Development and Application of Safety Technology

Adoption Decision-Making Tool

Chukwuma Nnaji, A.M.ASCE 1; John Gambatese, M.ASCE 2;
Ali Karakhan, S.M.ASCE 3; and Robert Osei-Kyei 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The need to enhance worker safety in construction has often studied recently due to the high rates of fatalities and injuries in the
construction industry. To abate this scourge, various control methods including the use of technology have been adopted to improve work-
place safety performance in construction. However, not all of the technologies adopted by industry personnel for safety management have
achieved the desired outcome or have proved to be effective. More research is needed regarding the adoption of safety technologies in the
construction industry. Importantly, industry stakeholders need to evaluate their readiness to adopt safety technologies. The present study
develops a decision-making tool that can aid in the adoption of safety technology in the construction industry. The safety technology decision-
making adoption tool is developed using the fuzzy synthetic evaluation technique and consists of three categories of safety technology
predictors: external, organization, and technology-related. Technology-based predictors have emerged as the most impactful predictor.
Subsequently, a technology adoption assessment protocol was developed and applied to a case study to assess an organization’s readiness
to adopt wearable sensing devices. The present work contributes to the body of knowledge by identifying, quantifying, and categorizing
predictors of technology adoption and then integrating the predictors into an evaluation protocol to assess the adoption of safety tech-
nologies in the construction industry. This contribution is translated into practice by developing a user-friendly tool called the Construction
Safety Technology Adoption Index (C-STAI). The developed tool is expected to help construction professionals and practitioners make
informed decisions regarding the adoption of safety technology. Improved technology adoption in construction is expected to lead to
enhanced safety and reduce injuries on construction projects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001808. © 2020 American Society
of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Innovation is considered a primary means of improving company
and project performance within the construction industry
(Gambatese and Hallowell 2011). As investment in information
and technology research and development increases in most indus-
tries, the development and use of advanced technology to support
work operations are expected to increase as well. That being said,
the construction industry lags behind most industries in the devel-
opment and implementation of technology (Barbosa et al. 2017).
Peansupap and Walker (2005) stated that the construction industry
is a traditional and technology-stagnant industry. This characteristic
could be one industry feature contributing to the low productivity
and unsafe nature of construction operations (Choudhry 2017;
1 tion innovation (NRC 2009). A readiness index would help
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Alabama, 3043 HM Comer, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3725-4376.
Email: cnnaji@eng.ua.edu
2
Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State
Univ., 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331. ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0003-3540-6441. Email: john.gambatese@oregonstate.edu
3
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Oregon State Univ., 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331. Email:
karakhaa@oregonstate.edu
4
Lecturer, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics,
Western Sydney Univ., Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia. Email: r.osei-kyei@
westernsydney.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 19, 2019; approved on
October 4, 2019; published online on February 14, 2020. Discussion period
open until July 14, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
Barbosa et al. 2017). Results from a recent study indicate that the
increased use of safety technologies and prevention through design
(PtD) are two trends with the most potential to improve worker safety
in construction (SmartMarket 2017). Moreover, Karakhan et al.
(2018) posited that the use of safety technologies enhances the over-
all safety maturity of a construction organization. The overarching
goal of the present research was to build on this finding by creating a
tool to improve safety technology adoption in construction.
Adopting and implementing a new technology in construction
can be associated with significant capital expenditures and reoccur-
ring costs (Goodrum et al. 2011), and this is a primary reason
behind slow technology integration and adoption in construction
(Goodrum et al. 2011). According to the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology (NIST), there is a critical need for a readiness
index for assessing high-cost, high-risk, and high-impact construc-
decision-makers arrive at a congruent decision whether to fund,
or not fund, the adoption and implementation of a new technology,
thereby saving significant cost and time associated with technology
integration. The aim of the present study is to develop a tool that
could be used to assess the potential adoption of a safety technol-
ogy in the construction industry. Utilizing data from previous
efforts of the researchers (Nnaji et al. 2018, 2019a; Osei-Kyei and
Chan 2017) and adapting frameworks proposed by other research-
ers allowed for the development of a technology adoption decision-
support tool for safety management in construction. The proposed
tool is called the Construction Safety Technology Adoption Index
(C-STAI). It should be mentioned that safety technology is defined
in the present study as any technology (e.g., information technol-
ogy, digitalization, and sensing devices) used to monitor and
improve safety management and/or performance in construction
throughout the project lifecycle. The findings of this study are

© ASCE 04020028-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

 expected to facilitate and improve safety technology adoption in
construction and, as a result, provide a significant practical contri-
bution to industry stakeholders.
Review of Technologies in Construction Safety
Research and Practice
Safety technologies in construction are primarily used to improve
worker safety during the operation phase of a project. However, these
technologies could be used in different phases of a project through-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
out its lifecycle to maximize safety performance. Szymberski (1997)
suggested that the ability to mitigate workplace construction hazards
is substantially greater during the early stages of the project lifecycle
(e.g., design and planning). Relatedly, Karakhan et al. (2019) sum-
marized the different technological controls used for safety in con-
struction and found that technologies used during the planning and
design stage, such as virtual reality and building information mod-
eling (BIM), are more effective in mitigating workplace hazards than
other alternatives used after construction begins.
Zhou et al. (2013) reviewed the application of advanced tech-
nologies in construction safety management research. Results from
the study identified approximately 30 types of technologies used in
safety management based on appearance in the existing literature.
According to Zhou et al. (2013), publications related to safety
management technology in the building construction sector have
increased by 280% from 2002 to 2012.
Perlman et al. (2014) conducted an experimental study to exam-
ine the impact of virtual reality technologies on hazard identifica-
tion. Findings from the study indicated that virtual reality could
improve worker safety through early detection of potential hazards.
Furthermore, other studies have assessed the utility of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, in safety manage-
ment applications (Irizarry et al. 2012; Gheisari et al. 2014; Zhou
and Gheisari 2018). Results from these studies suggest that UAVs
could be used to effectively conduct safety inspections, identify fall
hazards, and enable real-time communication. Moreover, UAVs are
used to perform reality capture, especially in high-risk situations to
eliminate worker exposure to the hazards (Şerban et al. 2016).
The use of exoskeletons, another innovative technology, to re-
duce work-related musculoskeletal disorders has recently received
momentum in the construction safety domain. Cho et al. (2018) and
Wang et al. (2017) examined the potential usefulness of exoskel-
etons in construction safety and developed a passive exoskeleton
for lifting operations in construction. Another category of safety
technology that has also received substantial attention in construc-
tion research is wearable sensing devices (WSDs). WSDs, such as
smart helmets and smart vests, are considered effective safety tools
due to their inexpensive price and high usability (Awolusi et al.
2018). Choi et al. (2017) evaluated the key features that influence
the adoption of WSDs and found that the invasion of privacy due to
the consistent location tracking on the jobsite is perceived by work-
ers as a primary factor hindering acceptance of such a technology in
practice. The study also found that prior experience with and ease
of use of WSDs are primary factors facilitating the adoption of such
a technology. Table 1 provides a summary of safety technologies
and their benefits.
Given that the presence of construction safety technologies
among available literature does not imply the actual use of the tech-
nologies, it is essential to investigate the actual use of the safety
technologies in the construction industry. A study conducted by
Borhani (2016) suggested that although the use of emerging tech-
nologies for safety management only began in 2009, the rate of use
apparently increased between 2013 and 2016. Moreover, Borhani’s
© ASCE 04020028-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
study indicates that the top three technologies used by construction
contractors are safety-specific software applications, information
and communication technology (ICT) devices, and BIM. A recent
report released by SmartMarket (2017) assessed the current state of
construction safety management in the United States. Of the 334
participating contractors, approximately 50% indicated previous or
current use of BIM for safety management purposes. Of those con-
tractors using BIM, 69% indicated that BIM had a positive impact
on worker safety. Eighty-two percent of respondents indicated that
BIM’s ability to assist safety managers and workers to identify
potential site hazards prior to construction commencement was
the primary feature of BIM with respect to safety. In terms of the
application of emerging safety technologies such as WSDs, laser
scanning, robotics, virtual reality, photogrammetry, and drones,
62% of the sampled construction contractors do not use any of
these technologies for performing safety activities (SmartMarket
2017). To be specific, only 13%, 14%, and 21% of participants
indicated using WSDs, laser scanning, and drones, respectively,
for safety applications. However, the same responding contractors
indicated that WSDs, laser scanning, and drones could have a sig-
nificant positive impact on worker safety, but they have yet to use
such technologies for safety management.
Point of Departure
Based on the previous review of recent studies, there is currently an
influx of technologies that could be applied in worker safety man-
agement. However, only a limited number of contractors use these
technologies for managing construction worker safety; that is, a sig-
nificant portion of construction organizations does not implement
commercially-available safety technologies. Some reasons behind
the low safety technology adoption rate include the relatively high
cost of such technologies, worker resistance to using new technol-
ogies, technology uncertainty, and technology interoperability with
existing processes (Borhani 2016). Furthermore, the construction in-
dustry lacks empirically supported multi-criteria decision-support
tools for guiding complex decision-making such as safety technol-
ogy adoption (Haymaker et al. 2013). According to Haymaker et al.
(2013), the decision process models currently in use in the construc-
tion industry rely primarily on using personal experience which, in
itself, is insufficient to arrive at a sound decision. It is argued in the
literature that utilizing empirically-backed decision-support tools
leads to congruent decision-making (Suhr 1999), thereby ensuring
reduced cost and time associated with integrating the safety technol-
ogy into work processes (Nnaji et al. 2018). As multi-criteria analysis
has the capacity to influence the successful adoption of a safety tech-
nology, it is essential to provide practical and sound multi-criteria
decision-making tools to support technology adoption decisions.
A review of available literature showed that most technology adop-
tion research in the construction industry is focused on utilizing
adoption (or acceptance) models to understand factors that influence
the actual use of a technology (Lee et al. 2015; Choi et al. 2017; Son
et al. 2012; Lee and Yu 2016; Park et al. 2012), rather than the
decision-making process to determine whether a technology should
be adopted or not. As a result, these studies suffer from a lack of
extended utility beyond the limited scope of the specific technology
being assessed and a lack of capacity to inform multi-criteria
decision-making—which is a critical need in the construction
industry.
To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, only a limited number
of studies have focused on developing decision-support tools for in-
tegrating safety technology into construction operations. However,
past studies that developed multi-criteria decision-support tools
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 1. Benefits associated with using safety technologies
Technology
Building information
modeling
Unmanned aerial vehicles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Safety benefit
Utilized in the design, planning, construction, and
maintenance phases to:
• Improve hazard recognition and identification.
• Enhance safety planning, awareness, or communication.
• Improve safety inspections.
Utilized in the planning, construction, and maintenance
phases to:
• Improve hazard recognition and identification.
Sources
Karakhan et al. (2018), Martinez-Aires et al. (2018), and
Tang et al. (2019)
Irizarry et al. (2012), Gheisari et al. (2014) Şerban et al.
(2016), Alizadehsalehi et al. (2018), Zhou and Gheisari
(2018), and Gheisari and Esmaeili (2019), and Gheisari et al.

