Assessment of Adoption and Acceptance of Building Information Modeling for Building Construction among Industries in Qatar
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Conceptual Framework
Hypotheses
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Research Instruments
3.2. Sample and Sampling Process
3.3. Data Analysis Techniques
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Works
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eastman, C.M.; Teicholz, P.M.; Sacks, R.; Lee, G. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Succar, B. Building Information Modelling Framework: A research and Delivery Foundation for industry stakeholders. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 357–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahrizan, Z. Exploring the adoption of building information modelling (BIM) in the Malaysian construction industry: A qualitative approach. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2013, 2, 384–395. [Google Scholar]
- Farooqui, R. BIM-Based Sustainability Analysis: An Evaluation of Building Performance Analysis Software. Proceedings of the 45th ASC. 2009. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/14724531/BIM_based_Sustainability_Analysis_An_Evaluation_of_Building_Performance_Analysis_Software (accessed on 12 May 2024).
- Barlish, K.; Sullivan, K. How to measure the benefits of BIM—A case study approach. Autom. Constr. 2012, 24, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eager, D. Investigation of Potential Benefits of BIM to Provide Efficiencies in the AEC Industry. Available online: https://sear.unisq.edu.au/51810/3/EAGER%20Drew%20dissertation_redacted.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2023).
- Abotaleb, M.M.; Saab, E.; AbdelZaher, M. Integrating Building Information Management (BIM) in Civil nfrastructure Coordination: Application at Lusail Plaza. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC 2020), Doha, Qatar, 2–5 February 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olofsson Hallén, K.; Forsman, M.; Eriksson, A. Interactions between human, technology and organization in building information modelling (BIM)—A scoping review of critical factors for the individual user. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2023, 97, 103480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 19650-1:2018; Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, including Building Information Modelling (BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling Part 1: Concepts and Principles. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/68078.html (accessed on 12 May 2024).
- Mohammed, A.; Hasnain, S.A.; Quadir, A. Implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) Practices and Challenges in Construction Industry in Qatar. J. Eng. Res. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowsett, R.M.; Harty, C.F. Assessing the implementation of BIM—An information systems approach. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 37, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takim, R.; Harris, M.; Nawawi, A.H. Building Information Modeling (BIM): A new paradigm for quality of life within architectural, engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 101, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokooei, S. Building Information Modeling in Project Management: Necessities, challenges and outcomes. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 210, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Xu, H.; Wan, D.; Li, Y. Building Information Modeling Application Maturity Model (BIM-AMM) from the viewpoint of construction project. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6684031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Xie, B.; Tivendal, L.; Liu, C. Critical barriers to BIM implementation in the AEC Industry. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2015, 7, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, J.K.W.; Zhou, J.X.; Chan, A.P. Exploring the linkages between the adoption of BIM and design error reduction. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2018, 13, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Huang, L.; Jiang, L.; Chen, J.; Chen, W.; He, Y. Fostering knowledge collaboration in construction projects: The role of bim application. Buildings 2023, 13, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senouci, A.; Al-Abbadi, I.; Eldin, N. Safety improvement on building construction sites in Qatar. Procedia Eng. 2015, 123, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shareef, M.A.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, U.; Dwivedi, Y.K. E-government adoption model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information Systems Success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H. The Delone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Luo, H. A BIM-based construction quality management model and its applications. Autom. Constr. 2014, 46, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, D.; Tao, J. Design and application of green building based on bim. In Geo-Informatics in Resource Management and Sustainable Ecosystem, Proceedings of the Third International Conference, GRMSE 2015, Wuhan, China, 16–18 October 2015; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 901–907. [Google Scholar]
- Alothman, A.; Ashour, S.; Krishnaraj, L. Energy Performance Analysis of building for sustainable design using BIM: A case study on institute building. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2021, 11, 556–565. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; Yu, J.; Jeong, D. BIM acceptance model in construction organizations. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.K.; Yu, J.-H. Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors on BIM acceptance. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2013, 13, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Azhar, S.; Efimova, O.; Raahemifar, K. Building Information Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1046–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acquah, R.; Eyiah, A.K.; Oteng, D. Acceptance of Building Information Modelling: A survey of professionals in the construction industry in Ghana. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2018, 23, 75–91. [Google Scholar]
- Batarseh, S.; Kamardeen, I. The impact of individual beliefs and expectations on BIM adoption in the AEC Industry. In Proceedings of the AUBEA 2017: Australasian Universities Building Education Association Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 3–5 July 2017. EPiC Series in Education Science. [Google Scholar]
- Hochscheid, E.; Halin, G. A framework for studying the factors that influence the BIM adoption process. In Proceedings of the Information Technology for Construction, Newcastle, UK, 18–20 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, R. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Building Information Modeling in the AEC Industry. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/7032507/Factors_Influencing_the_Adoption_of_Building_Information_Modeling_in_the_AEC_Industry (accessed on 19 November 2023).
