2.1. Terms and Concepts
Technology is generally defined as a technological solution in the context of construction industry. For example, it refers to tools, machines, and modifications to these tools that are used to achieve a project goal and perform a specific function or may resolve a problem in the context of the construction industry [
8,
9]. Technology in construction generally embraces digital devices, spatial analysis systems, hand tools and excavation equipment and any combination of resources used in the process of construction operation from design to construction and demolition [
10,
11,
12]. In this paper, Virtual Information Modeling (VIM) refers to two widely used concepts in the construction literature: virtual design and construction and building information modeling.
The Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) defines virtual design and construction as the use of multi-disciplinary performance models covering design to construction, including the facilities, work processes and organization of the design and construction teams in order to support the construction project objectives. This concept allows a construction practitioner to build symbolic models of the building, design organization and the design or construction processes early before a large commitment to the client is made. Thus this supports mainly design and construction managers in terms of the description, evaluation, prediction and decisions about a project’s scope, organization and schedule with virtual methods [
7].
A three-stage maturity model of development has been suggested for VIM by Khanzode, Fischer et al. [
7]: (i) The first stage is visualization which was illustrated by using two-dimensional (2D) approaches such as CPM (Critical Path Method) and bar charts. The aim of visualization is to represent design and rehearse construction processes through visual simulation, three-dimensional (3D) technologies and virtual reality; (ii) The second stage of VIM is integration which aims to integrate various processes and different disciplines involved in a project; (iii) The third stage of VIM is automation which aims to automate some of the tasks in the design and construction processes. Currently, design and construction planning are creative work undertaken exclusively by humans; VIM provides a good platform for this work [
7].
As defined in National BIM Standard (NBIMS) issued by building SMART alliance
® defines BIM as “a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility” [
13]. Building Information Modeling was utilized by practitioners as a significant opportunity in the architecture, engineering and construction industry. It is an emerging concept which is known as a solution to facilitate the integration and management of information throughout the building life cycle. Previous studies presented several case studies and applications of this technology [
14,
15,
16].
The scope of the definition of virtual design and construction is broader than that of building information modeling, but both concepts give us a comprehensive view of utilizing a new technology for both design and construction at different levels of office and project. The building information modeling concept tends to cluster around a 3D model and visualize the technical aspects of a project, virtual design and construction encompasses multi-disciplinary use of the models and social methods for achieving the project goals. The virtual design and construction also stresses the loop between defining objectives and rendering solutions with optimization and automation. Hence while building information modeling and virtual design and construction share similar characteristics, there are subtle additions to virtual design and construction in regard to the scope of modeling, the drivers of modeling, and social methods for leveraging those models, making it more comprehensive and holistic than building information modeling. However, since many entities and individual projects across the industry set forth their own definition of building information modeling, some may argue that building information modeling also includes these additional characteristics. With this understanding in mind, i.e., with a broader definition of building information modeling that matches virtual design and construction, both concepts the virtual design and construction and building information modeling, namely VIM can be represent all relevant technologies in construction [
17].
While previous concepts pointed out to the technology itself, and the applications, they did not give an insight into the process of the technology acceptance in a specific context. According to Rogers [
18], technology acceptance is defined as a series of steps taken in the technology utilization process. In this process, a technology user passes through the process results in accepting or rejecting the utilization of the VIM technology. Sepasgozar et al. [
19] classifies the technology adoption into three major clusters from different perspectives: (i) Socio-economic perspective [
20]; (ii) managerial perspective [
8]; and (iii) psychological perspective [
21,
22]. Studies that take a socio-economic perspective such as Rogers [
18] focused on profiling the users of particular technologies in different disciplines. Rogers [
20] suggested that technology acceptance occurs within a social system, where potential adopters communicate with each other based on a variety of attitudes towards technology utilization. Roger’s formative model includes five groups of technology adopters: innovators; early adopters; early majority adopters; late majority adopters; and laggards. The key concept of this theory relies on the concept of innovation relative to individual behavior, their relationships in a social context, and communication. Research in construction adopted the concepts and applied them in a way similar to other industries.
While there is some attempt to identify the barriers of technology adoption, the construction industry continues to lag in utilizing new technologies, and is generally adverse to change as discussed by Nicolini [
23]; Bowden et al. [
2]; Nikas et al. [
24]; Harty [
25]; Sepasgozar et al. [
26], Milliou and Petrakis [
27]. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research [
28] indicates that the construction technology index is significantly lower than any other industries. This index had a large fell by 18.2% between 2005 and 2006. For example, Hinsch et al. [
29] studied on photovoltaic modules in Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) and reported that the Dye Solar Cells (DSC) is investigated as a new technology since 15 years. Hinsch [
30] wondered why only a small portion of the photovoltaic modules was adopted by builders in construction market so far, when the photovoltaic application has a strong market in overall. Cleveland [
31] identified a group of emerging technologies that may enable construction projects and support construction operation in the field. However, he concluded that there are significant barriers to be investigated and challenges to be addressed and several hurdles to overcome for adoption. The adverseness to risk and the technology acceptance lag is due to many reasons such as the stakeholders expectations and communication, variability of a project’s expertise, the uniqueness of the technology [
32] and the nature of industry itself [
33] e.g., in developing country. These reasons make the construction industry very different compared to other industries. This is extradited since the technology acceptance and utilization processes in construction is not clearly understood, while they are mature streams in other disciplines such as Information System (see: Vessey et al. [
34]; Venkatesh et al. [
35]).
