International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

BIM feasibility for small and medium-sized

contractors and subcontractors

Hooman Sadeh, Claudio Mirarchi, Farzad Shahbodaghlou & Alberto Pavan

To cite this article: Hooman Sadeh, Claudio Mirarchi, Farzad Shahbodaghlou & Alberto Pavan
(2021): BIM feasibility for small and medium-sized contractors and subcontractors, International
Journal of Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2021.1947446

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1947446

Published online: 10 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 70

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1947446

BIM feasibility for small and medium-sized contractors and subcontractors

Hooman Sadeha, Claudio Mirarchia, Farzad Shahbodaghloub and Alberto Pavana
a
Department of Architecture, Built Environment, and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy; bDepartment of Engineering,
Cal State East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
BIM adoption for SMEs is an imperative topic. It is assumed that construction contractors and subcontrac- BIM feasibility; BIM
tors play a great part in adopting or neglecting an innovative technology due to different factors. We adoption; BIM for SMEs;
believe this reluctance attribute would be a common factor between these two groups of construction micro construction firms;
digitalization
actors and it would further be an indication of sort of behavior these groups have in common. This study
intends to make a major contribution to the body of knowledge by investigating BIM feasibility for SMEs.
The research method consists of application of a structured online questionnaire distributed Online, out
of which 70 responses from the industry were collected and analyzed. Inferential statistics, and hypothesis
testing were applied to check the associations among categorical variables via Wilcoxon Signed Ranks
Test and Mann-Whitney U Test. The factors between contractors and subcontractors in terms of organiza-
tional, technological, economic, and social attributes were compared. Further, contractors were grouped
in terms of BIM and software usage, firm size, and partnership by Cluster Analysis. The results show the
rankings for contractors were different from the rankings for subcontractors with respect to technological
feasibility and the rankings of contractors were all higher than those of subcontractors when partnership
was introduced as a differentiating variable.

Introduction financial resources as one of the barriers of BIM implementation.

Digitalization and BIM feasibility in terms of adoption and
implementation are important factors for the construction indus-
try, particularly for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs).
When Rogers (1995) acknowledged the importance of change
agent in diffusion of innovation, it implied that previous envir-
onmental context played a great role in feasibility of change. For
a great deal of companies, change agent is viewed as a precondi-
tion to innovation. Ahankoob et al. (2019) found that having
more years of BIM experience has a positive relationship with its
perceived benefits, which could help its adoption within the con-
struction industry. To successfully carry out the digitalization
process, BIM feasibility must be completely understood for
purposes of devising proper plans and processes, which conse-
quently would assist with digital transformation of the construc-
tion firms.
In the literature, which is mostly built on a causal relation
approach, BIM feasibility has been discussed in forms of BIM
challenges, barriers, benefits, adoption, and implementation.
Different studies have expressed different causes and reasons as
feasibility factors. Hosseini et al. (2018) grouped up the main
barriers of BIM use, into demand and supply, intraorganizational
resources, and perceived benefits. Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2017)
found that internal organization structure as well as lack of clear
roles within the SME’s structure prevented the process of BIM
adoption. Social factor was one of the main causes in a study
conducted by Li et al. (2019) where apprehension about data and
information-sharing and unclear policies along with legalities
contributed to this factor. Tranchant et al. (2017), Malacarne
et al. (2018), and Hong et al. (2016) examined the French,
Italian, and Australian SMEs and all concluded the lack of
In terms of technological immaturities, motivational access,
material access, skills access, and usage access are among the
main barriers for SMEs (Dainty et al. 2017).
Based on above statements, most of BIM feasibility barriers
mainly fall under four categories that can be summarized and
taken into consideration in present study as follows: (1) organ-
izational: clear roles and responsibilities, (2) social: openness for
information transparency and risk allocation, (3) economical:
sufficient financial resources, and (4) technological: appropriate
software infrastructure for collaboration. This study aims to sig-
nificantly contribute to the body of knowledge and bridge the
gap by determining the feasibility implication of BIM for small
and medium-sized contractors and to rank those factors based
on their order of importance for better understanding of the
roles that construction actors can play both in adoption and dif-
fusion of innovation. It will further compare these factors
between contractors and subcontractors for the first time to fully
understand the existing differences that would affect their inten-
tions toward change. Lastly, it will classify these firms into differ-
ent groups based on BIM usage, software usage, strategic
partnership, and firm size to better understand the statuses and
intentions of the target sample with respect to technological
digitalization.
Background
Prevalent definitions of small and medium-sized enterprises
Most definitions that are given for SMEs are synonymous with
lack of digitalization and BIM usage, which is a modern