• Enhance safety planning, awareness, or communication. (2018)

Wearable sensing devices
Robotics and automation
Virtual reality and
augmented reality
Quick response codes
Radio frequency
identification
Work zone safety
technologies
Camera network systems
• Improve safety inspections.
Utilized in the construction and maintenance phases to: Guo et al. (2017), Jebelli et al. (2015, 2018a, b, c), Jebelli and
• Improve hazard recognition and identification. Lee (2019), Choi et al. (2017), Kanan et al. (2018), Hwang
• Enhance safety planning, awareness or communication. and Lee (2017), Antwi-Afari et al. (2018), Awolusi et al.
• Mitigate safety and health hazards. (2018), Yang et al. (2019), Ryu et al. (2019), and Hwang
et al. (2018)
Utilized in the construction, and maintenance phases to: Karakhan and Alsaffar (2019), Li et al. (2018), Cho et al.
• Enable hazard prevention or substitution. (2018), and Wang et al. (2017)
• Enhance safety planning, awareness or communication.
• Mitigate safety and health hazards.
Utilized in the design, planning, construction, and Kim et al. (2017), Li et al. (2018), and Perlman et al. (2014)
maintenance phase to:
• Improve hazard recognition and identification.
• Enhance safety planning, awareness, or communication.
Utilized in the construction and maintenance phase to: Karakhan and Alsaffar (2019), Awolusi et al. (2018), and
• Improve hazard recognition and identification. Tang et al. (2019)
• Enhance safety planning, awareness, or communication.
Utilized in the planning, construction, and maintenance Karakhan and Alsaffar (2019), Zhang et al. (2019a), and
phases to: Awolusi et al. (2018)
• Improve hazard recognition and identification.
• Enhance safety planning, awareness or communication.
• Improve physical workplace conditions.
• Improve on-site safety compliance.
Utilized in the construction and maintenance phases to: Awolusi and Marks (2019) and Nnaji et al. (2018)
• Improve hazard recognition and identification.
• Enhance safety planning and communication.
Utilized in the construction and maintenance phases to: Zhang et al. (2019b), Zhu et al. (2017), and Park and Brilakis
• Enhance safety planning, awareness or communication. (2012)
• Improve physical workplace conditions.
• Improve on-site safety compliance.

focused on choosing between different available safety technologies,
which is considered part of the implementation phase rather than the
adoption phase of the technology integration process (Rankin and
Luther 2006). For example, Nnaji et al. (2018) provided a systematic
approach to perform multi-criteria decision-making analysis to select
between different safety technologies for highway construction proj-
ects. Although noteworthy, utilizing a decision-support tool in the
adoption phase (before implementation starts) is more critical and
logically comes first (i.e., precedes implementation) in the full cycle
of technology integration (Grover and Goslar 1993; Rankin and
Luther 2006). Applying a decision-support tool in the adoption phase
would ensure that only alternatives of a particular safety technology
type that meet a pre-defined set of criteria are considered in the im-
plementation phase, thereby ensuring a more effective technology
integration process. Given the impetus for increased technology
adoption and the projected growth in technology development in
construction, developing empirically driven decision-support tools
that guide industry professionals involved in technology integration
in the construction industry is essential. The aim of the present study
is to fill this gap in knowledge and practice by developing a statisti-
cally robust process for assessing the potential adoption of a safety
technology.
Research Methodology
To achieve the aim and objectives of the present study, the research-
ers adopted a mixed-methods research approach that included a
literature review, industry survey, and case study. As depicted in
Fig. 1, multiple data analysis techniques were then used to extract
useful information from each data source. These analysis tech-
niques composed of the following: (1) mean scoring ranking and
factor analysis of the survey data; (2) fuzzy synthetic evaluation and
structural equation modeling of the survey data using the theory of
planned behavior (TPB), technology adoption model (TAM), and

