Measuring and benchmarking the productivity of excavators in

infrastructure projects: A Deep Neural Network approach

Professor Mohamd Kassem*1 and Dr. Ahmed Louay2

1Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering
Faculty of Energy Environment
Northumbria University

2Dr.
Ahmed Louay Ahmed
Department of Architectural Engineering
University of Technology

*Corresponding Author:
Professor Mohamad Kassem
Email: mohamad.kassem@northumbria.ac.uk
Address: Ellison Terrace, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Digital Transformation through Building Information
Modelling: spanning the macro-micro divide

Abstract

Benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM) have encouraged its adoption within organisations
(i.e., micro level) and incentivised many policy makers to establish market-wide BIM initiative (i.e.
macro level) to encourage its diffusion. The adoption of a systemic innovation such as BIM within a
complex socio-technical environment such as the construction industry requires the understanding of
the dynamics of the micro-BIM adoption and its potential interactions with the macro level. Studies
addressing this theme are lacking which is a significant gap given the importance of supporting macro
level initiative with both theoretical foundation and empirical evidence.

This research proposes a novel analytical investigation of micro BIM adoption and proposes an
approach that enables to link micro BIM adoption dynamics to the macro level’s initiatives. To analyse
the dynamics of micro BIM adoption, the adoption of BIM by 178 organisations was studied. Two
methods are used; the fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (F-DEMATEL), and
systems thinking. Existing theoretical constructs, used as a point of departure, includes the Unified
BIM Adoption Taxonomy (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018) and the Macro Diffusion Responsibilities model
(Succar and Kassem, 2015).

The theoretical and empirical results include a classification of BIM adoption factors in cause-and-
effect factors; the identification of causal loop diagrams (CLD) representing the causation chains that
lead to the decision to adopt BIM by organisations; and an approach that links the micro BIM adoption
to the macro BIM initiatives. The proposed approach serves as the basis for designing a coordinated
collaborative effort for effective BIM-focussed digital transformation programmes.

Keywords: BIM, BIM adoption, digital transformation, micro BIM adoption, macro BIM adoption.

1. Introduction

The digital transformation of the construction sector has been widely discussed in industry and
academia. Since its inception, Building Information Modelling (BIM) definitions have increasingly
expanded from the earliest definitions focussed on technological aspects to the more recent
connotations that consider BIM as the “current expression of digital innovation within the
construction sector” (Succar and Kassem, 2015, p.64).
BIM anticipated and actual benefits have motivated organisations (i.e., micro level), project teams
(i.e., meso level) and countries (i.e., macro level) to develop BIM adoption initiatives. However, BIM
adoption rates are still moderate (Lindblad and Karrbom Gustavsson, 2021). Some of the key
challenges facing its adoption include its being unbounded and systemic innovation (Taylor and Levitt,
2004; Hall et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2020) and the need for systematic change within the industry
(Dowsett and Harty, 2019; Aksenova et al., 2019).
To address this challenge, research have evolved in four main directions, addressing adoption at
different levels:
 Micro Level: Studies investigating the factors that affect BIM implementation within organisations
including identification of adoption factors, their ranking and correlations analyses (Taylor, 2006;
Eadie et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2015; Lindgren, 2016; Takim et al., 2013). Generally, these studies do