CONTACT Hooman Sadeh hsadeh5@gmail.com

ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. SADEH ET AL.
technological innovation toward higher productivity and better
efficiency with the capability of providing market value. Majority
of SMEs, if not all, have low productivity and may not be
regarded as efficient. Researchers strive to delineate a typological
characteristic for small and medium enterprises to explain their
stance toward innovation and digitalization. For instance,
Mirarchi et al. (2019) define SMEs through three components:
staff headcount, SMEs turnover, and their balance sheet total
based on European Union’s definition and accordingly they
highlight that small and medium-sized construction firms in
Italy consist of only 9 employees, they have less than 13 employ-
ees in the UK, and 98.8% of construction firms in France (all
sector combined) are SMEs. The definition for SMEs among
many authors or countries are similar with different wordings.
For instance, the most conspicuous features may include: (1)
staff capacity and capability are limited, (2) time and resources
are scarce for any innovation, (3) the owner-managers have
excessive influence, (4) raising finance and maintaining cash
flows are difficult (Lu et al. no dates). The question arises that
whether any solution toward these definitions may enable SMEs
to digitalize their business and change their production processes
toward adjusting to their temporal necessity and needs. The fact
is that if these firms once were functional and could meet the
clients’ needs, after the new technological developments and
revolution, they are considered somewhat dysfunctional.
Further, European Union defines medium-sized firms as hav-
ing less than 250 staff headcounts with less than 50 million euros
in turnover and less than 43 million euros in balance sheet total
(European Union 2003). As another example, ‘99.7% of all firms
in the UK Construction industry employ less than 114 people’
(Dainty et al. 2017, P.7). The World Bank characterizes the
micro small and medium construction firms by a range of 10 to
300 workers with $15 million annual income and $15 million in
resources (Tsado et al. 2020). Moreover, the World Bank charac-
terizes CMSMEs as those undertakings with a limit of 300 work-
ers or $15 million in yearly income and $15 million in resources.
The Inter-American Development Bank, in the interim, portrays
CMSMEs as having a limit of 100 workers with under $3 million
in income (Benzazoua Bouazza et al. 2015). The question is
whether these criteria are causes for the SMEs’ failure and incap-
ability and if they impact their ability toward digitalization
over time.
Moreover, SMEs have played a big economical role in almost
every country in the world and have been considered the back-
bone of the construction sector. For example, in Australia, 97.8%
of the construction firms were small firms contributing to 44.6%
of the market value (Hong et al. 2016). In France, they made up
95% of the construction sector with less than 10 employees
(Tranchant et al. 2017), and further, 48% of the private work-
force in Canada were employed by SMEs in 2010, which were
responsible for 85% of the new job creation during 2002–2010.
Additionally, 80% of the production cost in the UK was gener-
ated by the SMEs and according to department of Business
Innovations and Skills, 99.9% of the British firms in 2014 were
small and medium-sized (Lam et al. 2017). It is interesting to see
how digitalization and BIM usage could change the financial
contribution of the SMEs towards GDPs and their roles in over-
all economy. Despite this, there has been limited research on
BIM adoption and implementation for small and medium size
enterprises (SMEs), and there is no fundamental structure in
place to help these companies take advantage of BIM as means
towards digitalization. SMEs have not found the true prospective
in BIM in terms of values and benefits. Therefore, their adoption
rate has been slow (Awwad et al. 2020). This shortfall has had
negative impacts on SMEs, which has resulted in inability to
secure bids in public projects, where BIM counts as one of the
requirements for qualified bidders for those projects, and thus
SMEs have shifted their interest toward private projects that
have no BIM mandates (Lam et al. 2017; Awwad et al. 2020).
There are mix and contradictory reports in literature regard-
ing BIM adoption rate across the globe. Tranchant et al. (2017)
declare that BIM adoption rate for France, Germany, and the
UK are at 38%, 36%, and 35% respectively, however, Hong et al.
(2016) gives the global rate at 95% while Lam et al. (2017) report
that 39% of the industry was using BIM in 2012 with small firms
adopting at 25% in 2009 followed by medium sized firms coming
at 41% in 2012. According to SmartMarket Report, contractors
in the USA and Canada have more knowledge about BIM, i.e.,
20% higher engagement comparing to other countries. 74% of
the US contractors and 87% of the Canadian contractors have
reported a beneficial return on investment for BIM with only
50% of the contractors from both countries having used BIM
between three to five years (Lee et al. 2014). Awwad et al. (2020)
maintain that 89% of large contractors had the capability for
BIM adoption, whereas 54% of the small firms did not.
Regardless of BIM global adoption rate, there is evidence to sup-
port that SMEs are lagging in their implementation, which is
consistent with low digitalization levels for these companies.
According to Hong et al. (2016), half of the SMEs in the
Australian construction industry still use conventional technol-
ogy. Dainty et al. (2017) states that 73% of the SMEs have never
used BIM while 57% say that it would benefit their business,
however, only 2.7% had knowledge of BIM levels and mandates
and only 10% plan to invest in training.
BIM feasibility
BIM as means of digitalization is beneficial for construction con-
tractors and subcontractors, however, its utilization especially for
small contractors has been challenging for many reasons.
Okakpu et al. (2020) acknowledged that technical, financial,
socio-cultural, contractual, and skill sets are among the major
risk factors impacting BIM adoption and concluded that devel-
opment an assessment plan, acquiring information sharing tools,
and changing the cultural attitude towards BIM could be useful
to mitigate this problem. Wang et al. (2020) found the resistance
towards digitalization and BIM adoption is due to organizational
nature, project characteristics, and the age of the individual
employees. It is also common knowledge that many small con-
tactors are not ‘business savvy’ and have not invested in business
planning and innovation. Management and leadership are key
components for a successful transition towards digitalization by
adapting organizational change framework and related processes
(Liao and Teo 2019). Hong et al. (2019) compared the SMEs
with larger contractors and discovered that operational risks are
important factors for the former and implementation challenges
for the latter, and that technological issues are equally important
for all contractors regardless of size and project type. In an
exploratory study in Canada, Le et al. (2019) described lack of
strategic business planning in terms of integration and supply
chain drivers as main causes of low BIM adoptability.
Further, Ahuja et al. (2020) named technological, organiza-
tional, and environmental factors as barriers to BIM implementa-
tion for Indian architectural firms. Mostafa et al. (2020) stated
that business practices, cost factors, legal issues, and collabor-
ation among team members are key preventive measures towards