© ASCE 04020028-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Research methodology and outputs.
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models as guidance; and
(3) descriptive statistical analysis of the case study data. The results
of all analyses were then integrated to create the Construction Safety
Technology Adoption Index. Using multiple, different research
methods is expected to improve the rigor and quality of the research
outcome as the methods chosen complement each other. The present
study’s overall research process is depicted in Fig. 1. However, due
to page limitations, the present study does not include information on
the predictor validation process. This information will be reported
elsewhere.
Review of Literature to Identify Technology
Adoption Predictors
An integrative literature review was performed to identify factors
influencing technology adoption decision-making in the construc-
tion industry. The authors systematically probed different databases
such as Scopus and Web of Science to identify studies that high-
lighted potential technology adoption predictors. Thirty-nine, out
of the 78 articles identified, were reviewed due to their relevance
to the present study. The results of the review process revealed 26
technology adoption predictors. These predictors were then con-
firmed and validated by a panel of subject-matter experts and a
group of industry professionals through a survey. A description
of the analysis process used to identify the safety technology adop-
tion predictors in construction is available in a prior publication
(Nnaji et al. 2019a). For the purpose of the present paper, the iden-
tified predictors are summarized in the Appendix (Nnaji et al.
2019a). The Appendix also provides more information about sup-
porting references for each predictor of safety technology adoption.
The authors further validated the predictive strength of the predic-
tors using several technology acceptance models (Mathieson et al.
2001; Chuttur 2009). The validation process and results are not in-
cluded in this publication due to page limit requirements. The iden-
tified and validated predictors were used to develop the intended
C-STAI for measuring the potential successful adoption of a safety
technology, as described in the following section.
© ASCE 04020028-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
Industry Survey to Determine the Importance of
Predictors and Assessment Items
An industry survey was designed by the researchers and approved
by Oregon State University’s (OSU) Institutional Review Board
(IRB) to establish the level of importance of each identified predic-
tor. The survey consisted of three primary sections. The first section
collected demographic information about the respondents. The
second part asked the respondents to rate the level of importance
of the 26 technology adoption predictors identified through the lit-
erature review. As part of the survey, the participants were provided
a definition of safety technology along with multiple examples of
safety technologies to ensure that the participants are aware of the
intent of the survey. In the last part, the respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement with technology acceptance as-
sessment items (e.g., “It will be easy to learn how to use wearable
sensing devices.”) for a case study that is described as follows. A
pilot survey was launched prior to the dissemination of the survey
questionnaire to determine face and internal validity. Subsequently,
the survey questionnaire was distributed nationwide to elicit re-
sponses from construction stakeholders. Approximately 2,200 sur-
vey questionnaires were distributed to construction personnel via
email. The potential participants were identified using two primary
sources: an OSU Civil and Construction Engineering Alumni list
serve (approximately 700 potential participants) and a construction
professional database managed by Qualtrics Analytics (approxi-
mately 1,500 potential participants). Qualtrics maintains an exten-
sive and robust database of professionals in different industries
including construction (Qualtrics 2018). Qualtrics Panel was se-
lected as a distribution channel to ensure that data was acquired
from different geographical regions throughout the United States,
thereby making it possible to generalize the results of the present
study to the entire US construction industry. A total of 337 survey
responses were received, and of which, 257 (76%) were sufficiently
completed. Only the complete responses (n ¼ 257) were used in
the analysis.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Data Analysis Tools
Quantitative data analysis tools were implemented to develop an
empirically supported decision-support tool. In particular, the mean
scoring ranking technique, factor analysis, and fuzzy synthetic
evaluation (FSE) were utilized to analyze the collected data. To im-
prove reliability, the research methodology was adapted from pre-
vious studies conducted by Mu et al. (2014), Osei-Kyei and Chan
(2017), and Hu et al. (2016).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mean Scoring Ranking Technique
Multiple studies within construction management have relied on a
mean scoring (MS) method to establish the relative importance of a
set of identified factors (Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017). This method
was utilized to analyze the data collected from the participants in
the present study. Specifically, the MS method was used to deter-
mine the importance of each of the 26 identified technology adop-
tion predictors. The MS for each predictor was calculated using a
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 where “1” represents not
important, “3” represents somewhat important, and “5” represents
extremely important. The MS for each predictor was calculated
using Eq. (1):
Ps
sipi
MS ¼ Pi¼1 s ð1Þ
i¼1 pi
where si = weight assigned to the ith response (si ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
for i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5); pi = frequency of the ith response; and i =
response category 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ranging from the least important
to the most important.
Factor Analysis
Given the impracticality of developing an adoption index using a
large number of standalone technology adoption predictors, it is
essential to categorize these predictors into manageable groups.
Utilizing a widely acceptable statistical approach to categorize these
predictors enhances the validity of the intended C-STAI. In the
present study, factor analysis (FA) was used to statistically identify
potential groups of technology adoption predictors. FA is considered
an effective statistical tool for identifying small groups from many
interrelated variables (Lee and Yu 2016). In addition to its capacity to
identify and interpret non-correlated element clusters, FA excels in
explaining complex phenomena (Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017). This
capability is especially valuable given the expected complexity as-
sociated with developing an adoption index for MCDM.
Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE)
Researchers have recently encouraged the use of FSE as an
effective statistical tool for developing measuring tools such as
multi-criteria decision-support frameworks (Hu et al. 2016; Osei-
Kyei and Chan 2017). FSE is a robust modeling technique used in
management and engineering research to quantify multi-levels,
multi-evaluations, and multi-attributes (Hu et al. 2016; Osei-Kyei
and Chan 2017). For instance, FSE was relied on as the primary
tool in studies related to risk assessment, project performance as-
sessment, project delivery assessment, and performance bench-
marking (Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017; Ameyaw and Chan 2015).
FSE’s strength lies in its ability to deal with issues associated
with subjective, vague, and imprecise information (objectify sub-
jective judgment) and its robustness against inadequacies in sample
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
size and sample techniques (Pedrycz et al. 2011). Typically, apply-
ing the FSE modeling process involves six primary steps (Hu et al.
2016; Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017):
1. Establish a basic set of predictors, Π ¼ fp1 ; p2 ; p3 : : : pn g
where p = identified technology adoption predictors; and n =
number of technology adoption predictors.
2. Label the set of rating alternatives as L ¼ fL1 ; L2 ; L3 : : : Ln g
where L = rating measurement scale; and n = number of cate-
gories in the measurement scale. The present study adopted a
5-point Likert scale (L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , and L5 ) where 1 = very low,
3 = moderate, and 5 = very high.
3. Determine a weighting (W) for each technology adoption pre-
dictor using Eq. (2):
Mi X
Wi ¼ P5 0 ≤ Wi ≤ 1; Wi ¼ 1 ð2Þ
i¼1 Mi
where
P Wi = weighting; Mi = mean score of a predictor; and
Wi ¼ 1 is the mean rating sum.
4. Apply an evaluation matrix (Ri) for every technology adoption
predictor
Ri ¼ ðrijÞmxn
where rij = degree to which alternative Lj satisfies the criterion
fj ; and m = mean score.
5. Evaluate the weighting vector and fuzzy evaluation matrix using
Eq. (3):
D ¼ Wi°Ri ð3Þ
where D = final FSE evaluation matrix; and ○ = fuzzy compo-
sition operator
6. Normalize the FSE matrix to develop the technology adoption
index (TAI) using Eq. (4):
X
5
TAI ¼ DxL ð4Þ
i¼1
where D = final FSE evaluation matrix; and L = the scale mea-
surement for the set of grade categories.
Data Analysis and Results
Demographic Information of Survey Participants
Review of the geographical distribution of the survey respondents
indicates that responses were received from 46 states spread across
the five regions in the United States (Northeast, Southeast, South-
west, Midwest, and West). Approximately 32% of the participants
have 20 or more years of experience in the construction industry.
The level of experience observed in the data is particularly impor-
tant since feedback from individuals with extensive experience is
valuable for framework development. Only approximately 3% of
the respondents had a year or less of work experience in the con-
struction industry at the time of the survey.
The survey asked the participants how often they are involved
in making purchasing decisions—including decisions to adopt
innovative ideas such as new technology. More than 50% of the
respondents indicated that they make such decisions frequently,
while only 7% of the respondents are not directly involved in mak-
ing purchasing and adoption decisions. The high level of partici-
pation in decision-making to adopt innovative strategies along
with the extensive experience level of the respondents provides
confidence in and reliability to the survey results.
04020028-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Selection of Critical Technology Adoption Predictors
Results from the descriptive analysis of the collected data indicate
that all predictors were rated above 3 (i.e., either highly or
extremely important) on a 5-point Likert scale. Table 2 shows
the mean rating and the rank (based on the mean rating) of each
predictor.
As shown in Table 2, technology reliability, proven effectiveness,
level of required training, technology durability, and having the re-
quired features are the five most important predictors as viewed by
the respondents, while technology brand is the least important out of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
initial list of 26 predictors, leaving only 19 predictors. The 19 key
predictors provide the information required to develop the C-STAI
using FSE. Basically, these 19 key predictors are the output of the
first step in the FSE process.
Factor Analysis
Two primary requirements have to be met prior to conducting a
valid FA. First, it is essential to determine variable-to-sample ratio
sufficiency. Past research in construction management suggests that
a ratio of 1:5 (i.e., five samples to each studied variable) is required

the 26 predictors. Although all 26 factors were rated relatively high

(i.e., mean rating above 3), the development of an index requires only (Hair et al. 1998; Lingard and Rowlinson 2006). The variable-
critically important variables to be included in the index (Chan et al. to-sample ratio for the present study is approximately 1:13 (257
2010). Hence, only predictors with a relatively high level of impor- respondents and 19 variables), exceeding the minimum threshold
tance should be selected. One method for determining critical factors proposed by previous studies. Second, it is paramount to assess
is through normalizing the mean values obtained from a descriptive the relationship strength among the variables (Pallant 2001). The
analysis (Ameyaw and Chan 2015). Normalization typically in- existing literature suggests evaluating the relationships (correlation)
volves assessing the importance of each predictor relative to other using Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Myer–Olkin (KMO)
predictors being evaluated [i.e., normalized value ¼ ðactual value − index (Xu et al. 2010) for sampling adequacy. To meet Bartlett’s test
min: valueÞ=ðmax: value − min: valueÞ]. of sphericity, a p-value of less than 0.05 is required. The obtainable
Consistent with past studies (Xu et al. 2010; Chan et al. 2015), KMO value ranges from 0 to 1, where values greater than 0.5 are
predictors with normalization values equal to or above 0.5 are re- considered sufficient (Norusis 2008). The analysis revealed statisti-
tained while predictors with normalization values below 0.5 are cally significant evidence (p-value ¼ 0.001) of a KMO value above
dropped. Therefore, the predictors “Potential level of resistance from the threshold (KMO ¼ 0.931), satisfying both requirements.
employees,” “Industry-level change requires technology adoption,” Using the SPSS software package 24 (SPSS, IBM, Armonk,
“Capital cost of technology,” “Direct competitors adopt similar tech- New York), a principal component extraction with varimax rotation
nology,” “Organization’s technology budget,” “Partners adopt simi- was executed. Varimax rotation was selected due to its ability to
lar technology,” and “Technology brand” were dropped from the simplify interpretation and the lack of high inter-correlation be-
tween components (Pallant 2007). Following seven iterations, three
categories, which accounted for 59% of the variance in responses
Table 2. Mean rating and criticality of technology adoption predictors
received, were extracted, as shown in Table 3. These categories
(n ¼ 257) were named Technology Predictors (Category 1), Organizational
Predictors (Category 2), and External Predictors (Category 3)
Mean Normalization based on the characteristics of the predictors within each category.
Technology adoption predictors rating SD Rank value
In addition, the categorization chosen as an outcome of the FA is
Technology reliability 4.33 0.87 1 1.00 similar to the technology-organization-environment framework
Proven technology effectiveness 4.19 0.89 2 0.87 extensively used in information systems research (Baker 2012).
Level of training required 4.18 0.95 3 0.86
According to Hair et al. (2010), each category should have an
Technology durability 4.18 0.90 3 0.86
Having the required features 4.17 0.85 5 0.85
eigenvalue greater than 1.0. Based on the analysis result (shown in
Level of complexity 4.13 0.98 6 0.81 Table 3), the eigenvalues for all categories are greater than 1.0.
Level of technical support required 4.13 0.89 6 0.81 The correlation between variables (the predictors in this case)
Level of technical support available 4.08 0.89 8 0.76 within the categories called the factor loading. For instance,
Client demand to use a technology 4.01 0.99 9 0.70 the level of correlation between “Having the required features”
Triability 3.99 0.92 10 0.68 and “Category 1” is 0.635. According to Norusis (2008), a factor
Observability 3.98 0.91 11 0.67 loading above 0.5 suggests acceptable correlation. Only one pre-
Organization culture 3.97 1.01 12 0.66 dictor (“Level of complexity”) out of the 19 has a factor loading
Competitive advantage 3.93 0.93 13 0.62
Versatility 3.93 0.97 13 0.62
below 0.5. Although below the threshold, the factor loading of
Potential cost savings 3.90 1.08 15 0.59 “Level of complexity” is relatively high (0.473) and was therefore
Peer Influence 3.88 0.92 16 0.57 retained.
Top management degree of 3.87 1.03 17 0.56 In addition, a reliability test was conducted using Cronbach’s
involvement coefficient alpha model to ensure internal consistency among
Level of compatibility with current 3.83 1.07 18 0.52 the predictors. First, data reliability was assessed among the pre-
processes dictors within each proposed category followed by an overall reli-
Government policy and regulation 3.81 1.08 19 0.50 ability test for all 19 predictors. According to Nunnally (1978) and
Potential level of resistance from 3.78 1.03 20 0.48
Hair et al. (2010), an alpha coefficient greater than 0.6 suggests
employees
Industry-level change requires 3.78 0.97 20 0.48 acceptable internal consistency among responses received from
technology adoption participants. The alpha coefficient values for the Technology Pre-
Capital cost of technology 3.67 1.02 22 0.37 dictors, Organization Predictors, and External Predictors categories
Direct competitors adopt similar 3.38 1.14 23 0.10 are 0.904, 0.872, and 0.576, respectively. The overall Cronbach’s
technology alpha of the categories is 0.934. Although not above the recom-
Organizations technology budget 3.36 1.00 24 0.08 mended 0.6 threshold, the alpha value for the External Predictors
Partners adopt similar technology 3.29 0.93 25 0.01 category is relatively high (0.576) and was therefore considered
Technology brand 3.28 1.18 26 0.00
sufficient.

