issues emerged in the discussion as identified in the first two phases of the research. Main questions: Have you introduced any new BIM or ICT tools across the practice in the recent years? Can you describe a project or an instance where you think the implementation of new tools or processes was successful? What do you think made it successful? Can you describe a project or an instance where you think the implementation of new tools or processes was not successful? What were the main challenges and how could it have been done better? Sample emergent questions: When you did this switch from one tool/platform to the other, was there any resistance? What kind of resistance was it? Did you have any attrition with regards to this top down change? Are the architects wary of too much of information requirements and modelling constraining their work? Let’s say when you move from one platform to the other, it’s very likely if I was an expert in tool X, I might not have the same level of expertise in tool Y. How does that affect my role and my perception of how things are moving? And how does that change the dynamics of the team itself? When you need to make changes in the way things work around, which will involve learning new skills or so, what kind of factors you think people consider in their decision making? Are there situations where there is individual conflict in terms of your career pathway versus the return on what you might get in terms of your efforts in aligning with the change? Do you see differences in how people see what is more important to them?
A2 Semi-structured interview in Finland The interviewees are asked to o Identify the problems and challenges with using BIM at its current stage in Their own operations Later lifecycle phases Earlier lifecycle phases o Identify problems that are easily addressable/ solved by current capabilities, but are not In their own operations In later lifecycle phases In earlier lifecycle phases Explain how BIM could address this Explain why it is not already done o Identify new BIM related capabilities or management practices that can solve some of the existing problems In their own operations In later lifecycle phases In earlier lifecycle phases Explain how BIM could address this Explain why it is a priority o Identify new problems that emerge as BIM is increasingly used In their own operations In later lifecycle phases In earlier lifecycle phases Explain why it a problem Explain how the problem is created Describe how you think the problem could be addressed?
A3 BIM implementation cases reported in literature Case Name Private/ public New trauma hospital in Middle East {public, Healthcare} Renovation medical research laboratory, US {public, Healthcare} KD&A, Blackfoot crossing {private, Mesuem} KD&A, Eagle Ridge {private, Large scale residential} Star, Modi'in {private, Commercial} Star, Precast Shelter {private, Total precast single story}
Reference
Case features
Manning, R., & Messner, J. (2008). Case studies in BIM implementation for programming of healthcare facilities. 446-457.
7
HUT-600 project, new multipurpose auditorium {public, University}
Kiviniemi, A. (2006). Adopting innovation: building information models in the Finnish real estate and construction cluster
8
MIT Ray and Maria Stata Center project {public, Office, research, education} Yokohama Port Terminal project {private, Passenger cruise terminal} Eden Project ERC project {public, Education, exhibition} The new Dickinson School of Law (DSL) Building {public, School}
(Ku, K., Pollalis, S., Fischer, M., & Shelden, D. (2008). 3D model-based collaboration in design development and construction of complex shaped buildings. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 13, 258285.)
The City Hospital
Belizaire, M. “City Hospital Pennsylv.:
Motivations for using BIM: Control cost and time; manage project complexity, manage information complexity; to meet modern operational practices and building code requirements. P446-447. Also, CURT (Construction Users Roundtable) directive to assess ways to curtail cost and time overruns. p448 Case 1 factors: The original awarded design was cancelled. Hence, the owner needed a different approach to develop the new layouts. [Actors interested in BIM: mostly owner] [Beneficiary: owner] p447 Case 2 factors: There was limited time for programming; large amount of information requirements. [Actors interested in BIM: mostly owner's facility and contracting members] [Beneficiary: Entire team] P454 Case company KD&A's: Motivations for using BIM: preparing drawings; ensuring accuracy and coordination, reduce errors. p306. KD&A's decision to adopt BIM was supported by its partners and a