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 not consider the extensive list of potential factors that affect BIM adoption which could be
inherent in either the adopter’s environment (i.e. the organisation), their surrounding
environment (i.e. the market), or the innovation itself. They also contemplate ‘adoption’ as a
milestone instead of a multi-staged adoption process (Hochscheid and Halin, 2020). They usually
adopt one specific theory or theoretical model to investigate BIM adoption (e.g., Theory of
Acceptance Model; Institutional Diffusion Theory, Innovation Adoption Theory). This only provides
a partial understanding of the BIM adoption topic given its systemic nature and its interactions
with the sector’s macro environment.
 Micro-meso level: Studies that apply social theories such as actor-network theory (Lindblad and
Karrbom Gustavsson, 2021), structuration theory (Papadonikolaki et al., 2019) and activity theory
(Akintola et al., 2020; Nørkjaer Gade et al., 2019; Zomer et al., 2021) to understand adoption
within organisations and projects. Scholars within this vein argue that the investigation approach,
described above at the micro level, is not adequate to explain ‘how’ implementation occur within
its social context (i.e., actors and their relationship in actor-network theory; institutionalised social
order in structuration theory; and social-historical constructs in activity theory). These studies are
predominantly descriptive and their ability to produce knowledge to enact change for either
normative or prescriptive purposes is limited.
 Macro level: Studies that develop constructs and models for BIM adoption at market (i.e., macro)
level. There are very limited studies at this level. A study by Succar and Kassem (2015) produced
five models for macro BIM adoption to help assessing and guiding the digital transformation effort
at industry-wide level. These models were subsequently validated through their application for
assessment and benchmarking of macro BIM adoption across 21 markets (Kassem and Succar,
2017).
While the first two categories of studies are primarily aimed at organisation (i.e., micro) and project
(meso) level, the third category investigate adoption at industry or market level (i.e., macro). A major
gap in the literature around BIM adoption is the limited connection across these levels, especially
between the macro and micro levels. In addition to the need for removing the siloes separating
between the micro and macro levels, this study argues for an improved understanding of the BIM
adoption topic beyond existing approaches where the focus has been on identifying correlations
between adoption factors, ranking factors affecting adoption, and considering adoption as a one-point
milestone instead of a staged process.
This research addresses these limitations by considering the multi-staged nature of the BIM adoption
process and an extensive array of factors influencing the BIM adoption process, and endeavouring to
establish links between the micro and the macro levels. The aim is to improve the understanding of
BIM adoption within organisations (i.e., micro BIM adoption) and initiate the effort of connecting
micro BIM adoption with macro BIM adoption. To fulfil this aim, the research poses two specific
questions: how can a wide range of factors, that affect micro BIM adoption, be organised into cause
and effect factors and into causal loop diagrams (CLD) to explain the process of micro BIM adoption?;
and how can the CLD representing the dynamics of micro BIM adoption be linked to the macro level?
To fulfil this aim, this research combines analytical and conceptual models for investigating micro BIM
adoption with relevant concepts from the macro BIM adoption study of (Succar and Kassem, 2015).
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the theoretical and empirical
foundation underpinning this study; Section 3 explains the analytical methods and approaches (i.e.,
Fuzzy DEMATEL and Systems Thinking); Section 4 describes the results; Sections 5 discusses the
findings, their theoretical implications, and practical uses; and Section 6 concludes and outlines future
work.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

2. Theoretical and empirical background

This research has foundation in three conceptual constructs and one set of empirical data that are
briefly summarised in Table 1. Existing conceptual constructs and empirical data and their role in this
studyand described in the following sub-sections.

Table 1. Existing conceptual constructs and empirical data and their role in this study

Conceptual Constructs Role in this research

BIM adoption - Specifies stages of adoption that this study can investigate either separately
conceptual model (i.e., awareness, intention, decision) or as a group (i.e. focussing on
(Figure 1) ‘confirmation’ as an outcome following the three stages).
- Provides an approach to investigate effect of drivers/factors on BIM
adoption combining together the institutional theory and the innovation
diffusion theory.
- Shows potential interactions between adoption drivers and the adoption
stage upon which they exert influence.
Unified BIM Adoption - Identifies 17 factors affecting BIM adoption, organised into three driver
Taxonomy (Error! areas (i.e., innovation characteristics, external environment characteristics,
Reference source not adopter’s internal environment characteristics).
found.) - Makes available these adoption factors for various analyses to enable
inductive development of new conceptual constructs. This study focusses
on 11 factors (see bottom line in this Table) that were identified to have the
strongest influence on BIM adoption.
Macro-Diffusion - Provides a clear list of nine BIM player groups, distributed across three BIM
Responsibilities model fields (i.e. technology, process and policy).
(Figure 3) - Proposed by Succar and Kassem (2015) as a model to assess and compare
the roles played by different macro player groups in facilitating diffusion
within and across markets. In this study, it is used to develop actions that
enable the player groups to positively influence micro BIM adoption.
Empirical data Role in this research
Top factors influencing - A list of 11 factors that were idenfied as having the strongest influence on
BIM adoptions the decision to adopt within firms (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018). These
factors are used as a starting point for investigating the dynamic of micro
BIM adoption and its links with macro BIM adoption through the Macro-
Diffusion responsibility model.