© ASCE 04020028-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

 Table 3. Categorization of safety technology adoption predictors
Number Adoption predictors Factor loadings Eigenvalue PVE CPVE
Category 1: Technology predictors — 8.831 25.629 25.629
TP1 Level of complexity 0.473 — — —
TP 2 Having the required features 0.635 — — —
TP 3 Level of technical support required 0.661 — — —
TP 4 Level of technical support available 0.713 — — —
TP 5 Level of training required 0.575 — — —
TP 6 Technology durability 0.668 — — —
TP 7 Proven technology effectiveness 0.730 — — —
TP 8 Reliability 0.801 — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TP 9 Versatility 0.650 — — —
Category 2: Organizational predictors — 1.323 22.091 47.720
OP 1 Potential cost savings 0.661 — — —
OP 2 Compatibility with current processes 0.701 — — —
OP 3 Competitive advantage derived from 0.524 — — —
using the technology
OP 4 Top management participation 0.688 — — —
OP 5 Organization culture 0.657 — — —
OP 6 Peer influence 0.688 — — —
OP 7 Observability 0.673 — — —
OP 8 Triability 0.570 — — —
Category 3: External predictors — 1.080 11.414 59.133
EP 1 Government policy and regulation 0.731 — — —
EP 2 Client demand 0.677 — — —
Note: PVE = percentage of variance explained; and CPVE = cumulative percentage of variance explained.

Develop Weightings for Technology Adoption
Predictors and Categories
To develop the weighting for each technology adoption predictor
and the three primary categories, the researchers applied the pro-
cess described in the third step of the FSE. The mean rating needed
for applying Eq. (3) is extracted from responses received from the
survey participants. To calculate the weight of each predictor, the
total MS of each category should be first calculated. The total MS is
derived by summing all of the mean scores of the predictors within
each category. The weight for each technology adoption predictor is
then derived by dividing the mean score of a specific predictor by
the total MS. For instance, the weight of “level of complexity” is
derived by dividing its mean rating (4.13) by the sum of the mean
ratings of the predictors in Category #1 (37.32). The result of this
calculation is 0.111 is as follows:
Wtap1
4.13
¼
4.13þ4.17þ4.08þ4.13þ4.18þ4.18þ4.19þ4.33þ3.93
4.13
¼ ¼ 0.111
37.32
For the weight of each category, the total MS of a given
category is divided by the sum of all MSs (i.e., the sum of the
three “Total MS for each category”). For instance, calculating
the weight of Category #1 is illustrated in the following equation:
37.52 37.32
WCtap1 ¼ ¼ ¼ 0.488
37.32 þ 31.35 þ 7.82 76.49
This process was repeated to develop the weights for each
predictor and category. Table 4 lists the mean ratings of the
predictors, total MS for each category, and their respective
weights.
Determine Membership Function for Technology
Adoption Predictors and Categories
Typically, the FSE membership function is derived at two or three
levels depending on the objective of the study (Mu et al. 2014;
Ameyaw and Chan 2015). A membership function is a value rang-
ing between 0 and 1 that represents the degree of an element’s
membership in a fuzzy set (Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017). The levels
refer to the need to derive a membership function for a subset
(Level 2) prior to developing a membership function for a collec-
tive (Level 1). In the present study, Level 2 refers to membership
functions for the technology adoption predictors, while Level 1
refers to the membership function for the categories. The Level
2 membership function is obtained from the response distribution
received from each survey participant, and the distribution is
based on the respondents’ ratings of predictors using the previ-
ously described 5-point Likert scale. For instance, 3% of the par-
ticipants rated “complexity of a technology” as least important
when adopting a safety technology, while 43% considered “com-
plexity of technology” as extremely important (Table 5). The
membership function for T1 (Predictor #1 in the Technology Cat-
egory) is shown as follows:
0.03 0.03 0.14 0.37 0.43
MFI1 ¼ þ þ þ þ
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
where L = number values in the measurement scale [L1 ¼ 1 (not
important); and L5 ¼ 5 (extremely important)].
The membership function for T1 is stated as (0.03, 0.03, 0.14,
0.37, and 0.43), as shown in Table 5. A similar process is imple-
mented to derive the membership functions of the remaining 18
technology adoption predictors.
Following the creation of the membership function for Level 2,
Eq. (4) (D ¼ Wi °Ri ) is then used to derive the membership function
for Level 1. Wi represents the weightings of all predictors within
each category, and Ri represents the fuzzy matrix. For example, the
membership function of external predictors can be calculated using
the following matrix

© ASCE 04020028-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

   Using the same process, the membership functions for the
 0.03 0.10 0.23 0.32 0.32 
ð0.49 and 0.51Þ 
 organizational category and external category were derived. Table 4
0.03 0.05 0.17 0.39 0.36 shows the Level 1 and Level 2 membership functions.
¼ 0.49 × 0.03 þ 0.51 × 0.03; þ0.49 × 0.10 þ 0.51 × 0.05; 0.49 Next, the TAI for each category is calculated using Eq. (5)
× 0.23 þ 0.51 × 0.17; 0.49 × 0.32 þ 0.51 × 0.39; 0.49 × 0.32 X
5
TAI ¼ DXL ð5Þ
þ 0.51 × 0.36 ¼ ð0.03; 0.07; 0.20; 0.35; 0.34Þ i¼1

Table 4. Mean rating and weights of technology adoption predictors and categories
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number Predictors Mean rating Weight of predictor Total MS for each category Category weight
Category 1: Technology predictors — — 37.32 0.488
1 Level of complexity 4.13 0.111 — —
2 Having the required features 4.17 0.112 — —
3 Level of technical support required 4.08 0.109 — —
4 Level of technical support available 4.13 0.111 — —
5 Level of training required 4.18 0.112 — —
6 Technology durability 4.18 0.112 — —
7 Proven technology effectiveness 4.19 0.112 — —
8 Reliability 4.33 0.116 — —
9 Versatility 3.93 0.105 — —
Category 2: Organizational predictors — — 31.35 0.410
1 Potential cost savings 3.90 0.124 — —
2 Compatibility with current processes 3.93 0.125 — —
3 Competitive advantage derived from 3.97 0.127 — —
using the technology
4 Top management participation 3.87 0.123 — —
5 Organization culture 3.83 0.122 — —
6 Peer influence 3.88 0.124 — —
7 Observability 3.98 0.127 — —
8 Triability 3.99 0.127 — —
Category 3: External predictors — — 7.82 0.102
1 Government policy and regulation 3.81 0.487 — —
2 Client demand 4.01 0.513 — —
Total group MS — — 76.49 —

Table 5. Level 1 and 2 membership functions

Weight of Membership function at Membership function at
Category (Level 1) Predictors (Level 2) predictors Level 2 (predictors) Level 1 (categories)
Category 1: Technology — 1 2 3 4 5 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.39 0.42
1 Level of complexity 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.37 0.43 — — — — —
2 Having the required features 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.42 0.40 — — — — —
3 Level of technical support required 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.44 0.35 — — — — —
4 Level of technical support available 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.42 0.39 — — — — —
5 Level of training required 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.36 0.45 — — — — —
6 Technology durability 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.41 0.42 — — — — —
7 Proven technology effectiveness 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.38 0.44 — — — — —
8 Reliability 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.34 0.53 — — — — —
9 Versatility 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.21 0.39 0.32 — — — — —
Category 2: Organization — — — — — — 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.40 0.32
1 Potential cost savings 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.16 0.36 0.35 — — — — —
2 Compatibility with current processes 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.19 0.43 0.30 — — — — —
3 Competitive advantage 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.18 0.37 0.36 — — — — —
4 Top management participation 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.24 0.37 0.31 — — — — —
5 Organization culture 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.19 0.40 0.30 — — — — —
6 Peer influence 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.40 0.28 — — — — —
7 Observability 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.20 0.42 0.32 — — — — —
8 Triability 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.42 0.33 — — — — —
Category 3: External — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.20 0.35 0.34
1 Government policy and regulation 0.49 0.03 0.10 0.23 0.32 0.32 — — — — —
2 Client demand 0.51 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.39 0.36 — — — — —