digitalization and Noruwa et al. (2020) called for continuous
investing and staff training as major components for a successful
BIM transition. According to Bosch-Sijtsema and Gluch (2019),
BIM actors play a significant role in helping with organizational
change and traditional practices. However, the notion that BIM
actors could help institutions move towards digitalization and
change their business practices is somewhat not completely expli-
cit and is inconsistent with the fact that small contractors do not
utilize BIM and have no active BIM team members on their
projects. To mitigate the challenges of BIM implementation, a
lot of contractors rely on outsourcing the services to a BIM con-
tractor. According to a study by Fountain and Langar (2018),
62% of the respondents had outsourced BIM processes to IT
companies and 45% had outsourced BIM to some level.
Additionally, another challenge for BIM adoption is the lack
of universal use in the construction sector (Enshassi et al. 2016)
and existence of different standards in different countries along
with regional economic and cultural variations (Jin et al. 2017).
Furthermore, Lee and Yu (2016) explained these regional differ-
ences by comparing the BIM adoption rate between South Korea
and the USA. They concluded that cultural and organizational
differences were main contributing attributes to this difference
between the two countries.
It can be observed that all SMEs in construction may be
regarded as entities embedded in a vast socioeconomic structure
impacted by existing social relations and interactions. Over time,
certain social units or components including technology, as a
social institution within the structure as such, have been shifted
and it requires other units, as a task, to adjust themselves in
terms of new developments. According to this technological con-
version, many structural components could catch up to fit in
this social circumstance and many are on the way of alteration,
and some are still lagging in that aspect. The point is that in
society all social components are in proper associations with one
another and impact one another to balance society. According to
new technological variation, some institutions could regulate
themselves to keep up social balance and stability; however, they
cannot have the same impact, according to new circumstances,
as they did in the past on other social units including the con-
struction industry anymore. Their impact as an environmental
entity works as a ‘PUSH’ power to digitalize while the construc-
tion industry reacts as a ‘PULL’ force to resist the change. As a
result, the construction industry’s failure is not only a matter of
industry internal causes as certain researchers maintain, but it
could also be a matter of total social structure as well in which
everything from social needs, expectations, demands, and rela-
tions have been reformed to adjust to that technological change.
The construction industry status quo would be viewed as an
extant social imbalance that required to harmonize itself with
other social entities to keep social balance fixed.
Methods and materials
A survey design was developed based upon a structured online
questionnaire for a cross-cultural study consisting of respondents
from mainly three countries, namely, Italy, Columbia, and Brazil.
The questionnaire was exceptionally long with many questions
regarding all aspects of products and processes in construction
regarding BIM implementation. Therefore, for purpose of this
paper, some portions of the data were extracted from the original
questionnaire as secondary data. The research goal for this study
was to determine the feasibility implementation of BIM in associ-
ation with four variables of organizational, technological, economic,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
and social aspects in small to medium-sized construction firms.
The questionnaire was distributed online, and 317 respondents
including architects, consultants, contractors, engineers, and owners
returned the questionnaire. Some completed, some were half-com-
pleted and some mostly incomplete. In total, 70 received responses
were considered usable and complete from the following groups:
21 Brazilian, 30 Columbian, 16 Italian and 3 from other countries.
There were 23 respondents from micro firms with 1 to 9 employ-
ees, 26 from small-sized firms with 10 to 50 employees, 10 from
medium-sized firms having between 51 to 100 employees, 9 from
larger firms with over 100 employees, and 2 as no response.
The selected questions were closed-ended questions and
mainly consisted of Likert scale and multiple choice. The
respondents were asked to rank the feasibility of BIM in terms
of organizational, technological, economic, and social aspects.
The scale of 1 through 5 was utilized (lowest to highest feasibil-
ity). The multiple-choice questions included questions about
firm size, software, strategic partnership, and BIM usage when
selecting subcontractors. Statistical techniques were u using SPSS
27 and Microsoft Excel for groups’ rankings to understand the
feasibility and effects of BIM for SMEs.
The relative importance index (RII) was applied to rank the
four factors in feasibility of BIM implementation by calculating
the weighted average of all as previously conducted by academic
scholars in pertinent industry. (Eadie et al. 2013; Muneeswaran
et al. 2018).
P
w
RII ¼ (1)
A N
Where w is the weighted average of the Likert score (1 to 5)
by the respondents, A is the highest weight (5), and N is total
number of survey participants or sample size.
To assess the internal consistency of the survey, Cronbach’s
alpha was conducted to show how closely a set of variables are as
a group, which is the most used reliability coefficient to test reli-
ability and validation of data (Kenley 2014; Okoro et al. 2020).
To compare rankings of contractors and subcontractors,
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used, which is a nonparametric
statistical test to determine if two sets of pairs are statistically
different form each other. In hypothesis testing, it can be used to
compare two related samples to assess whether their population
mean ranks differ. Additionally, Mann-Whitney U Test was con-
ducted to compare differences between two groups of contractors
and subcontractors. In comparing two small sets of observations
and testing, the question is whether there is a difference in the
dependent variable through comparing differences between two
independent groups. Lastly, Two-Step Cluster Analysis was uti-
lized to assign observations to groups through which the obser-
vations have similarities based on attributes. In other words, the
objects in one cluster in certain senses are different from objects
in other groups or clusters. The purpose was to analyze and dif-
ferentiate micro, small, and medium-sized firms in terms of their
technological attributes.
Data analysis and findings
Relative importance index analysis
Tables 1 and 2 show the relative importance index (RII) for con-
tractors and subcontractors, respectively. According to the
results, organizational attributes are the most feasible for both
contractors and subcontractors and social attributes with the
lowest ranking scores has the least feasibility, whereas
4 H. SADEH ET AL.

Table 1. Relative Importance Index (RII) for Contractors.

Frequency
Contractor Very High High Medium Low Very Low Total Total (N) AN RII Ranks
Organizational 18 27 15 8 2 261 70 350 0.745714 1
Technological 17 21 21 7 4 250 70 350 0.714286 2
Economical 12 23 26 4 5 243 70 350 0.694286 3
Social 16 20 16 14 4 240 70 350 0.685714 4
A: Highest weight equals 5, N: number of respondents, Total: sum of weights

Table 2. Relative Importance Index (RII) for Subcontractors.

Frequency
Subcontractor Very High High Medium Low Very Low Total Total (N) AN RII Ranks
Organizational 13 25 20 8 4 245 70 350 0.7 1
Technological 12 17 24 12 5 229 70 350 0.654285714 3
Economical 10 22 24 9 5 233 70 350 0.665714286 2
Social 14 19 15 13 9 226 70 350 0.645714286 4
A: Highest weight equals 5, N: number of respondents, Total: sum of weights

Table 3. Item-Total Statistics for Cronbach’s Alpha.