2.1 Conceptual BIM adoption model

Based on a systematic review of BIM adoption studies, Ahmed and Kassem (2018) developed a
conceptual model (Figure 1) to show that BIM adoption unfold in stages and each stage can be affected
by a range of drivers and factors that are associated with either the external environment surrounding
the adopter, the adopter’s internal environment, or the innovation itself. In doing so, their model
merges together an adapted view of the innovation adoption process by (Rogers, 2003) and the key
constructs from the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and the Institutional Theory (INT).

This model will guide the empirical investigation of micro BIM adoption performed in this study. The
study uses data from 177 organisations that have already made the decision to adopt BIM (i.e., passed
‘Stage 3 Decision Stage’ with confirmation in Figure 1) and moved into implementation stage; hence,
this study is classified as a retrospective study.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Figure 1. Conceptual model for investigating Micro BIM adoption

2.2 Unified BIM adoption taxonomy

A unified BIM adoption taxonomy (Figure 2) containing an extensive list of factors that affect micro
BIM adoption was developed by Ahmed and Kassem (2018). The taxonomy was validated using
structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis with a sample of 177 organisations that
have already confirmed the adoption of BIM (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018). Eleven factors that were
identified as having the strongest influence on the decision to adopt within organisation (see Section
2.4) will be used as a starting point for investigating the dynamic of micro BIM adoption and its links
with the macro BIM adoption model.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

Figure 2. Unified BIM Adoption Taxonomy (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

2.3 Macro Diffusion Responsibilities model
This model identifies nine player groups distributed across three BIM fields (Succar and Kassem, 2015);
technology, process and policy (Succar, 2009). The nine player groups are listed and explained in Figure
3. This macro BIM model is intended to assess and compare the roles of the different player groups in
BIM diffusion within one market or across markets. This model has an accompanying matrix that helps
to define the levels of responsibilities of different players group/types towards diffusion activities. In
this paper, the macro player groups will be assigned actions that would influence the micro BIM
adoption according to the adoption patterns identified from the application of analytical approached
explained later on in the paper.

Figure 3. Player groups of the Macro Diffusion Responsibilities model (adapted from Succar and Kassem (2015)

2.4 Top 11 factors influencing BIM adoption

The 17 factors of the taxonomy were used to formulate hypotheses about the potential influence of
each factor on each of the three stages of adoption (i.e., awareness, intention, and decision), resulting

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

in a total of 51 hypotheses (i.e., 17 factors x 3 stages). All the hypotheses followed the syntax of the
example included in Table 2Table 2. The significance of the influence exerted by each factor was
measured by comparing the P-value for the factor to the significance level of the null hypothesis (i.e.,
no association between the term and the response) using the Ordinal Logistic Regression method. The
significance threshold (denoted as α or alpha) is 0.05 maximum, leaving a 5% risk of concluding that
an association exists when there is not an actual association (Harrell, 2001). The results in Figure 4
ranks the influence of the different factors on each stage of the adoption process. The 11 factors
appearing in Figure 4 are used an input for this study. Their definition is included in Table 3Error!
Reference source not found..

Table 2. an extract of hypotheses for testing relationships between coercive pressure (as a
driver) and the first three adoption stages

Factors Code Hypotheses

Coercive H1 Architectural organisations which are subjected to coercive pressures are more likely to be
pressures aware of BIM.

H2 Architectural organisations which are subjected to coercive pressures are more likely to
develop interest in adopting BIM.

H3 Architectural organisations which are subjected to coercive pressures are more likely to
make the decision to adopt BIM.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

Figure 4. The 11 most influential factors at each stage of the BIM adoption process

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Table 3 Definitions of the most influencing factors

Code
Factor Definition
F1 Willingness/intention to adopt The formulation of a favourable attitude in an organisation or a decision-
BIM making unit towards the innovation/BIM.