- Juan, Y.-K.; Lai, W.-Y.; Shih, S.-G. Building Information Modeling Acceptance and Readiness Assessment in Taiwanese architectural firms. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 23, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Yu, J. Longitudinal Study on construction organization’s BIM acceptance. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, S.; Nadeem, A.; Mok, J.Y.N.; Leung, B.H.Y. Building Information Modeling (BIM): A New Paradigm for Visual Interactive Modeling and Simulation for Construction Projects. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries, Karachi, Pakistan, 4–5 August 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Becerik-Gerber, B.; Rice, S. The perceived value of Building Information Modeling on the U.S. Building Industry. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2010, 15, 185–201. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, K.; Fan, Q. Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Sustainable Building Design. Facilities 2013, 31, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P.; Fischer, A.; Nitzl, C.; Menictas, C. Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: An illustration in modeling retailer choice. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemi, I.O.; Issa, A.O. Integrating Information System Success Model (ISSM) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): Proposing students’ satisfaction with university web portal model. Rec. Libr. J. 2020, 6, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prihatono, F.A.; Adi, T.J. Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology acceptance analysis using technology acceptance model (TAM). IPTEK J. Proc. Ser. 2021, 1, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-sarafi, A.H.; Alias, A.H.; Shafri, H.Z.; Jakarni, F.M. Factors affecting BIM adoption in the Yemeni construction industry: A structural equation modelling approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasetyo, Y.T.; Ong, A.K.; Concepcion, G.K.; Navata, F.M.; Robles, R.A.; Tomagos, I.J.; Young, M.N.; Diaz, J.F.; Nadlifatin, R.; Redi, A.A. Determining factors affecting acceptance of e-learning platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating Extended Technology Acceptance Model and Delone & McLean is success model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.; Gumusburun Ayalp, G.; Tel, M.Z.; Serter, M.; Metinal, Y.B. Modeling the critical success factors for BIM implementation in developing countries: Sampling the Turkish AEC Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weston, R.; Gore, P.A. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 719–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; Radu, D.; Ali, Z.; Almujibah, H.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Khan, M.B. Modeling the relation between building information modeling and the success of construction projects: A structural-equation-modeling approach. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steiger, J.H. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007, 42, 893–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abubakar, M.; Ibrahim, Y.M.; Kado, D.; Bala, K. Contractors’ perception of the factors affecting building information modelling (BIM) adoption in the Nigerian Construction Industry. In Computing in Civil and Building Engineering; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, H.; Feng, J.; Li, S. Users-orientated evaluation of building information model in the Chinese Construction Industry. Autom. Constr. 