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item-Total Squared Multiple Cronbach’s Alpha
Attributes Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation if Item Deleted
Organizational Con 23.8000 43.293 .600 .511 .913
Technological Con 23.9571 40.621 .752 .664 .901
Economical Con 24.0571 42.229 .676 .584 .908
Social Con 24.1000 40.381 .712 .647 .905
Organizational Sub 24.0286 41.680 .698 .647 .906
Technological Sub 24.2571 39.846 .798 .737 .897
Economical Sub 24.2000 40.684 .778 .658 .899
Social Sub 24.3000 38.619 .758 .665 .901

technological and economical attributes lie in the middle for compared to the overall rank mean. In this test, the rank mean
both. This implies that for both parties, alignment to the organ- of subcontractors is compared to the total mean as follows:
izational circumstances, which was having clear roles and liabil- As it is seen in the Table 4, Wilcoxon signed rank test, the
ities was much practical than settling with social conditions, sum of ranks for subcontractor is 450, that is: R ¼ 450.
which contains having openness to sharing information. n1ðn1 þ n2 þ 1Þ 24ð24 þ 12 þ 1Þ
lR ¼ ¼ ¼ 444 (2)
2 2
Reliability analysis OR ¼ (3)
n1n2ðn1 þ n2 þ 1Þ
Based on the results obtained from SPSS, the coefficient of ¼
Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.915, shows a strong reliability for the 8 attrib- 12
utes pertaining to feasibility of BIM for contractors and subcon- 24x12ð24 þ 12 þ 1Þ
¼ 29:8
tractors. Olawale et al. (2020) and Toriola-Coker et al. (2020) 12
state that as a rule of thumb any value for above 0.9 indicates a R lR 450  444
Z ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:20 (4)
strong consistency with 0.8 showing a good reliability and 0.7 OR 29:8
being the lowest acceptable. Therefore, at a ¼ 0.915, it is con- Based on the above calculations, for example, the Z-score is
cluded that the questionnaire is exceptionally reliable. Table 3, 0.20, and the Wilcoxon test would test whether the difference
‘Item-Total Statistics’, shows how much each item correlates to between two observations (contractors and subcontractors) has a
the overall questionnaire and as it is seen, there are no items mean signed rank of 0. Therefore, a positive value of Z would
with correlations less than r ¼ 0.30. There are no items that indicate that higher ranks may be found disproportionately in
would improve the score of a ¼ 0.915; therefore, no questions the first group, which is the contractors. As it can be seen in the
were removed from the survey. Table 4, all negative ranks (lower ranks) belong to the group of
subcontractors for all four variables.
In Table 5, a small negative value of z-score would show and
Wilcoxon signed ranks test prove that the first group (contractors) has a disproportionate
Ho: There is no difference between ranks of contractors and sub- share of lower ranks regarding the four variables compared to
contractors, that is, Ho ¼ 0. subcontractors and all p-values for these four variables in a two-
tailed test are larger than 0.05 and as a result, not statistically
H1 : H1 6¼ 0:
significant.
To determine the test statistic of the z-score, the rank mean For a significant interval of a ¼ 0.05, in a two-tailed test, with
of one group (either contractors or subcontractors) may be the critical z-values of þ1.96 and 1.96, which is one standard
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

deviation to the right and one standard deviation to the left of different technologically. Since we reject the null hypothesis
the mean, any test statistic between the range of þ1.96 and which claims both actors have the same ranks, due to the proper
1.96 as the significance interval is considered significant. The software collaboration and must accept the alternative hypothesis
test statistics of the four variables can be compared as follows: that both parties have different technological ranks or status.
The obtained test statistic of z ¼ 1.933 for both organiza- This implies that respondents come from samples with different
tional contractors and organizational subcontractors is between distributions.
the range of þ 1.96 and  1.96 critical values and is statistically
significant, which implies that organizationally, there is not a
Mann-Whitney U test
clear difference between the ranks of these two actors in terms
of roles and responsibilities. (Table 5), and test statistic of z ¼ The general null hypotheses may be formed as:
2.749 for technological attribute in contractors and subcontrac- Ho: The ranks of four variables (organizational, technological,
tors is beyond the critical value of  1.96 and not statistically economical, and social) for both contractors and subcontractors
significant which implies technologically, there is an explicit dif- have the same distribution under influence of strategic partner-
ference between the ranks of the two actors in terms of proper ship, namely, both have 50% to 50% ranks equally.
application of software, thus, null hypothesis will be rejected. We may form specific null hypothesis for each variable. As
Also, the test statistic of z ¼ 1.856 for economic attribute in a sample:
contractors and subcontractors as well as test statistic of z ¼ Ho: The organizational ranks of contractors and subcontrac-
1.887 for social attribute regarding contractors and subcontrac- tors are distributed similarly when influenced by strategic
tors are both smaller than critical value of  1.96. Based on this partnership.
comparison, the odd observation is that the test statistics for all The minimum rating is 1 and maximum rating is 5, rates
variables are located within critical values except the techno- below 3 are considered negatively and above 3 positively.
logical rank, whose test statistic is equal to 2.749 and conse- Strategic Partnership is the independent variable with respect
to (organizational, technological, social, and economical) as
quently, falls behind the critical region. According to the null
dependent variables for both contractor and subcontractor.
hypotheses, the ranks for both contractors and subcontractors
When introducing strategic partnership, the ratings of
are the same organizationally, socially, and economically and
respondents regarding the four variables show that the mean
ranks for contractors are higher than counterpart mean ranks for
Table 4. Wilcoxon Ranks Test Summary. subcontractors. In other words, the respondents rated higher
Ranks ranks for contractors than for subcontractors when considering
N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks strategic partnership.
Organizational Sub – Negative Ranks 24a 18.75 450.00 Also, based on the data in Table 6, 50 percent of respondents
Organizational Con Positive Ranks 12b 18.00 216.00 (from 25th the first percentile to 75th the third percentile) having
Ties 34c medians higher than their mean ranks for contractors and lower
Total 70 medians than their corresponding mean ranks for subcontrac-
Technological Sub – Negative Ranks 24d 15.88 381.00
Technological Con Positive Ranks 7e 16.43 115.00 tors. This is another reason through which the respondents rated
Ties 39f subcontractors related four variables lower than four variables
Total 70 for contractors when considering strategic partnership.
Economical Sub – Negative Ranks 22g 15.18 334.00 Consequently, the contractors’ medians are above their corre-
Economical Con Positive Ranks 9h 18.00 162.00
Ties 39i
sponding mean ranks and subcontractors’ medians below their
Total 70 corresponding mean ranks when locating these two measures of
Social Sub – Negative Ranks 17j 16.62 282.50 central tendency.
Social Con Positive Ranks 11k 11.23 123.50 The information in Table 7 has been utilized to calculate the
Ties 42l z-test statistic for all four variables regarding the contractors as
Total 70
mentioned above.
a
Organizational Sub < Organizational Con
b
Organizational Sub > Organizational Con
Restating previous information, the sample size included 70
c
Organizational Sub ¼ Organizational Con respondents, at a ¼ 0.05 and a two-tailed test with critical z val-
d
Technological Sub < Technological Con ues of 1.96 and  1.96.
e
Technological Sub > Technological Con According to asymptotic significance or p-values, there is a
f
Technological Sub ¼ Technological Con statistical significance for subcontractors’ organizational ranks
g
Economical Sub < Economical Con
h
Economical Sub > Economical Con whose p-value is less than 0.05, namely, 0.008 < 0.05 and as a
i
Economical Sub ¼ Economical Con result, null hypothesis is rejected. It implies that the two parties’
j
Social Sub < Social Con organizational ranks are not equally distributed. However, this is
k
Social Sub > Social Con not the case for other variables. Since the p-values for other vari-
l
Social Sub ¼ Social Con
ables are higher than 0.05, that is, .073, .306, .748,.058, .388 and