The main concept of technology acceptance goes back to decades ago when Howard and Moore ([
36], p. 34) found that the technology users’ path to a utilization decision consists of a series of mental or behavioral steps that potential adopters pass through. This might be coupled with organizational factors when we analyze the adoption process including benefits and challenges at the project level. Here, Adoption description reveals the necessary steps to introduce a product into the daily operations of an organization [
37]. A well-known psychological model of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) developed by Ajzen and Fishbein [
38] is concerned with the indicators of conscious intention and users attitude towards a behavior.
Davis et al. [
21] developed their model based on the Theory of Reasoned Action, namely technology acceptance model including two main contracts presented in
Figure 1. These constructions are useful to predict individual behavior applied to the field of VIM technology. Sepasgozar et al. [
19] analyzed technology acceptance model, as a predictor of the an information technology acceptance. The main constructions are usefulness and ease of use.
2.2. The Gap of Understanding Construction Technology Adopters at Organizational Level
The literature ignored to continue investigating the barriers and drivers of technology acceptance mainly VIM in developing countries. Since we understate the subjectivity of the barriers as perceived by their participants, it is no surprise that they overlooked some fundamental factors relevant to the context including developing countries in the literature of innovation adoption. The innovation diffusion literature [
18] emphasize that (a) technology acceptance is based the perception that the VIM meets (or fails to meet) a desired level of utilization; and then (b) the process of reducing the uncertainty of the perceived acceptance of VIM is largely depends on individuals interactions in a project or organization, which is a peer to peer process. This concept poorly understood in the literature. For example, Rahman’s [
39] deduction that a policy intervention may give a better information dissemination about the benefits of modern methods in construction is valuable. However, as mentioned above, they omitted the fact that some companies may be the wrong target market for such a policy, and also overlooked the fact that many of the relevant stakeholders already communicate with each other via site visits and social media, and exhibitions.
In order to extend the body of knowledge, it is essential to consider previous scientific investigations in the field of technology adoption. The paper by Rahman [
39] demonstrates how neglecting established work in the innovation literature may lead to significant confusion. According to Rahman [
39], the technology acceptance model can be seen as a series of stages in the utilizing process through which the technology user passes.
The OECD reports [
40] indicate that the construction industry is one of the highest of almost 30 industries in terms of its sourcing modules from intermediaries. Sepasgozar et al. [
41] carefully examined the literature and points to the poor understanding of the technology adoption process in the construction literature. For example, Rahman [
39] contextualizes a claim of low modern methods in construction uptake by identifying that 7% of low rise multifamily homes are built by using modern methods in construction, the author also identifies that modern methods in construction are inappropriate for small scale projects, because of (a) the high overhead costs of utilizing a modern method and (b) the high cost per unit when quantities of technology applications is low. If the adoption of modern methods in construction is not beneficial for small companies. Therefore, promoting a new technology and its application and benefits to them may actually be counterproductive and contribute to technology failure or the company failure.
Figure 2 categorizes factors derived from the literature which will be used for developing the criteria for identifying VIM benefits and challenges.
Existing research in construction has considered the financial aspects of technology selection using conventional investment justification, and the implementation and evaluation of particular technologies [
42,
43]. Whereas many typologies of adoption have been ignored such as process innovation, and barriers of technological administrative innovations. In addition, stakeholders and individuals, specifically technological gatekeepers, who attempt to find and get aware from a new technology, have important roles and may significantly influence the adoption. Scholars such as Slaughter [
44]; Stewart and Tatum [
45] investigated several innovations, and they pointed that innovators such as idea generator who face to a challenge in a construction project also may significantly influence the technology adoption, and can be a gatekeeper, e.g., an innovative designer in a contractor organization. A summary of benefits of implementing the virtual design and construction approach are classified according to nine areas of project management knowledge [
46] are shown if
Table 1.
A summary of challenges of implementing the VIM are classified according to several areas of project management knowledge [
46] are shown in
Table 2.
Table 1 and
Table 2 present that scholars have conducted research to come up with the benefits and challenges of VIM implementation in AEC industry considering project management knowledge areas [
3,
4]. The issue of prioritization of project management knowledge areas for benefits and challenges of VIM implementation is still controversial and to date there is little agreement on what project management knowledge areas need to be focused more in compare with other areas for maximizing the benefits and minimizing the challenges of VIM implementation. No research has been found to prioritize the benefits and challenges of VIM implementation based on project management knowledge areas.