© ASCE 04020028-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

 where D = final FSE evaluation matrix; and L = the scale meas-
urement for the set of grade categories.
The TAI values for the three categories (C1 = Technology, C2 =
Organizational, and C3 = External) are calculated as follows:
TAI C1 ¼ ð0.02; 0.04; 0.14; 0.39; 0.42Þ × ð1; 2; 3; 4; 5Þ ¼ 4.15
TAI C2 ¼ ð0.02; 0.06; 0.20; 0.40; 0.32Þ × ð1; 2; 3; 4; 5Þ ¼ 3.92
TAI C3 ¼ ð0.03; 0.07; 0.20; 0.35; 0.34Þ × ð1; 2; 3; 4; 5Þ ¼ 3.91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Developing a Construction Safety Technology
Adoption Index (C-STAI)
A linear, additive model was adopted to develop the C-STAI.
An additive model was considered appropriate for this study given
the lack of correlation between the variables and among the catego-
ries, which is a primary requirement for linear models. In addition,
previous studies adopted a similar approach when developing a
benchmarking/success index using FSE (Osei-Kyei and Chan
2017). To develop the C-STAI, the TAIs of each category of pre-
dictors were normalized so they sum up to unity (Osei-Kyei and
Chan 2017). As shown in Table 6, technology-based predictors
have the most impact on the potential adoption of a safety technol-
ogy when aggregating the weights for each category. This finding is
consistent with past studies conducted by Rogers (2003) and Ven-
katesh and Davis (2000) that suggest a technology’s characteristics
play a fundamental role in the adoption and eventual diffusion of
the technology. Table 6 reveals that the TAI for the organizational-
and external-based predictors are approximately equal. However,
the maximum difference between the three categories is only
0.24, suggesting that all three categories are equally important.
The index for measuring the potential acceptance of a safety
technology is expressed by Eq. (6):
C-STAI ¼ ðC1 Coefficient × Technology PredictorsÞ
þ ðC2 Coefficient × Organizational PredictorsÞ
þ ðC3 Coefficient × External PredictorsÞ
where Technology Predictors, Organizational Predictors, and Ex-
ternal Predictors are the aggregated average values of the predictors
within each category. The values of C1, C2, and C3 Coefficients are
as shown in Table 6. Implications of the equation and how it can be
used in practice are discussed in the next section.
Construction Safety Technology Adoption
Assessment Protocol
In its current state, the results from the study would present some
implications to construction researchers. That is, the information
Table 6. Technology adoption index (TAI) and coefficient for each
category
ID Technology
number Category adoption index (TAI) Coefficient
C1 Technology predictors 4.15
C2 Organizational predictors 3.92
C3 External predictors 3.91
Total 11.98
P
Note: Coefficient ¼ ðTAI for Category= TAI for all categoriesÞ.
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
could provide some insight into the factors that influence and predict
safety technology adoption. However, the results do not provide a
much-needed practical assessment process for future technology
adoption decision-making. To this end, the researchers developed
a simplified safety technology adoption protocol to aid construction
companies interested in technology integration make practical and
user-friendly decision-making assessment of whether to adopt a par-
ticular technology.
To develop the protocol, each key predictor within its category
was operationalized. The predictors were altered to be integrated
into the assessment tool in the form of statements that are easy to
understand and respond to (Table 7). The questions were designed
in line with past studies that operationalized critical factors that
influence decision-making and predict safety outcomes (Goodrum
et al. 2011; Chen and Manley 2014; Alexander et al. 2017). For
instance, predictors such as level of complexity, cost savings po-
tential, and regulation were operationalized to “The technology
is easy to use,” “This technology has the potential to reduce project
cost,” and “Using this technology will help meet stipulated regu-
latory requirements (insurance, government, etc.),” respectively.
Users of the proposed technology adoption assessment protocol
are expected to indicate their level of agreement with the statements
in the protocol on a scale of 1–5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5
is strongly agree. Each category has a maximum allotted number of
points that is a multiple of the number of predictors and the maxi-
mum assessment score. To provide an example, the maximum pos-
sible points associated with the Technology Category is 45 [number
of predictors in the category (9) times the maximum score (5)]. The
total number of obtainable points is 95 [ð5×9Þþð5×8Þþð5×10Þ].
The weight for each category is applied by multiplying the aggre-
gated number of points from each category by the appropriate co-
efficient (0.346 for the Technology Predictors category). The same
process is repeated for each category, and then the weighted total of
each category is summed to generate the total Adoption Prediction
Score (or the C-STAI) of the safety technology being evaluated.
The maximum obtainable Adoption Prediction Score is depicted
as follows:
C-STAImax ¼ ð0.346 × 45Þ þ ð0.327 × 40Þ þ ð0.327 × 10Þ ¼ 31.92
ð6Þ
To determine the acceptance potential of a construction safety
technology, the technology is subjected to an assessment using the
proposed protocol worksheet (Table 7). The result of the assess-
ment is then compared to the maximum obtainable adoption index.
It is expected that as the ratio increases up to 100% [when dividing
the specific Technology C-STAI by the maximum obtainable
C-STAI (31.92)], the chances that the technology will be success-
fully integrated into a construction organization also increases.
An accumulated score of at least 65% indicates that the evaluated
technology would likely be successful if adopted (Goodrum et al.
2011). In this case, a score of 20.75 (0.65 × 31.92) or more would
be considered an indication of the potential success of a technology
if properly adopted and used by a company. That being said, an
organization can set its own threshold based on its culture and em-
ployee behavior. For instance, a company with a more progressive
culture and younger worker population could utilize a lower thresh-
old or place more emphasis (weight) on the External and Technol-
ogy categories since the organization and its employees are less
resistant to using new technologies.
0.346 Using the proposed protocol, it is expected that a more robust and
0.327 systematic technology adoption decision would be achieved. This
0.327 decision process should include insights from and discussion be-
1.00 tween top management personnel and actual end-users of the tech-
nology. Including both groups ensures that a holistic information
04020028-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 7. Safety technology adoption protocol worksheet
Rating Group Category
Number Predictors Statements (1–5) max score coefficient
Category 1: Technology 45 0.346
1 Complexity The technology is easy to use
2 Required feature The technology has the essential feature(s) to perform specified task
3 Required support Installing and using the technology requires little or no support
4 Available support If required, technical support is readily available
5 Training required Little or no additional training is required
6 Durability Available evidence indicates that this technology has a long shelf life
7 Technology effectiveness There are documented evidence showing the technology is effective
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 Technology reliability
9 Technology versatility
Category 2: Organizational
1 Cost savings
2 Peer influence
3 Top management
4 Compatibility
5 Organizational culture
6 Competitive advantage
7 Technology observability
8 Technology triability
Category 3: External
1 External regulation
2 Client demand
There is evidence that the technology consistently meets performance
requirements
The technology features improve other performance indicators
(e.g., work quality)
40 0.327
This technology has the potential to reduce project cost
Workers will have no hesitation using the technology
Management supports the use of this technology
This technology is interoperable with existing technologies and will fit
in seamlessly into our current operations
The company employees are open to trying new technologies
This technology has a positive impact on the company’s core
competency
The performance of this technology can be observed before investing
The technology can be tried prior to purchase
10 0.327
The technology will help meet stipulated regulatory requirements
(insurance, OSHA)
Using this technology will help meet a client’s need
Adoption prediction score (C-STAI): XX
% Relative to maximum score: XX

gathering and decision-making process is achieved. For instance,
while end-users might not understand the impact of a safety technol-
ogy on the company’s bottom line and how that safety technology
fits into the company’s strategic plan, the end-users provide valuable
insight on the technology itself, which is the most vital category
based on the statistical analysis results from the present study.
Conversely, making an adoption decision without top management
input might limit the rate of diffusion that, in turn, stagnates the chan-
ces of a safety technology becoming an organizational standard.
Application of Construction Safety Technology
Assessment Protocol
Given the increased interest regarding WSDs in the construction
industry, an illustrative case study example about WSDs was pre-
pared. The case study exemplifies the process of implementing the
assessment protocol in practice for safety technology adoption. The
researchers interviewed seven construction personnel consisting of
one project manager, one safety engineer, two project engineers,
one foreman, and two field workers. Due to logistics reasons, the
interviewees were not all present in one location at the same time.
However, all personnel work for the same general contractor and
were involved in the same project at the time the interviews were
conducted. Construction industry work experience of the inter-
viewed professionals and practitioners ranged from two to 20 years
with an average duration of experience of eight years. The research-
ers developed and distributed a case scenario about a smart vest
WSD. The case scenario description included information on a smart
vest such as battery life, coverage area, weight, available support,
and features. Information on the potential cost-benefit was also
provided. A few assumptions, such as the technology being available
to observe and use prior to making a decision to adopt the technol-
ogy, were made and presented to the participants. The interviewed
professionals and practitioners filled in the assessment protocol
worksheet using the information provided, insight on their organi-
zation, and personal knowledge of other factors that could influence
the adoption of the selected technology. After finishing the assess-
ment, the interviewed professionals and practitioners were asked to
answer a short survey involving five questions about the usefulness
of the assessment protocol. The responses and average ratings are
presented in Table 8. According to the case study participants, the
proposed assessment protocol is practical and user-friendly and has
the potential to make informed decisions regarding safety technology
adoption in construction.
The participants also provided invaluable feedback for further
improvement of the assessment protocol. One participant indicated
that the evaluation questions did not fully capture some barriers
Table 8. Assessment protocol feedback
Mean response
Verification questions ratings (n ¼ 7)
Are the identified predictors sufficient and practical for 8.5
safety technology assessment?
Are the proposed categories reasonable? 9.2
Is the proposed assessment process practical? 7.9
Can this assessment tool support your decision-making? 8.2
Is the assessment protocol easy to use? 9.4
Note: 0 = strongly disagree; 5 = average; and 10 = strongly agree.