Table 5. Test Statistics Wilcoxon Signed Ranks.

Test Statisticsa
Organizational Sub – Technological Sub – Economical Sub – Social Sub –
Organizational Con Technological Con Economical Con Social Con
Z 1.933b 2.749b 1.856b 1.887b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .053 .006 .063 .059
a
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.
b
Based on positive ranks.
6 H. SADEH ET AL.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Man-Whitney U.

Descriptive statistics
Percentiles
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
Organizational Con 70 3.7286 1.06215 1.00 5.00 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
Technological Con 70 3.5714 1.13663 1.00 5.00 3.0000 4.0000 4.2500
Economical Con 70 3.4714 1.07301 1.00 5.00 3.0000 3.5000 4.0000
Social Con 70 3.4286 1.21072 1.00 5.00 2.0000 4.0000 4.0000
Organizational Sub 70 3.5000 1.10007 1.00 5.00 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000
Technological Sub 70 3.2714 1.15371 1.00 5.00 2.7500 3.0000 4.0000
Economical Sub 70 3.3286 1.09969 1.00 5.00 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000
Social Sub 70 3.2286 1.32064 1.00 5.00 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000
Strategic Partnership 70 1.4714 .50279 1.00 2.00 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000

(10 to 50 employees), medium (51 to 100 employees), and large

Table 7. Ranking Comparison for contractor and subcontractor. (above 100 employees) sizes. Out of 23 micro firms, cluster 3
Ranks shows 8 firms, which is almost 35% of the micro firms, and the
Strategic Partnership N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
cluster 4 is the second largest with 6 cases, cluster 1 with 5 fre-
quencies, and the least is cluster 2 with 4 cases. Out of 26 small-
Organizational Con Yes 37 39.43 1459.00
No 33 31.09 1026.00 sized firms, cluster 4 contains 11 cases, cluster 1 has 7 cases, and
Total 70 both cluster 2 and 3 show equal number of cases which is 4. The
Technological Con Yes 37 37.77 1397.50 medium sized firms’ total number is 11 cases of which cluster 3
No 33 32.95 1087.50 has no cases and cluster 1 with just 1 case. There are two clus-
Total 70
Economical Con Yes 37 36.20 1339.50 ters for large sized firms whose frequencies equal to zero out of
No 33 34.71 1145.50 8 cases and out of 70 firms, 2 cases show missing value due to
Total 70 ‘Don’t Know’ located in cluster 3.
Social Con Yes 37 36.47 1349.50 Strategic partnership is the property for which four clusters
No 33 34.41 1135.50
Total 70 have been formed in terms of 37 firms that have strategic part-
Organizational Sub Yes 37 41.34 1529.50 nership with their subcontractors and 33 firms that do not. For
No 33 28.95 955.50 37 cases that have strategic partnership, cluster 2 shows 0 cases
Total 70 and cluster 3 has only 1 case. Out of the total 37 frequencies, 21
Technological Sub Yes 37 39.72 1469.50
No 33 30.77 1015.50 cases belong to cluster 4 and 15 cases are related to cluster 1.
Total 70 Among those 33 firms that do not have this attribute, cluster 4
Economical Sub Yes 37 37.41 1384.00 indicates 0 cases, and cluster 1 has only 1 case. Majority cases belongs
No 33 33.36 1101.00 to cluster 3 with 18 out of 33 frequencies and cluster 2 with 14 cases
Total 70
Social Sub Yes 37 39.53 1462.50
out of 33. Therefore, clusters 1 and 4 play a great role regarding stra-
No 33 30.98 1022.50 tegic partnership and clusters 2 and 3 include those that do not.
Total 70 Table of BIM usage with total number of only 4 cases cannot
predict any property for clusters. Cluster 2 has no property of
BIM usage and other clusters do not have noticeable BIM usage
.073 > 0.05, then we fail to reject our relevant null hypotheses
attribute; therefore, they cannot be used as good predictors.
and must accept the claims that having equal ranks distribution
Table 13 illustration property of four clusters regarding soft-
for all other variables relating to strategic partnership and the
ware usage (27 cases) compared to lack of software usage (43
lower ranks appear to occur mostly in the subcontractors’ four
cases). Therefore, most firms (43 out of 70 cases) do not use any
variables (Table 8).
software. Of 27 that use software, clusters 3 and 4 show 0 prop-
erty and are not good for any prediction since clusters 3 and 4
Cluster analysis comprised lack of software usage entirely. However, clusters 1
and 2 are rather good for showing the property software usage,
The variables selected to use in a two-step cluster analysis are firm 16 and 11 cases, respectively.
size, strategic partnership, BIM usage, and software usage, respect- Figure 1 below shows summary properties of four clusters for
ively. Based on these variables, four clusters have been formed. this analysis along with degree of importance or predictability of
The following cluster distribution Table 9 displays number of each. The heavy blue color is indicating the higher predictability
observations in each cluster and percentage of their combined of the clusters and the brighten colors (bright blue and gray) is
and total contribution for each cluster. showing less important clusters.
Cluster 4 is the strongest with 21 observations having the Cluster 4 has a predictability of 30%, cluster 3 at 27.1%, clus-
largest percentages for combined and total contribution, 30.0% ter 1 at 22.9%, and cluster 2 at 20%, respectively regarding firm
and 29.6% as the percentages of predictability power of each, size. Clusters 4 and 1 are good predictors for property of stra-
respectively. The smallest cluster contribution belongs to cluster tegic partnership compared to clusters 2 and 3, which have no
1 with 22.9% combined and 22.5% total as the power of predict- importance in this regard. This property may be seen in both the
ability, respectively. table of strategic partnership above, and Figure 1. For software
As can be seen in above table, the attribute that cluster ana- property, neither cluster 4 nor cluster 3 is a good predictor.
lysis illustrating is firm size. Regarding firm size, four clusters However, clusters 1 and 2 are better predictors for this property,
have been formed in terms of micro (1 to 9 employees), small respectively. For BIM usage, neither cluster can be used for any
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7