F2 Communication behaviour The degree of openness and engagement of an organisation with social
groupings and networks interested in innovation adoption and promotion.

F3 Observability of BIM benefits The degree to which the results from innovation/BIM adoption are visible
and tangible.

F4 Compatibility of BIM The degree to which an innovation/BIM aligns with potential adopter’s
previous experiences and current and future needs and values.

F5 Social motivations among The motivation to engage in behaviours that benefit others such as
organisation's members considering others’ perspectives, stimulating knowledge exchange, and
focusing on collective goals.

F6 Relative advantage of BIM The degree to which an innovation/BIM is perceived as being better than the
system/practice it replaces.

F7 Organisational culture The shared norms, beliefs, principles, and traditions - held by the members
of an organisation– which contribute to the members’ understanding of the
organisational functioning, help dismantling silos and moving in the same
direction.

F8 Top management support The degree to which senior management understands the importance of the
innovation/BIM function and the extent to which they are involved into
promoting the system adoption.

F9 Organisational readiness The extent to which organisational members are psychologically and
behaviourally prepared to implement a change, their mutual determination
to perform the change, and their mutual faith in their aggregate capacity to
achieve the change.

F10 Coercive pressures The formal and informal forces an organisation is subjected to by other
(Governmental mandate, organisations (government, public and private sector’s clients and
informal mandate) employers).

F11 Organisation size The total number of full-time members of staff of an organisation (e.g.,
micro, small, medium, and large).

3. Methods

To understand micro BIM adoption, this paper proposes to investigate the relative levels of influence
between the factors affecting micro BIM adoption and classify them in cause and effect factors using
the Fuzzy-DEMATEL method; and then analyse the BIM adoption topic, as a complex system, using a
systems thinking model approach. The outcomes from these steps are interrelated: The outcome of
the Fuzzy-DEMATEL method allows the systems thinking model to focus on the most important Causal
Loop Diagrams (CLD) which are loops that have a cause factor, with both high prominence and high
relation degree, as a starting node. The methods used to achieve the two objectives are described in
the next two sub-section, respectively.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

3.1 Fuzzy-DEMATEL
The decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is a technique for constructing and
analysing a structural model (Wu and Lee, 2007). DEMATEL helps decision making by identifying direct
and indirect causation and the strength of influence among multiple factors, variables or criteria
affecting a given system. The theoretical development of this method is based on graph theory; it
provides a visual representation of the relationship matrices using ‘graphical structural matrices’ and
‘causal diagrams’ (i.e., digraphs) that can help to understand the interrelations between the variables
within the system (Lee et al., 2010). It has been used in many disciplines and applications, for instance:
management decision making (Mardani et al., 2017; Tsai et al., 2015), technology innovation (Chien
et al., 2014; ZHAO and YI, 2017), airline safety (Chen, 2016), systems engineering (Aviso et al., 2018),
knowledge management (Abdullah and Zulkifli, 2018), causal modelling (Ocampo et al., 2018), and
many others. DEMATEL helps to provide decision makers with the most efficient paths to a desired
outcome.
The classic DEMATEL is not suitable when dealing with human decisions that entail vagueness and
uncertainty. In decision-making problems associated with complex systems, the assessment
presented by decision-makers on subjective principles of a specific item depends on expertise and
knowledge and is often communicated in linguistic expressions rather than crisp values (Lin, 2013).
This issue is addressed by the fuzzy set theory by which vagueness in decision-making can be signified
and managed by arithmetical methods. Arithmetically, every number in the fuzzy set between 0 and
1 denotes a fractional fact, while crisp sets conform to 0 or 1 binary logic (Wu and Lee, 2007; Lin,
2013). Expert judgement is converted into fuzzy numbers (Table 44) which are then de-fuzzified to
obtain accurate values (Tsaur and Kuo, 2011; Lee et al., 2014).
Table 4 The triangular fuzzy linguistic scale set