© ASCE 04020028-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

 Table 9. Application of safety technology adoption protocol worksheet
Rating Group Category
Number Predictors Statements (1–5) max. score coefficient
Category 1: Technology 38 (45) 0.346
1 Complexity The technology is easy to use 4.4 — —
2 Required feature The technology has the essential feature(s) to perform specified task 3.7 — —
3 Required support Installing and using the technology requires little or no support 4.4 — —
4 Available support If required, technical support is readily available 5.0 — —
5 Training required Little or no additional training is required 4.7 — —
6 Durability Available evidence indicates that this technology has a long shelf life 3.4 — —
7 Technology effectiveness There are documented evidence showing the technology is effective 4.0 — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 Technology reliability There is evidence showing that the technology consistently meets 4.0 — —
performance requirements
9 Technology versatility The technology features improve other performance indicators 4.3 — —
(e.g., work quality)
Category 2: Organizational 33.7 (40) 0.327
1 Cost savings This technology has the potential to reduce project cost 4.0 — —
2 Peer influence Workers will have no hesitation using the technology 2.6 — —
3 Top management Management supports the use of this technology 4.6 — —
4 Compatibility This technology is interoperable with existing technologies and will fit 4.1 — —
in seamlessly into our current operations
5 Organizational culture The company employees are open to trying new technologies 3.7 — —
6 Competitive advantage This technology has a positive impact on the company’s core 4.7 — —
competency
7 Technology observability The performance of this technology can be observed before investing 5.0 — —
8 Technology triability This technology can be tried prior to purchase 5.0 — —
Category 3: External 6.6 (10) 0.327
1 External regulation The technology will help meet stipulated regulatory requirements 3.0 — —
(insurance, OSHA)
2 Client demand Using this technology will help meet a client’s need — — 26.32
Adoption prediction score (C-STAI): 3.6 — —
% Relative to maximum score: — — 82.5%

associated with the use of smart vests such as privacy and confi-
dentiality of collected data. Although the assessment tool partially
captured these barriers within the context of Peer Influence Predic-
tor, the participant indicated that applicable questions to capture
such barriers should be included as a standalone variable. Despite
the identified areas for improvement and the small sample size, the
case study used and the positive responses received demonstrate
the proposed assessment protocol and provide evidence about the
potential effectiveness of the developed protocol.
The outcome of the case study assessment itself is provided in
Table 9. According to the results, the smart vest WSD scored high-
est in the Technology Category (84.4%), suggesting the smart vest
has strong technological attributes, is relatively easy to use, and is
durable. The Adoption Prediction Score for the smart vest safety
technology was 26.32 points. This value represents 82.5% of the
maximum obtainable score (31.92 points), which is above the 65%
threshold, suggesting that the evaluated smart vest technology could
be successfully implemented in an effective manner if a decision to
adopt the technology is made.
Implications for Technology Integration Researchers
and Practitioners
The findings from the present study contribute to practice and
research in the following ways. First, the study identified and vali-
dated factors influencing safety technology adoption in construction.
The identified predictors can be used to foretell the acceptance and
effectiveness of a safety technology in a particular work environment
in an organization. Furthermore, researchers involved in the develop-
ment of new or adaptation of existing safety technologies can utilize
the predictors and C-STAI as a guide to increase the odds of suc-
cessful research to practice transition. The odds of adoption increase
if researchers and practitioners ensure that a proposed safety tech-
nology meets the adoption criteria discussed in this study.
From a technology management perspective, findings from the
study reveal the importance of technology attributes, organizational
attributes, and external factors for making a decision of whether to
adopt a technology for safety management or not. To achieve a suc-
cessful technology adoption exercise, it is essential that verifiable
information on the technology of choice is readily available to work-
ers tasked to use the technology. The information should include data
on reliability, effectiveness, and durability of the technology. To
encourage the use of the technology, management should provide
required training and support a reliable system for technology
adoption and application while promoting a positive culture that
supports innovation and use of technology. Moreover, top manage-
ment should strongly accentuate, demonstrate, and communicate
the technology’s usefulness (e.g., features, versatility) in preventing
workplace safety risks that workers are typically exposed to.
The current study is one of the first studies to utilize a flexible
decision-support methodology that encourages collaboration and
extensive discussions between stakeholders involved in the process
of integrating a safety technology in the construction process. It is
expected that by utilizing such a decision-making process, the
adoption of appropriate technologies that enhance worker safety
within a specific context will be achieved.
Although further validation and application of the proposed
C-STAI and assessment protocol are needed, these developed tools
provide rich information that can influence technology adoption
decision-making in construction. Individuals involved in technology

© ASCE 04020028-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

 integration can use the current or an adapted version of the proposed
C-STAI and assessment protocol as a tool to optimize safety tech-
nology adoption decision-making. The proposed C-STAI and assess-
ment protocol can be used in the adoption phase of safety technology
integration to evaluate the usefulness of a technology and the accep-
tance readiness of an organization (and the individuals working in
that organization) to adopt a specific safety technology. Expanding
on a recent study (Nnaji et al. 2019b), information derived from the
present study could inform the development of a novel agent-based
simulation model for assessing the potential adoption success of a
technology prior to investing extensively in a new safety technology.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
By incorporating the C-STAI into a simulation model, practitioners
and researchers can simulate the technology adoption process, iden-
tify, and manipulate conditions that spur adoption and develop pol-
icies and programs that support the successful adoption of a given
safety technology.
Following the assessment, an organization can make a decision
to continue investing in the evaluated technology or suspend the
integration process and focus on creating an enabling environment
that will spur future acceptance. The enabling environment could
be in the form of developing a strategic plan focused on prioritizing
the critical predictors that influence technology acceptance and
determining the level of improvement needed for specific critical
predictors. This strategic plan could lead to an improvement plan
that could be utilized when integrating technologies with similar
characteristics. If used extensively by a single organization or in
collaboration with other organizations with similar characteristics
(e.g., size and target market), the predictive strength of the assess-
ment protocol would be established. The predictive strength could
inform the development of a benchmarking tool for the acceptance
phase of technology integration (comparing the rate of diffusion of
a current technology against similar technologies integrated in the
past). However, the proposed tool also provides an objective
method for management to truncate the adoption process if the
indicators from the initial assessment are not encouraging.
Although primarily designed for supporting decision-making
when analyzing the utility of a single technology, the C-STAI
and assessment process provide a quantitative reference for the se-
lection of an appropriate technology for a specific task among
multiple technologies. By rating each technology based on the pre-
dictors, and applying the appropriate weight for each category,
decision-makers could choose the safety technology with the high-
est aggregate point value.
Following the adoption of a technology, it is expected that an
organization will want to verify the success of the adoption process
(referred to as infusion) and the success from the adoption (referred
to as diffusion) (Kishore and McLean 1998). Presently, there is no
conceptual model that clearly describes how researchers and practi-
tioners can measure technology implementation success within the
safety management field. Given that technology integration has
multiple phases and success is measured as infusion and diffusion,
Appendix. Safety Technology Adoption Predictors Identified in the Literature
Potential safety technology adoption predictors
Capital cost of technology (initial purchasing cost)
Client demand
Competitive advantage
Direct competitors adopting similar technology
Government policy and regulations regarding technology
© ASCE 04020028-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
an integrated conceptual implementation success model that incor-
porates constructs on individual infusion and organization diffusion
should be developed. The findings from the present study (particu-
larly quantification and categorization of adoption factors) provide
fundamental information required to develop the first phase of a
novel implementation success model for safety technologies in con-
struction management.
Conclusions and Future Research
The current study represents the first empirical effort focused on
enhancing our understanding of critical factors that influence the
adoption of construction safety technologies and incorporating
them into a robust, yet flexible, adoption framework that supports
technology integration. Utilizing a rigorous process, a practical and
novel approach to evaluating the potential adoption of safety tech-
nologies by end-users was developed.
First, the present study identified factors based on past research
that can be used to predict the adoption of a technology. Through
statistical analysis, the predictive strengths of the identified predic-
tors were verified and then the predictors were classified into three
categories (external, organizational, and technical). Subsequently,
weights were generated for each predictor and category followed by
the development of the C-STAI. The C-STAI was then integrated
into an assessment protocol for evaluating the safety technology
adoption propensity of an organization. The utility of the index
and assessment protocol were also tested.
However, the decision-support tools developed have limitations.
For instance, the predictive power of the assessment protocol was
not validated in the present study. Future research should consider
adopting a precursor analysis approach supported by a general lin-
ear model (GLM) to validate the predictive power of the assessment
protocol. In the present study, the assessment protocol was de-
signed based on the 19 critical predictors. In reality, additional pre-
dictors could be added in the different categories depending on the
type of safety technology. Although most of the study participants
were extensively experienced and highly involved in decision-
making within their companies, they were not explicitly asked
about their level of knowledge regarding the broad spectrum of
safety technologies and how often they used these technologies
as part of their job responsibilities. However, the coefficients gen-
erated in this research are flexible and can be updated using the
novel methodology described in the present study. Therefore, or-
ganizations could develop in-house estimates using responses
received from employees who have prior experience using a spe-
cific safety technology. This information would provide a more
accurate result for that particular organization. Nevertheless, the
research presented in this paper represents an important step toward
developing comprehensive but easy-to-use tools that support sound
technology adoption decision-making in the construction industry.
References
a b c d e f g h i j k l
— — — — — — — — — — — X
X — — — — X X — — X X X
X — — X — — — — — — X X
— — — — — X X X — — — X
— — — — — X X X — — — X
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Appendix. (Continued.)
References
Potential safety technology adoption predictors a b c d e f g h i j k l
Industry-level change requires technology adoption — — — — — X X X — — — X
Level of compatibility with current processes (interoperable) X X X — — — X — X — — X
Level of complexity of technology X X — — — X X X X — — X
Level of technical support available by manufacturer X — — — — X — — X — — X
Level of technical support required for optimum performance — — — — — — — — — — — X
Level of training required for optimum performance X — — — X X X — X — — X
Observability (end-user can observe performance prior to adoption) — — — X — — — X — — — X
Organization culture (receptive to change or not) — — — — — — X — — X X X
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Partners/close associates adopt similar technology — — — — — — — — — — — X