2014, 39, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Won, J.; Lee, G.; Dossick, C.; Messner, J. Where to focus for successful adoption of building information modeling within organization. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 04013014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Song, J. The relation of perceived benefits and organizational supports to user satisfaction with building information model (BIM). Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacks, R.; Koskela, L.; Dave, B.A.; Owen, R. Interaction of Lean and building information modeling in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 968–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Yami, A.; Sanni-Anibire, M.O. Bim in the Saudi Arabian construction industry: State of the art, benefit and barriers. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2019, 39, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T.; Noyes, J. An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1645–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, F.Y.; Hartmann, A.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Dulaimi, M. Influences on innovation benefits during implementation: Client’s perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, Y.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Sepasgozar, S.; Akbarnezhad, A. Bim adoption model for small and medium construction organisations in Australia. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 26, 154–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, R.; Hancock, C.; Tang, L.; Chen, C.; Wanatowski, D.; Yang, L. Empirical study of BIM implementation–based perceptions among Chinese practitioners. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, D.; Wang, G.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M.; Huang, T.; Zhang, W. Practices and effectiveness of building information modelling in construction projects in China. Autom. Constr. 2015, 49, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hypotheses | Definition |
---|---|
H1a | There is a significant, positive relationship between Total Quality and Perceived Usefulness |
H1b | There is a significant, positive relationship between Total Quality and Perceived Ease of Use |
H2a | There is a significant, positive relationship between Operational Efficiency and Perceived Usefulness |
H2b | There is a significant, positive relationship between Operational Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use |
H3a | There is a significant, positive relationship between Innovativeness and Perceived Usefulness |
H3b | There is a significant, positive relationship between Innovativeness and Perceived Ease of Use |
H4a | There is a significant, positive relationship between Organizational Efficiency and Perceived Usefulness |
H4b | There is a significant, positive relationship between Organizational Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use |
H5a | There is a significant, positive relationship between Financial Aspects and Perceived Usefulness |
H5b | There is a significant, positive relationship between Financial Aspects and Perceived Ease of Use |
H6 | There is a significant, positive relationship between Perceived Usefulness and Individual Usage Acceptance |
H7 | There is a significant, positive relationship between Perceived Usefulness and Organizational Usage Acceptance |