Linguistic terms/influence Score Triangular Fuzzy Number

No influence 0 (0, 0, 0.25)
Very low influence 1 (0, 0, 0.25)
Low influence 2 (0.25, 0.50, 0.75)
High influence 3 (0.50, 0.75, 1.00)
Very high influence 4 (0.75, 1.00, 1.00)

The F-DEMATEL retains practical and effective advantages of the traditional DEMATEL method while
having the ability to capture the vagueness and uncertainty associated to the data (Singh and Sarkar,
2020). The steps performed in this research to apply the Fuzzy-DEMATEL included:
Step 1: Identify the factors that influence the criteria within the complex system under investigation,
and establish the measurement scale to determine the direction and the degree of influence of the
relationships among the factors influencing the criteria. Then, perform pairwise relationships based
on the views and experience of experts. The comparison scale includes the five levels of influence
included in Table 4.
Step 2: Formulate the initial direct influence matrix, K, which is an n × n matrix, determined from the
pairwise comparisons of the influences and the directions among the factors. K= [kij]n × n , where kij is
the level of influence that factor i exerts on factor j (Equation 1).

(1)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

Step 3: Calculate a normalised direct relation matrix, N, using Equations 2 and 3, where all main
diagonal elements are equal to zero.


1 i, j 1,2,...,n
 n  (2)
Max1in   kij 
 j1 

N K (3)

Step 4: Calculate the ‘total relation/impact’ matrix, T, using Equation 4, where I is the Identity
matrix.

T  N I  N 
1
(4)

Step 5: Calculate the sum of the values of each row D and each column R of the total relation matrix
using equations 5, 6 and 7. Di and RJ denote the sum of rows (i.e., direct influences) and columns (i.e.,
indirect influences), respectively.

T  tij  , i, j 1,2,...,n (5)

nn

 n 
Di    tij  
, i, j  1,2,...,n  (6)
 i1 1n

 n 
RJ    tij  , i, j 1,2,...,n (7)
 J 1 1n
Step 6: Visualise the DEMATEL cause and effect digraph by plotting the dataset of (D+R, D-R). (D+R)
represents the total ‘Importance’ level of factors, whereas (D-R) denotes the ‘Relation’. The resulting
digraph helps to categorise the criteria into cause-and-effect groups. When the (D-R) is positive, the
factor belongs to the ‘cause group’, otherwise, it belongs to the ‘effect group’.
A structured questionnaire survey was used to collect the data required for the Fuzzy DEMATEL
method in order to identify and analyse the potential interdependencies among the factors that
influence the process of BIM adoption. The questionnaire was submitted to 12 experts who are all
change agents with experience in the process of BIM adoption within organisations as either internal
or external change agents. According to the literature, there is no minimum or maximum threshold of
the number of experts; however, it ranges between 2 to 17 experts (Chang et al., 2011; Tsai et al.,
2012; Falatoonitoosi et al., 2014; Luthra et al., 2016; Mirmousa and Dehnavi, 2016; López-Ospina et
al., 2017; Lin et al., 2018). The questionnaire included two sections. The first section aimed to obtain
the respondents’ level of agreement with 110 statements signifying pair-wise relationships between
each pair of potentially interacting factors (i.e., 11 factors x 10 relationships) using a five-point Likert
scale. The definitions (Table 3Error! Reference source not found.) of the most influencing factors on
micro BIM adoption were presented to the respondents in the introductory part of the questionnaire.

3.2 Systems Thinking Model

Micro BIM Adoption is affected by factors that interact in complex causal chains that need to be
identified and analysed. Hence, understanding the dynamics of micro BIM adoption requires an
additional level of analysis beyond the analysis of relationships between each pair of factors that can

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

be achieved with the Fuzzy-DEMATEL. Hence, this study considers the BIM adoption problem as a
complex system and uses a systems thinking approach to understand the causal chains between
multiple factors driving organisations towards the decision to adopt BIM. A systems thinking model
allows the further analysis and understanding of the complex interdependencies and
interrelationships (Yeon et al., 2006) among the factors affecting micro BIM adoption. CLD can visually
display the causation chains among the factors (i.e., adoption factors) involved within the selected
systems (i.e., micro BIM adoption).