Peer influence (how quick users will be able to influence colleagues) X — — X — — — — — — — X
Potential cost savings from using technology [positive Return on Investment (ROI)] X — — — X X — — X X X X
Potential level of resistance from employees toward technology adoption X — — — — — — — — — — X
Proven technology effectiveness (technical attributes meeting the performance requirements) — — X — — — — X X — — X
Technical attributes and features (features need for a given task) X — X — — — X — X — — X
Technology brand and reputation in the market — — — X — — — — X — — X
Technology budget (maximum funds allocated toward innovation in an organization) — — — — — — — — — — — X
Technology durability [technology lifespan (shelf live, battery life, etc.)] — — X X — — — X X — — X
Technology reliability (technology consistently meets performance requirements) — — X X — — — X X — — X
Top management degree of involvement (championing or opposing technology adoption) X X — — X — X X X — X X
Triability (user can try technology prior to adopting) — — — X — — — X — — — X
Versatility (technology can be utilized for more than one task) — — X X — — — X X — — X
Source: Adapted from Nnaji et al. (2019a).
Note: a = Peansupap and Walker (2005); b = Sargent et al. (2012); c = Nnaji et al. (2018); d = Sepasgozar et al. (2016); e = Won et al. (2013); f = Abubakar
et al. (2014); g = Mitropoulos and Tatum (2000); h = Rankin and Luther (2006); i = Sepasgozar and Bernold (2013); j = Ozorhon and Karahan 2017; k =
Gambatese and Hallowell (2011); and l = Nnaji et al. (2019a).

Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s
data-sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001263.
References
Abubakar, M., Y. M. Ibrahim, D. Kado, and K. Bala. 2014. “Contractors’
perception of the factors affecting building information modelling
(BIM) adoption in the Nigerian construction industry.” In Proc.,
15th Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering,
23–25. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Alexander, D., M. Hallowell, and J. Gambatese. 2017. “Precursors of con-
struction fatalities. II: Predictive modeling and empirical validation.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (7): 04017024. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001297.
Alizadehsalehi, S., I. Yitmen, T. Celik, and D. Arditi. 2018. “The effective-
ness of an integrated BIM/UAV model in managing safety on construc-
tion sites.” Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548
.2018.1504487.
Ameyaw, E. E., and A. P. Chan. 2015. “Risk allocation in public-private
partnership water supply projects in Ghana.” Constr. Manage.
Econ. 33 (3): 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2015
.1031148.
Antwi-Afari, M. F., H. Li, Y. Yu, and L. Kong. 2018. “Wearable insole
pressure system for automated detection and classification of awkward
working postures in construction workers.” Autom. Constr. 96 (Dec):
433–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.10.004.
Awolusi, I., E. Marks, and M. Hallowell. 2018. “Wearable technology for
personalized construction safety monitoring and trending: Review of
applicable devices.” Autom. Constr. 85 (Jan): 96–106. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.010.
Awolusi, I., and E. D. Marks. 2019. “Active work zone safety: Preventing
accidents using intrusion sensing technologies.” Front. Built Environ.
5: e21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00021.
Baker, J. 2012. “The technology–organization–environment framework.”
In Information systems theory, 231–245. New York: Springer.
Barbosa, F., J. Woetzel, J. Mischke, M. J. Ribeirinho, M. Sridhar, M.
Parsons, N. Bertram, and S. Brown. 2017. “Reinventing construction
through a productivity revolution.” Accessed December 12, 2018.
https://goo.gl/1Nqqf8.
Borhani, A. 2016. “Individual and organizational influencing technology
adoption for construction safety.” Master thesis, Construction Manage-
ment, Univ. of Washington.
Chan, A. P., P. T. Lam, D. W. Chan, E. Cheung, and Y. Ke. 2010. “Critical
success factors for PPPs in infrastructure developments: Chinese per-
spective.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (5): 484–494. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000152.
Chan, A. P. C., P. T. I. Lam, Y. Wen, E. E. Ameyaw, S. Wang, and Y. Ke.
2015. “Cross-sectional analysis of critical risk factors for PPP water
projects in China.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 21 (1): 04014031. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000214.
Chen, L., and K. Manley. 2014. “Validation of an instrument to measure
governance and performance on collaborative infrastructure projects.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (5): 04014006. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000834.
Cho, Y. K., K. Kim, S. Ma, and J. Ueda. 2018. “A robotic wear-
able exoskeleton for construction worker’s safety and health.”
In ASCE Construction Research Congress 2018, 19–28. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Choi, B., S. Hwang, and S. Lee. 2017. “What drives construction workers’
acceptance of wearable technologies in the workplace?: Indoor locali-
zation and wearable health devices for occupational safety and health.”
Autom. Constr. 84 (Dec): 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017
.08.005.
Choudhry, R. M. 2017. “Achieving safety and productivity in construction
projects.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 23 (2): 311–318. https://doi.org/10
.3846/13923730.2015.1068842.