Table 8. Test Statistics.

Test statisticsa
Organizational Technological Economical Social Organizational Technological Economical Social
Con Con Con Con Sub Sub Sub Sub
Mann-Whitney U 465.000 526.500 584.500 574.500 394.500 454.500 540.000 461.500
Wilcoxon W 1026.000 1087.500 1145.500 1135.500 955.500 1015.500 1101.000 1022.500
Z 1.790 1.024 .321 .436 2.645 1.898 .863 1.795
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .073 .306 .748 .663 .008 .058 .388 .073
a
Grouping Variable: Strategic Partnership.

Table 9. Cluster Distribution.

Cluster distribution
N % of Combined % of Total
Cluster 1 16 22.9% 22.5%
2 14 20.0% 19.7%
3 19 27.1% 26.8%
4 21 30.0% 29.6%
Combined 70 100.0% 98.6%
Excluded Cases 1 1.4%
Total 71 100.0%

Figure 1. Cluster Distributions.

prediction because of small number of combined cases as well as
small frequencies of each individual cluster. The greater number
of cases, the more powerful clusters in analyzing similarity and
distance among observations. The higher the similarity level, the
more correlated are the variables in every cluster. Usually, clus-
ters with a relatively high similarity level are particularly good
predictors especially when their distances are at low level. In
Figure 1, the percentages inside parentheses are similarity levels
of each cluster. Cluster 4 has a similarity level of 52.4% for firm
sizes between 10 to 50. This percentage for cluster 3 is 42.1% for
firm sizes between 1 to 9, for cluster 1 is at 43.8% for firm sizes
between 10 to 50, and for cluster 2, which is a good fit for larger
firms, is at 42.9% for firm sizes between 51 to 100. As it can be
seen, there is an abrupt change in similarity from cluster 4 to
cluster 3, which is about 10% going from 52.4% to 42.10.
Further, clusters 1, 2, and 4 are more similar regarding their
similarity levels which are almost close to one another.
Results and discussion
Since the sample size is both small and cross-culturally distrib-
uted, all results should be considered cautiously. The most
important principles in sampling are sample size, which must be
large enough for any generalization, secondly, the selected sam-
ple must be representing the target population and thirdly,
respondents must be selected randomly. However, our findings
support notions spread on construction literature partially.
Therefore, the part that is supported is based on construction lit-
erature and the other part would be considered as new claims.
According to Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, we learned that
contractors and subcontractors are different in ranks based on
technology application and collaboration in software usage. Also,
regarding organizational, social, economic attributes, similarities
on roles and responsibilities, information sharing, risk allocation
and resources are high. They think the same and act the same
on those circumstances.
In Mann-Whitney U test, we assume by introducing another
variable (strategic partnership), both contractors and subcontrac-
tors’ notions are equally distributed regarding organizational,
social, economic, and technological attributes. That was the case
for organizational factor, but not for other variables, i.e., they
agree upon organizational roles and responsibilities, but on
social, technological, and economic factors.
According to our findings based on cluster analysis (Figure 1),
we may name cluster 4 as medium-sized firms, which consists of
8 H. SADEH ET AL.

Table 10. Firm Size Distribution in clusters.

Firm Size
1 to 9 10 to 50 51 to 100 100> Do not know
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Cluster 1 5 21.7% 7 26.9% 1 9.1% 3 37.5% 0 0.0%
2 4 17.4% 4 15.4% 6 54.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
3 8 34.8% 4 15.4% 0 0.0% 5 62.5% 2 100.0%
4 6 26.1% 11 42.3% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Combined 23 100.0% 26 100.0% 11 100.0% 8 100.0% 2 100.0%

Table 13. Software distribution in clusters.

Table 11. Strategic Partnership distribution in clusters.
Software
Strategic Partnership
Yes No
Yes No
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Cluster 1 16 59.3% 0 0.0%
Cluster 1 15 40.5% 1 3.0%
2 11 40.7% 3 7.0%
2 0 0.0% 14 42.4%
3 0 0.0% 19 44.2%
3 1 2.7% 18 54.5%
4 0 0.0% 21 48.8%
4 21 56.8% 0 0.0%
Combined 27 100.0% 43 100.0%
Combined 37 100.0% 33 100.0%