H8 | There is a significant, positive relationship between Perceived Ease of Use and Individual Usage Acceptance |
H9 | There is a significant, positive relationship between Perceived Ease of Use and Organizational Usage Acceptance |
Characteristics | Category | N | % |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 197 | 69.366% |
Female | 87 | 30.634% | |
Age | 18–24 | 13 | 4.577% |
25–34 | 100 | 35.211% | |
35–44 | 120 | 42.254% | |
45–54 | 44 | 15.493% | |
55 and above | 7 | 2.465% | |
Educational Background | Diploma Course | 15 | 5.282% |
Bachelor’s Degree | 227 | 79.930% | |
Master’s Degree | 39 | 13.732% | |
Doctoral Degree | 3 | 1.056% | |
Job Position/Role | Project Manager | 28 | 9.859% |
Architect | 70 | 24.648% | |
Engineer | 64 | 22.535% | |
Contractor | 38 | 13.380% | |
BIM Specialist | 51 | 17.958% | |
Vendor/Supplier | 33 | 11.620% | |
Experience on Construction Industry | Less than 1 year | 5 | 1.761% |
1–5 years | 18 | 6.338% | |
6–10 years | 123 | 43.310% | |
11–15 years | 82 | 28.873% | |
More than 15 years | 56 | 19.718% | |
Company/Organizational Size | Small (1–50 employees) | 48 | 16.901% |
Medium (51–250 employees) | 121 | 42.606% | |
Large (251–1000 employees) | 57 | 20.070% | |
Enterprise (1000+ employees) | 58 | 20.423% |
Latent | Mean | STD | Factor Loading | CR | AVE | CA | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial | Final | ||||||
TQ1 | 3.982 | 0.464 | 0.638 | 0.649 | 0.837 | 0.508 | 0.803 |
TQ2 | 4.173 | 0.608 | 0.736 | 0.736 | |||
TQ3 | 4.159 | 0.806 | 0.745 | 0.733 | |||
TQ4 | 4.042 | 0.765 | 0.714 | 0.718 | |||
TQ5 | 4.109 | 0.717 | 0.726 | 0.723 | |||
IN1 | 4.060 | 0.612 | 0.672 | 0.681 | 0.846 | 0.525 | 0.812 |
IN2 | 4.092 | 0.692 | 0.772 | 0.769 | |||
IN3 | 4.130 | 0.743 | 0.659 | 0.676 | |||
IN4 | 4.011 | 0.691 | 0.695 | 0.691 | |||
IN5 | 3.930 | 0.758 | 0.790 | 0.797 | |||
OF1 | 4.049 | 0.562 | 0.697 | 0.707 | 0.840 | 0.513 | 0.758 |
OF2 | 4.074 | 0.616 | 0.686 | 0.714 | |||
OF3 | 4.028 | 0.936 | 0.797 | 0.802 | |||
OF4 | 4.081 | 0.665 | 0.652 | 0.648 | |||
OF5 | 4.067 | 0.687 | 0.705 | 0.700 | |||
FA1 | 3.933 | 0.645 | 0.748 | 0.752 | 0.834 | 0.502 | 0.832 |
FA2 | 4.106 | 0.700 | 0.682 | 0.688 | |||
FA3 | 4.028 | 0.765 | 0.699 | 0.690 | |||
FA4 | 3.997 | 0.711 | 0.712 | 0.717 | |||
FA5 | 4.039 | 0.705 | 0.696 | 0.694 | |||
PU1 | 4.049 | 0.633 | 0.704 | 0.669 | 0.878 | 0.507 | 0.867 |
PU2 | 4.053 | 0.673 | 0.742 | 0.707 | |||
PU3 | 4.078 | 0.714 | 0.734 | 0.706 | |||
PU4 | 4.113 | 0.694 | 0.723 | 0.701 | |||
PU5 | 3.951 | 0.707 | 0.786 | 0.758 | |||
PU6 | 4.014 | 0.672 | 0.739 | 0.719 | |||
PU7 | 4.060 | 0.703 | 0.744 | 0.719 | |||
PE1 | 3.975 | 0.626 | 0.747 | 0.763 | 0.857 | 0.550 | 0.845 |
PE2 | 4.102 | 0.733 | 0.458 | - | |||
PE3 | 3.986 | 0.761 | 0.519 | 0.542 | |||
PE4 | 4.063 | 0.670 | 0.614 | 0.713 | |||
PE5 | 4.032 | 0.648 | 0.889 | 0.838 | |||
PE6 | 3.979 | 0.733 | 0.819 | 0.816 | |||
UA1 | 3.989 | 0.609 | 0.847 | 0.808 | 0.837 | 0.510 | 0.866 |
UA2 | 4.130 | 0.683 | 0.455 | - | |||
UA3 | 4.049 | 0.697 | 0.786 | 0.752 | |||
UA4 | 4.099 | 0.644 | 0.446 | - | |||
UA5 | 4.042 | 0.732 | 0.717 | 0.718 | |||
UA6 | 4.014 | 0.688 | 0.787 | 0.724 | |||
UA7 | 4.074 | 0.676 | 0.548 | 0.541 | |||
OA1 | 3.993 | 0.606 | 0.848 | 0.873 | 0.885 | 0.610 | 0.870 |
OA2 | 4.106 | 0.664 | 0.579 | 0.579 | |||
OA3 | 4.063 | 0.763 | 0.752 | 0.761 | |||
OA4 | 4.144 | 0.665 | 0.877 | 0.872 | |||
OA5 | 4.099 | 0.701 | 0.789 | 0.782 | |||
OA6 | 4.078 | 0.694 | 0.566 | - | |||
OA7 | 4.120 | 0.672 | 0.454 | - | |||