© ASCE 04020028-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028

 Chuttur, M. Y. 2009. “Overview of the technology acceptance model:
Origins, developments and future directions.” Working Pap. Inf. Syst.
9 (37): 9–37.
Gambatese, J. A., and M. Hallowell. 2011. “Enabling and measuring in-
novation in the construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 29 (6):
553–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.570357.
Gheisari, M., and B. Esmaeili. 2019. “Applications and requirements of
unmanned aerial systems (UASs) for construction safety.” Saf. Sci.
118 (Oct): 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.015.
Gheisari, M., J. Irizarry, and B. N. Walker. 2014. “UAS4SAFETY: The po-
tential of unmanned aerial systems for construction safety applications.”
In ASCE Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Global Network, 1801–1810. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Gheisari, M., A. Rashidi, and B. Esmaeili. 2018. “Using unmanned aerial
systems for automated fall hazard monitoring.” In Proc., ASCE Con-
struction Research Congress, 62–72. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Goodrum, P. M., C. T. Haas, C. Caldas, D. Zhai, J. Yeiser, and D. Homm.
2011. “Model to predict the impact of a technology on construction
productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 137 (9): 678–688. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000328.
Grover, V., and M. D. Goslar. 1993. “The initiation, adoption, and imple-
mentation of telecommunications technologies in US organizations.”
J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 10 (1): 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/0742
1222.1993.11517994.
Guo, H., Y. Yu, T. Xiang, H. Li, and D. Zhang. 2017. “The availability of
wearable-device-based physical data for the measurement of construc-
tion workers’ psychological status on site: From the perspective of
safety management.” Autom. Constr. 82 (Oct): 207–217. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.001.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multi-
variate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, and B. J. Babin. 2010. Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haymaker, J., D. H. Chau, and B. Xie. 2013. “Inference-assisted choosing
by advantages.” In Proc., 21th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC), 339–348. Fortaleza, Brazil.
Hu, Y., A. P. Chan, Y. Le, Y. Xu, and M. Shan. 2016. “Developing a pro-
gram organization performance index for delivering construction meg-
aprojects in China: Fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis.” J. Manage.
Eng. 32 (4): 05016007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000432.
Hwang, S., H. Jebelli, B. Choi, M. Choi, and S. Lee. 2018. “Measuring
workers’ emotional state during construction tasks using wearable
EEG.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (7): 04018050. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001506.
Hwang, S., and S. Lee. 2017. “Wristband-type wearable health devices to
measure construction workers’ physical demands.” Autom. Constr.
83 (Nov): 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.003.
Irizarry, J., M. Gheisari, and B. N. Walker. 2012. “Usability assessment of
drone technology as safety inspection tools.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr.
17 (12): 194–212.
Jebelli, H., C. R. Ahn, and T. L. Stentz. 2015. “Comprehensive fall-risk
assessment of construction workers using inertial measurement units:
Validation of the gait-stability metric to assess the fall risk of iron work-
ers.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (3): 04015034. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000511.
Jebelli, H., S. Hwang, and S. Lee. 2018a. “EEG-based workers’ stress rec-
ognition at construction sites.” Autom. Constr. 93 (Sep): 315–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.027.
Jebelli, H., S. Hwang, and S. Lee. 2018b. “EEG signal-processing frame-
work to obtain high-quality brain waves from an off-the-shelf wearable
EEG device.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (1): 04017070. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000719.
Jebelli, H., S. Hwang, and S. Lee. 2018c. “Feasibility of field measurement
of construction workers’ valence using a wearable EEG device.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 32 (1): 04017070. https://doi.org/10.1061
/9780784480830.013.
Jebelli, H., and S. Lee. 2019. “Feasibility of wearable electromyography
(EMG) to assess construction workers’ muscle fatigue.” In Advances
© ASCE 04020028-14
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
in informatics and computing in civil and construction engineering,
181–187. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kanan, R., O. Elhassan, and R. Bensalem. 2018. “An IoT-based autono-
mous system for workers’ safety in construction sites with real-time
alarming, monitoring, and positioning strategies.” Autom. Constr.
88 (Apr): 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.033.
Karakhan, A., and O. Alsaffar. 2019. “Technology’s role.” Prof. Saf. 64 (1):
43–45.
Karakhan, A., Y. Xu, C. Nnaji, and O. Alsaffar. 2019. “Technology alter-
natives for workplace safety risk mitigation in construction: Exploratory
study.” In Advances in informatics and computing in civil and
construction engineering, 823–829. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Karakhan, A. A., S. Rajendran, J. Gambatese, and C. Nnaji. 2018. “Meas-
uring and evaluating safety maturity of construction contractors: Multi-
criteria decision-making approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (7):
04018054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001503.
Kim, K., H. Kim, and H. Kim. 2017. “Image-based construction hazard
avoidance system using augmented reality in wearable device.” Autom.
Constr. 83 (Nov): 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06
.014.
Kishore, R., and E. McLean. 1998. “Diffusion and infusion: Two dimen-
sions of ‘Success of Adoption’ of IS innovations.” In Proc., Americas
Conference on Information Systems 1998. Atlanta: Association for
Information Systems.
Lee, S., and J. Yu. 2016. “Comparative study of BIM acceptance between
Korea and the United States.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (3):
05015016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001076.
Lee, S., J. Yu, and D. Jeong. 2015. “BIM acceptance model in construction
organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (3): 04014048. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000252.
Li, X., W. Yi, H. L. Chi, X. Wang, and A. P. Chan. 2018. “A critical review
of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction
safety.” Autom. Constr. 86 (Feb): 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.autcon.2017.11.003.
Lingard, H. C., and S. Rowlinson. 2006. Sample size in factor analysis:
Why size matters. Hong Kong: Univ. of Hong Kong.
Martinez-Aires, M. D., M. Lopez-Alonso, and M. Martinez-Rojas. 2018.
“Building information modeling and safety management: A systematic
review.” Saf. Sci. 101 (Jan): 11–18.
Mathieson, K., E. Peacock, and W. W. Chin. 2001. “Extending the tech-
nology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources.”
ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 32 (3): 86–112.
https://doi.org/10.1145/506724.506730.
Mitropoulos, P., and C. B. Tatum. 2000. “Management-driven integration.”
J. Manage. Eng. 16 (1): 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742
-597X(2000)16:1(48).
Mu, S., H. Cheng, M. Chohr, and W. Peng. 2014. “Assessing risk manage-
ment capability of contractors in subway projects in mainland China.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 32 (3): 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2013.08.007.
Nnaji, C., J. Gambatese, A. Karakhan, and C. Eseonu. 2019a. “Influential
safety technology adoption predictors in construction.” Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manage. 26 (11): 2655–2681. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM
-09-2018-0381.
Nnaji, C., H. W. Lee, A. Karakhan, and J. Gambatese. 2018. “Developing a
decision-making framework to select safety technologies for highway
construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (4): 04018016. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001466.
Nnaji, C., I. Okpala, and S. Kim. 2019b. “A simulation framework for tech-
nology adoption decision making in construction management: A
composite model.” In Computing in civil engineering 2019: Visualiza-
tion, information modeling, and simulation, 499–506. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Norusis, M. 2008. SPSS 16.0 advanced statistical procedures companion.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Advancing the competitiveness
and efficiency of the US construction industry. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Osei-Kyei, R., and A. P. Chan. 2017. “Developing a project success index for
public–private partnership projects in developing countries.” J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 23 (4): 04017028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X
.0000388.
Ozorhon, B., and U. Karahan. 2017. “Critical success factors of building
information modeling implementation.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (3):
04016054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000505.
Pallant, J. 2001. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analy-
sis using SPSS for Windows (versions 10 and 11): SPSS student version
11.0 for Windows. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analy-
sis for windows. 3rd ed. Maidenhead, UK: Open Univ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUKYONG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 05/03/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Park, M. W., and I. Brilakis. 2012. “Construction worker detection in video
frames for initializing vision trackers.” Autom. Constr. 28 (15): 15–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.06.001.
Park, Y., H. Son, and C. Kim. 2012. “Investigating the determinants of con-
struction professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: An extension
of the technology acceptance model.” Autom. Constr. 22 (Mar): 377–386.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.016.
Peansupap, V., and D. Walker. 2005. “Factors affecting ICT diffusion: A
case study of three large Australian construction contractors.” Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manage. 12 (1): 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1108
/09699980510576871.
Pedrycz, W., P. Ekel, and R. Parreiras. 2011. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-
making: Models, methods and applications. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Perlman, A., R. Sacks, and R. Barak. 2014. “Hazard recognition and risk
perception in construction.” Saf. Sci. 64 (Apr): 22–31. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.019.
Qualtrics. 2018. “Unlock breakthrough insights with market research panels.”
Accessed January 7, 2020. https://www.qualtrics.com/online-sample.
Rankin, J., and R. Luther. 2006. “The innovation process: Adoption of in-
formation and communication technology for the construction industry.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33 (12): 1538–1546. https://doi.org/10.1139/l05-128.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. “Elements of diffusion.” In Vol. 5 of Diffusion of
innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ryu, J., J. Seo, H. Jebelli, and S. Lee. 2019. “Automated action recognition
using an accelerometer-embedded wristband-type activity tracker.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (1): 04018114. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001579.
Sargent, K., P. Hyland, and S. Sawang. 2012. “Factors influencing
the adoption of information technology in a construction business.”
Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 12 (2): 72.
Sepasgozar, S. M., and L. E. Bernold. 2013. “Factors influencing con-
struction technology adoption.” In Proc., 19th CIB World Building
Congress. Brisbane, Australia: Brisbane Convention Centre.
Sepasgozar, S. M., M. Loosemore, and S. R. Davis. 2016. “Conceptualising
information and equipment technology adoption in construction: A
critical review of existing research.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.
23 (2): 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2015-0083.
Şerban, G., I. Rus, D. Vele, P. Breţcan, M. Alexe, and D. Petrea. 2016.
“Flood-prone area delimitation using UAV technology, in the areas
hard-to-reach for classic aircrafts: Case study in the north-east of
Apuseni Mountains, Transylvania.” Nat. Hazard. 82 (3): 1817–1832.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2266-4.
© ASCE 04020028-15
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020028
SmartMarket. 2017. Safety management in the construction industry 2017.
SmartMarket Report. Bedford, MA: Dodge Data and Analytics.
Son, H., Y. Park, C. Kim, and J. S. Chou. 2012. “Toward an understanding
of construction professionals’ acceptance of mobile computing devices
in South Korea: An extension of the technology acceptance model.”
Autom. Constr. 28 (Dec): 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012
.07.002.
Suhr, J. 1999. The choosing by advantages decisionmaking system.
Westport, CT: Quorum.
Szymberski, R. T. 1997. “Construction project safety planning.” Tappi J.
80 (11): 69–74.
Tang, S., D. R. Shelden, C. M. Eastman, P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, and X. Gao.
2019. “A review of building information modeling (BIM) and the in-
ternet of things (IoT) devices integration: Present status and future
trends.” Autom. Constr. 101 (May): 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.autcon.2019.01.020.
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. “A theoretical extension of the tech-
nology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.” Manage.
Sci. 46 (2): 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Wang, C., L. Ikuma, J. Hondzinski, and M. de Queiroz. 2017. “Application
of assistive wearable robotics to alleviate construction workforce short-
age: Challenges and opportunities.” In ASCE computing in civil engi-
neering 2017, 358–365. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Won, J., G. Lee, C. Dossick, and J. Messner. 2013. “Where to focus for
successful adoption of building information modeling within organiza-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (11): 04013014. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000731.
Xu, Y., A. P. C. Chan, and J. F. Yeung. 2010. “Developing a fuzzy risk allo-
cation model for PPP projects in China.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (8):
894–903. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000189.
Yang, Z., Y. Yuan, M. Zhang, X. Zhao, and B. Tian. 2019. “Assessment of
construction workers’ labor intensity based on wearable smartphone
system.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (7): 04019039. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001666.
Zhang, H., X. Yan, H. Li, R. Jin, and H. Fu. 2019a. “Real-time alarming,
monitoring, and locating for non-hard-hat use in construction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (3): 04019006. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001629.
Zhang, Y., H. Luo, M. Skitmore, Q. Li, and B. Zhong. 2019b. “Optimal
camera placement for monitoring safety in metro station construction
work.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001584.
Zhou, S., and M. Gheisari. 2018. “Unmanned aerial system applications in
construction: A systematic review.” Constr. Innovation 18 (4): 453–468.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2018-0010.
Zhou, Z., J. Irizarry, and Q. Li. 2013. “Applying advanced technology to
improve safety management in the construction industry: A literature
review.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 31 (6): 606–622. https://doi.org/10
.1080/01446193.2013.798423.
Zhu, Z., X. Ren, and Z. Chen. 2017. “Integrated detection and tracking of
workforce and equipment from construction jobsite videos.” Autom.
Constr. 81 (9): 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.05.005.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.