major client, who shared the vision and understood the benefits of BIM. p317-318 Case 3 factors: technical requirements, complexity of geometry. p307 [Actors interested in BIM: KD&A itself adopted BIM as a pioneer] Case 4 factors: schedule demanded precast solutions and quick fabrication. Impossible to meet the project milestones with traditional approach. [Actors interested in BIM: KD&A itself] Case company Star: Motivations for using BIM: productivity improvement and error reduction. p306 [Actors interested in BIM: Star itself, as an early adopter of BIM] Case 5 factors: time limitations and geometry complexity. p312-313. [Actors interested in BIM: Star itself] [Beneficiary: both Star and the project] Case 6 factors: Manage geometric complexity, Use the BIM experiences gained from previous project [Actors interested in BIM: Star itself] (Case 7) Motivation: research and technology trial. Project is part of a large national technology programme started in Finland in 1997, as a research initiative. The owner wanted to use interoperable product modelling in the project. First project in the world using IFC data transfer between project participants. p6 [Actors interested in BIM: owner/state; with a willing and committed Finnish Real Estate and Construction Cluster] Case 8: The project architect contractually issued the CATIA-3D model as the primary project documentation. The project requires all the parties involved to use CATIA model [owner supported 3D model, endorsed the contractual use of 3D model for collaboration and understood its risks and benefits] p478 [Actors interested in BIM: the architect adopted first and contractually mandated all of the other actors to use the CATIA model] Case 9: The architect created 3D models for communication with the construction team. [Actors interested in BIM: Architects. The project owners were NOT interested in the 3D modelling because bidding regulations prohibit impropriety] p478 Case 10: The architect and the structural engineer collaboratively worked with 3D CAD, and made the model available to every contractor who needed it. [Actors interested in BIM: The use of 3D modelling was at the risk of design-build team] p478 [In cases 8-10, entire project benefitted, but owner benefitted the most] (Case 11) Motivation: Mainly for coordination and long term goal of turning over an 'as-built BIM' to the owner. The Construction Manager is interested in the BIM for planning for the project. CM required 3D models and BIM from the specialty contractors along with the submittal of trade shop drawings. [Actors interested in BIM: Construction Manager, not the owner] p286 Penn State has been encouraging the use of BIM in several forms. DSL project is NOT its first BIM project. p288] (Case 12) Phase I didn’t use BIM, Phase II used BIM. Motivation: to coordinate the design and construction process; included
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
(Kaner, I., Sacks, R., Kassian, W., & Quitt, T. (2008). Case studies of BIM adoption for precast concrete design by mid-sized structural engineering firms.303-323)
Leicht R., Messner J., 2008. “Moving toward an intel. shop modeling process, ITcon 13, Special Issue Case studies of BIM use, pg. 286-302
Pennsylvania {public, Healthcare} 13
St Johns Providence Park Hospital {public, Healthcare}
14
Camino Medical Group medical office building {private, Healthcare}
15
Experience Music Project (EMP) {private, cultural, museum} Seattle library {public, Library}
16
17
18
19
20
21
Rector Street Bridge, 2007 {public, Street pedestrian bridge} 290 Mulberry Street, 2008 {private, Residential} Barcelona Olympics, Fish Sculpture {public, cult.} Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, 1997 {public, cult., museum} Peter B. Lewis Building 2002 {public, School}
Phase1, http://www.engr.psu.e du/ae/thesis/portfolios /2008/mxb951/ URL:http://www.bdcn etwork.com/bimhealthcare,URL:http:// www.healthcaredesin magazine.com/node/2 330?page=0 Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., & Reed, D. (2008). Benefits and lessons learned of implementing build. VDC tech. for coord. of MEP systems on a large healthcare project. 324-342 Gal, U., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2008). The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infra., and organizational identities: the introduction of 3D modelling tech. into the arch., engg., and construction industry. European Journal of Info. Sys., 17(3), 290304. Sharples, C. 2009. "Unified Frontiers: Reaching Out with BIM", Architectural Design (79:2), pp. 4247
Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: the case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631-647.