OE1 | 4.035 | 0.581 | 0.744 | - | |||
OE2 | 4.085 | 0.651 | 0.695 | - | |||
OE3 | 4.123 | 0.790 | 0.657 | - | |||
OE4 | 3.989 | 0.685 | 0.667 | - | |||
OE5 | 4.028 | 0.737 | 0.774 | - |
Goodness of Fit Measures | Parameter Estimates | Minimum Cut-Off | Suggested by |
---|---|---|---|
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) | 0.831 | >0.80 | [47] |
Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) | 0.886 | >0.80 | [47] |
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | 0.826 | >0.80 | [47] |
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) | 0.839 | >0.80 | [47] |
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) | 0.808 | >0.80 | [47] |
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.066 | <0.07 | [48] |
No. | Variable | Direct Effect | p-Value | Indirect Effect | p-Value | Total Effect | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | FA → PEOU | 0.757 | 0.019 | - | - | 0.757 | 0.019 |
2 | FA → PU | 0.740 | 0.015 | - | - | 0.740 | 0.015 |
3 | OF → PEOU | 0.573 | 0.008 | - | - | 0.573 | 0.008 |
4 | OF → PU | 0.661 | 0.005 | - | - | 0.661 | 0.005 |
5 | IN → PEOU | 0.188 | 0.040 | - | - | 0.188 | 0.040 |
6 | TQ → PEOU | 0.288 | 0.008 | - | - | 0.288 | 0.008 |
7 | TQ → PU | 0.540 | 0.004 | - | - | 0.540 | 0.004 |
8 | PEOU → OA | 0.930 | 0.002 | - | - | 0.930 | 0.002 |
9 | PEOU → UA | 0.822 | 0.007 | - | - | 0.822 | 0.007 |
10 | PU → OA | 0.166 | 0.026 | - | - | 0.166 | 0.026 |
11 | PU → UA | 0.222 | 0.034 | - | - | 0.222 | 0.034 |
12 | FA → OA | - | - | 0.827 | 0.010 | 0.827 | 0.010 |
13 | FA → UA | - | - | 0.786 | 0.012 | 0.786 | 0.012 |
14 | OF → OA | - | - | 0.642 | 0.006 | 0.642 | 0.006 |
15 | OF → UA | - | - | 0.617 | 0.010 | 0.617 | 0.010 |
16 | IN → OA | - | - | 0.175 | 0.039 | 0.175 | 0.039 |
17 | IN → UA | - | - | 0.155 | 0.043 | 0.155 | 0.043 |
18 | TQ → OA | - | - | 0.357 | 0.010 | 0.357 | 0.010 |
19 | TQ → UA | - | - | 0.356 | 0.012 | 0.356 | 0.012 |
Hypotheses No. | Relationship | Decision |
---|---|---|
1 | TQ → PU | Accepted |
2 | TQ → PEOU | Accepted |
3 | OE → PU | Not supported |
4 | OE → PEOU | Not supported |
5 | IN → PU | Not supported |
6 | IN → PEOU | Accepted |
7 | OF → PU | Accepted |
8 | OF → PEOU | Accepted |
9 | FA → PU | Accepted |
10 | FA → PEOU | Accepted |
11 | PU → UA | Accepted |
12 | PU → OA | Accepted |
13 | PEOU → UA | Accepted |
14 | PEOU → OA | Accepted |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vitente, L.S.; Ong, A.K.S.; German, J.D. Assessment of Adoption and Acceptance of Building Information Modeling for Building Construction among Industries in Qatar. Buildings 2024, 14, 1433. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051433
Vitente LS, Ong AKS, German JD. Assessment of Adoption and Acceptance of Building Information Modeling for Building Construction among Industries in Qatar. Buildings. 2024; 14(5):1433. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051433
Chicago/Turabian StyleVitente, Louiesito S., Ardvin Kester S. Ong, and Josephine D. German. 2024. "Assessment of Adoption and Acceptance of Building Information Modeling for Building Construction among Industries in Qatar" Buildings 14, no. 5: 1433. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051433
APA StyleVitente, L. S., Ong, A. K. S., & German, J. D. (2024). Assessment of Adoption and Acceptance of Building Information Modeling for Building Construction among Industries in Qatar. Buildings, 14(5), 1433. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051433