construction activities are bound to small investments within a

Table 12. BIM Use distribution in clusters.
BIM USE
Yes
Frequency Percent Frequency
Cluster 1 2 50.0% 14
2 0 0.0% 14
3 1 25.0% 18
4 1 25.0% 20
Combined 4 100.0% 66
21 respondents, though cluster 1 also contains medium-sized firms
with only having 16 respondents. Cluster 3 comprise the small
firms with 19 respondents, and cluster 2 can be called the large
firms, which is the smallest cluster with only 14 respondents; the
bulk of respondents (49) spread in firms with 1 to 9 and 10 to 50
employees (Table 10). Based on the findings, when ‘firm size’ was
linked with partnership, software usage, and subcontractor selec-
tion based on BIM usage, we learned that almost half of the sam-
ple target (33 firms), according to Table 11, did not have
partnership with their subcontractors and this feature was only an
attribute for cluster 4 and cluster 1. For this reason, cluster 4 has
the highest power of predictability. Regarding subcontractor selec-
tion based on BIM usage (Table 12), more than 94% (66 respond-
ents; namely, 20 in cluster 4, 18 in cluster 3, 14 in cluster 2 and
14 in cluster 1 respectively) did not care for BIM usage experience
and more than 61%, namely, 21 in cluster 4, 19 in cluster 3, and
3 in cluster 2, respectively (Table 13) asserted they did not use
any software at all. As a result, if the SMEs once were functional
and profitable during the pre-digitalization era, it seems that with
more advanced and complicated technologies of today, they no
longer would have the competitive edge and enjoy high productive
performance, and this challenge should pressurize them towards
digital transformation and forming a strategic partnership and alli-
ance with other actors within the construction industry.
Conclusion and implication
It is believed that the SMEs have a more cultural lag than a
technological lag. Since most of their production and
limited business environment, what has been of importance for
the SMEs is to focus on their current products and income on
smaller jobs through which they have lost the capability to fore-
No
see horizon of competitive future by means of ongoing techno-
Percent logical change. SMEs mostly rely on known contractors and
21.2% subcontractors and limit their business to a closed chain of com-
21.2% munication. Contractors and subcontractors that are not
27.3%
30.3%
acquainted with the new technologies cannot play a great role in
100.0% adopting any innovation. Further, SMEs do not feel comfortable
and safe by new technologies and make every effort to keep this
communication chain closed. For contractors that are not famil-
iar with innovation, technological oriented subcontractors are
not good options. As a result, we hypothesized that there should
be huge similarities in terms of knowledge between these two
groups and prepared the relevant hypotheses. The purpose of
this study was to test feasibility of BIM implementation and
rankings of contractors and subcontractors based on four organ-
izational, technological, economic, and social aspects of small,
and medium-sized construction firms. The main contributions of
this study were the comparison of contractors and subcontrac-
tors in terms of BIM feasibility factors for the first time, in add-
ition to grouping their technological attributes based on firm
size. To test the selected hypotheses, Wilcoxon test and Mann-
Whitney test were used as two inferential statistical techniques
for ordinal and interval levels. In Wilcoxon test, all hypotheses
were rejected except the technological factor. Therefore, it was
concluded and accepted that the rankings for contractors are dif-
ferent from the rankings for subcontractors in relation to
technological aspects. It implies that there must be a differenti-
ation of technological knowhow between these two groups in
based on respondents’ opinion. In Mann-Whitney test, it was
concluded that the rankings of contractors are higher than those
of subcontractors regarding the four variables when introducing
strategic partnership.
To adopt BIM as an innovation for SMEs, it would be vital to
harmonize the external effective elements along with internal fac-
tors, including financial and software training knowhow as well
as monetary support in form of tax reliefs.
Contractors and subcontractors can play a great part in
adopting innovative BIM for SMEs; however, this has not been