3D modeling package into the subcontractors' contract. [Actors interested in BIM: CM initiated the use of BIM, and all partners got involved in the adoption of BIM; the owner didn't request use of BIM] p20 [The owner is mostly benefiting from BIM] (Case 13) Motivations: during the design phase, the construction market was struck with inflationary events, hurricane and outflow of domestic building materials to overseas markets, including steel and glass. BIM helped the design team and CM in such conditions. [Actors interested in BIM: designer and construction manager] (Case 14) Motivation: automated clash detection, coordination of MEP systems. P325 [Actors interested in BIM: The owner, architect, engineers and contractors] p327 [the owner and the whole team benefit from the use of BIM] Indication of mandated use of BIM tools and process in future projects by owner: The owner, has adopted and mandated the use of BIM/VDC tools and processes for MEP coordination on all their future projects in their $6 billion construction program.p336 Case 15: Motivation: 3D CATIA as contract documents [Actors interested in BIM: The architect Gehry partners] The architect created 3D model and mandated the general contractor and other subcontractors to use 3D models] p297 Case 16: Motivation: The architect, Rem Koolhaas, used 3D modeling to design the building, but refused to share the 3D models with the subcontractors, only willing to release limited number of models, and even then it was done on a "use at your own risk" basis. p299 The general contractor Hoffman was mostly interested in the 3D modeling due to the enhanced collaboration experience from last EMP project] p299 Architect used the 3D modelling, Hoffman created its own 3D models and mediated all communication between itself and the subcontractors and among the subcontractors p299 [Actors interested in BIM: architect and general contractors, but separately] Case 17: Motivation: Architect's plan was to use BIM as Infrastructure for service provision, and extend its use through operation phase: There is no use of BIM for the lifecycle of building. However, future goal is to develop ties between BIM and automated facility management systems. Case 18: Motivation: Both architects and fabricators shared the same passion to utilize digital tools for optimization of structure and design; The architect SHoP adopted the implementation of BIM as the office standard, and the project was used to understand the software, train staff and develop best practices . [Actors interested in BIM: mostly architect, also fabricators] Case 19: Motivation: Gehry Partners did not intend to adopt the technologies, but due to the tight schedule and limited budget, they decided to adopt the digital 3D technologies. [Actors interested in BIM: None initially, but architect forced to do so by schedule and cost constraints] The whole project benefitted, including Gehry Partners who decided to use it more in their future design projects]. p638 Cases 20 and 21: After the huge success gained from first trial with the digital 3D technologies, the Gehry Partners decides to try more with the software. [Actors interested in BIM: Gehry Partners]
Table1 Early adopters and drivers of BIM in AEC, and their innovation related needs Organizations
Need
Description
(1) Large contracting
To retain leadership
These organizations are driven towards technology adoption
firms that are dominant
and competitive
and innovation because they can afford taking risks to try
players (2) Influential
advantage
new innovations and stay ahead of the competition. Or, they
architects and firms that
are threatened by emerging competitors (survival needs)
are established leaders
and pushed towards innovation by what Meyer (1982)
and enjoy opinion
describes as ‘environmental jolt’.
leadership
To improve
Complex construction projects with greater regulatory
efficiency and
requirements and stringent demands from clients are forcing
manage complex
firms towards innovation and technology adoption.
projects Government agencies
To drive change in
Government agencies and professional bodies are
and departments that are the industry
proactively promoting BIM and associated innovation to
large scale clients or
boost industry performance and the economy in general, as
customers
part of their social responsibility.
Software vendors
To expand and retain Software vendors are constantly introducing new and market share of their improved tools to retain market share or capture new products as means to markets. They are not only driven by the need to sustain
Researchers
meet their business
their business, but some of these vendors are also driven by
needs
the need to remain a market and technology leader.
To make new
The leading researchers are typically at the forefront of
theoretical and
technology development and research. Some of the leading
practical contribution BIM tools are a result of early collaborative research at for the construction
academic and research institutes. In addition, researchers
industry
also promote adoption through case studies and guidelines.
Fig1 Re-representation of innovation diffusion categories (based on Roger and Kincaid 1981)
Fig2A Breakdown of research participants representing different types of organizations
Fig2B Breakdown of research participants according to their role in the BIM innovation chain
Fig3A Breakdown of different types of organizations reported in case survey
Fig3B Breakdown of motivation of actors who iniated BIM use in cases reported in the case survey
Fig4 Distribution of actors in the studied network according to their innovation-related needs
Fig5 Dynamics between organizational and individual BIM adoption behaviour
Fig6 Innovation-diffusion actors and innovation-related needs
Fig7 External perturbations force change in actors’ needs from stable to excited state needs