the case. Secondly, it is not only about construction internal fac-
tors, environmental components such as technological, social,
and economic preparedness may also play greater roles on
this matter.
The implications that may be derived from the findings of
this study would be the fact that both contractors and subcon-
tractors, as major mediators to digitalization feasibility with simi-
lar rankings, play a great part in declining the adoption of
innovation in construction firms. We may propose this notion
that when the rankings are different among contractors and sub-
contractors, there might be a tendency toward modernization
and innovation of technology in the construction industry. For
this understanding, the larger construction firms that may have
access to more diverse and skillful professionals, may be showing
more feasibility toward digitalization. Secondly, strategic partner-
ship is considered as a step forward toward shaping up the rank-
ing differentiation among contractors and subcontractors.
Moreover, we assert that since this was a cross-cultural study
with a small sample size, precaution to generalize the findings is
seriously advised. More research needs to be conducted to con-
firm this association. Unequivocally, there would be more valid-
ity and reliability, if above premises were tested against a larger
sample size, with more respondents’ homogeneity when firm size
in different stratifications of (0 to 9) and (10 to 50) were taken
into consideration. Furthermore, we are interested in and curious
about content and nature of this differentiation among construc-
tion actors. Therefore, we recommend that future research proj-
ects focus and conduct relevant hypotheses about this
commonality of actors’ motives.
Additionally, majority of construction research projects are
based on a causal (cause-effect) relation which mostly may be
applicable in experimental laboratories for checking the impact
of one variable (independent) on another (dependent). However,
in real life scenarios such as construction sites in which people
have social interactions, we deal with covariational relations con-
sisting of multiple factors impacting and influencing one another
with multiple interrelationships through which one variable while
impacts other variable(s), still may be impacted by other varia-
ble(s). For this reason, construction researchers need to change
their causal relation approach to covariational approach in terms
of feasibility of digitalization in construction.
Disclosure statement
No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.
Data availability statement
Data generated or analysed during the study are available from the
Corresponding author by request.
References
Ahankoob A, Manley K, Abbasnejad B. 2019. The role of contractors’ build-
ing information modelling (BIM) experience in realising the potential val-
ues of BIM. Int J Constr Manag. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.
2019.1639126.
Ahuja R, Sawhney A, Jain M, Arif M, Rakshit S. 2020. Factors influencing
BIM adoption in emerging markets – the case of India. Int J Constr
Manag. 20(1):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1462445.
Awwad KA, Shibani A, Ghostin M. 2020. Exploring the critical success fac-
tors influencing BIM level 2 implementation in the UK construction
industry: the case of SMEs. Int J Constr Manag. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15623599.2020.1744213.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9
Benzazoua Bouazza A, Ardjouman D, and Abada O. 2015. Summary for poli-
cymakers. Am Int J Soc Sci. 4(2):101–115.
Bosch-Sijtsema P, Gluch P. 2019. Challenging construction project manage-
ment institutions: the role and agency of BIM actors. Int J Constr Manag.
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1602585.
Bosch-Sijtsema P, Isaksson A, Lennartsson M, Linderoth HCJ. 2017. Barriers
and facilitators for BIM use among Swedish medium-sized contractors -
“we wait until someone tells us to use it”. Vis Eng. 5(1), Article number:
3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-017-0040-7.
Dainty A, Leiringer R, Fernie S, Harty C. 2017. BIM and the small construc-
tion firm: a critical perspective. Build Res Inf. 45(6):696–709.
Eadie R, Browne M, Odeyinka H, McKeown C, McNiff S. 2013. BIM imple-
mentation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: an analysis.
Enshassi A, Ayyash A, Choudhry RM. 2016. BIM for construction safety
improvement in Gaza strip: awareness, applications, and barriers. Int J
Constr Manag. 16(3):249–265.
European Union. 2003. EU Recommendation 2003/361, European
Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/sme-definition_en
Fountain J, Langar S. 2018. Building Information Modeling (BIM) outsourc-
ing among general contractors. Autom Constr. 95:107–117.
Hong Y, Hammad AWA, Akbarnezhad A. 2019. Impact of organization size
and project type on BIM adoption in the Chinese construction market.
Constr Manag Econ. 37(11):675–691.
Hong Y, Hammad AWA, Sepasgozar S, Akbarnezhad A. 2019. BIM adoption
model for small and medium construction organisations in Australia.
ECAM. 26(2):154–183.
Hong Y, Sepasgozar SME, Ahmadian AFF, Akbarnezhad A. 2016. Factors
influencing BIM adoption in small and medium sized construction organi-
zations. ISARC 2016 - 33rd International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction, (ISARC). p. 452–461.
Hosseini M, P€arn EA, Edwards DJ, Papadonikolaki E, Oraee M. 2018.
Roadmap to mature BIM use in Australian SMEs: competitive dynamics
perspective. J Manage Eng. 34(5):05018008.
Jin R, Hancock CM, Tang L, Wanatowski D. 2017. BIM investment, returns,
and risks in China’s AEC Industries. J Constr Eng Manage. 143(12):
04017089. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001408.
Kenley R. 2014. Productivity improvement in the construction process.
Constr Manage Econ. 32(6):489–494.
Lam TT, Mahdjoubi L, Mason J. 2017. A framework to assist in the analysis
of risks and rewards of adopting BIM for SMEs in the UK. J Civil Eng
Manag. 23(6):740–752.
Le PL, Chaabane A, Dao TM. 2019. BIM contributions to construction sup-
ply chain management trends: an exploratory study in Canada. Int J
Constr Manag. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1639124.
Lee S, Yu J. 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 G, Mathews N, Yoders J. 2014. The business value of BIM for construc-
tion in major global markets. https://www.icn-solutions.nl/pdf/bim_con-
struction.pdf.
Lex - 32003H0361 - en. (n.d.). [accessed 2021 March 08]. http://publications.
europa.eu/resource/cellar/6ca8d655-126b-4a42-ada4-e9058fa45155.0004.01/
DOC_1.
Li P, Zheng S, Si H, Xu K. 2019. Critical challenges for BIM adoption in
small and medium-sized enterprises: evidence from China. Adv Civ Eng.
2019:1–14.
Liao L, Teo EAL. 2019. Managing critical drivers for building information
modelling implementation in the Singapore construction industry: an
organizational change perspective. Int J Constr Manag. 19(3):240–256.
Lu S-L, Sexton MG, Abbott C. (No Dates). Key Characteristics of Small
Construction Firms: A United Kingdom Perspective, CIB W065/055
Commissions: Transformation through Construction.
Malacarne G, Toller G, Marcher C, Riedl M, Matt DT. 2018. Investigating
benefits and criticisms of bim for construction scheduling in SMEs: an
Italian case study. Int J Sustain Dev Plan. 13(01):139–150. https://doi.org/
10.2495/SDP-V13-N1-139-150.
Mirarchi C, Trebbi C, Lupica Spagnolo S, Daniotti B, Pavan A, Tripodi D.
2019. BIM methodology and tools implementation for construction com-
panies (Green BIM project). In: Daniotti B, Gianinetto M, Della Torre S,
editors. Digital transformation of the design, construction and manage-
ment processes of the built environment. Research for development.
Cham: Springer.
Mostafa S, Kim KP, Tam VWY, Rahnamayiezekavat P. 2020. Exploring the
status, benefits, barriers, and opportunities of using BIM for advancing
prefabrication practice. Int J Constr Manag. 20(2):146–156.
10 H. SADEH ET AL.
Muneeswaran G, Manoharan P, Awoyera PO, Adesina A. 2018. A statistical
approach to assess the schedule delays and risks in Indian construction
industry. Int J Constr Manag. 20(5):450–461.
Noruwa BI, Arewa AO, Merschbrock C. 2020. Effects of emerging technolo-
gies in minimising variations in construction projects in the UK. Int J
Constr Manag. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1772530.
Okakpu A, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Tookey J, Haar J, Ghaffarianhoseini A,
Rehman AU. 2020. Risk factors that influence adoption of Building
Information Modelling (BIM) for refurbishment of complex building proj-
ects: stakeholders’ perceptions. Int J Constr Manag. 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15623599.2020.1795985.
Okoro CS, Musonda I, Agumba JN. 2020. Exploring the underlying struc-
tures of sustainability performance measures: a study of transportation
projects in South Africa. Int J Constr Manag. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15623599.2020.1729932.
Olawale O, Oyedele L, Owolabi H, Gbadamosi A-Q, Kusimo H. 2020. Project
reputation in construction: a process-based perspective of construction
practitioners in the UK. Int J Constr Manag. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15623599.2020.1783598.
Rogers FM. 1995. The diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free
Press.
Toriola-Coker LO, Alaka H, Agbali M, Bello WA, Pathirage C, Oyedele L.
2020. Marginalization of end-user stakeholder’s in public private partner-
ship road projects in Nigeria. Int J Constr Manag. 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15623599.2020.1766189.
Tranchant A, Beladjine D, Beddiar K. 2017. BIM in French smes: from
innovation to necessity. WIT Trans Built Environ. 169:135–142.
Tsado AJ, Shakantu WWM, Alumbugu PO. 2020. Construction micro, small,
and medium enterprises (CMSMEs) innovations. J Eng Proj Prod. 10(1):
11–18.
Wang G, Wang P, Cao D, Luo X. 2020. Predicting behavioural resistance to
BIM implementation in construction projects: an empirical study integrat-
ing technology acceptance model and equity theory. J Civ Eng Manag.
26(7):651–665.