Developing the CLD requires the combination and integration of different sets of input information
(Suprun et al., 2016). In this study, the findings of both the F-DEMATEL method’ and the ‘correlation
analysis’ between the 11 most influential factors will be combined to develop the CLD. The correlation
findings between the 11 most influencing factors on micro BIM adoption are included in Table A 1.
The process of combining these two sets of input is explained in Section 4.2 which shows the CLD
developed for micro BIM adoption.

The CLD may include several direct and indirect arrows that indicate direct and indirect influences
(loops) among the factors, respectively. The identification of the polarity of relationships between
factors within the system was determined based on the positive (+) and negative (-) relationships
identified by the correlation analysis. A causal arrow between two factors indicates the direction of
the change between the cause-effect pair. The polarity is denoted by (+) when two interrelated factors
increase or decrease together, and by (-) when one of them increases and the other decreases. A CLD
may include two types of feedback loops; Reinforcing (R) loop, when two factors influence each other
by two opposite (+) arrows, and Balancing (B) loop, when one arrow is (+) and the other is (-) or vice
versa. Some causal link arrows may have the two-hash symbol (||) which denotes a ‘delay’ in the
occurrence of the effect.

4. Results: Analysis and Discussion

This section respectively describes the findings from: (1) the application of the Fuzzy DEMATEL; (2) the
development of the CLD using a systems thinking approach, and (3) the linking of micro BIM adoption
with macro BIM adoption.

4.1 Fuzzy DEMATEL: analysing interrelations and classifying adoption factors

The Fuzzy DEMATEL was applied to identify and analyse the interrelations between the 11 factors,
which were previously identified as the factors that have the strongest influence on micro BIM
adoption. These factors were described in Table 3. The De-Fuzzified total relation matrix ‘T’ for micro
BIM adoption is included in Table 5. The results of the ‘prominence’ and ‘relation’ expressed through
(D+R) and (D-R), respectively are included in Table 6. The (D+R) value determines the degree of
significance of the factor on micro BIM adoption. The (D-R) value categorises the factors into cause
group and effect group based on their positive or negative value. The results reveal two groups of
factors: cause group (influencing factors) with high centrality degree and positive causal degree; and
effect group (affected factors) with high centrality degree and negative causal degree, which are
interdependent on other factors.
The results are graphically depicted in the causal diagram (Figure 5), called ‘Impact-digraph Map’, in
which the values of (D+R) and (D-R) are represented by the horizontal axis and the vertical axis,
respectively.
The cause group includes, in a descending order of their average influence, the following factors:
organisation size (F11), coercive pressures (governmental mandate, informal mandate) (F10), relative

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

advantage of BIM (F6), observability of BIM benefits (F3), compatibility of BIM (F4), and organisational
readiness (F9).
The effect group’s factors are: willingness to adopt BIM (F1), top management support (F8),
communication behaviour of an organisation (F2), social motivations among organisation's members
(F5), and organisational culture (F7).
Table 5 De-Fuzzified total relation matrix T of micro BIM adoption system
Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11
F1. Willingness 0 0.061 0.050 0.045 0.054 0.047 0.061 0.059 0.056 0.042 0.031
F2. Communication behaviour 0.071 0 0.064 0.060 0.063 0.059 0.058 0.061 0.063 0.044 0.027
F3. Observability of BIM 0.073 0.064 0 0.063 0.060 0.065 0.050 0.078 0.050 0.042 0.029
F4. Compatibility of BIM 0.068 0.057 0.057 0 0.061 0.056 0.050 0.069 0.051 0.042 0.029
F5. Social motivations 0.074 0.070 0.050 0.047 0 0.056 0.056 0.061 0.049 0.038 0.029
F6. Relative advantage of BIM 0.077 0.073 0.065 0.069 0.058 0 0.055 0.074 0.057 0.044 0.030
F7. Organisational culture 0.073 0.065 0.046 0.043 0.065 0.056 0 0.066 0.058 0.043 0.028
F8. Top management support 0.074 0.069 0.051 0.043 0.053 0.045 0.059 0 0.061 0.043 0.035
F9. Organisational readiness 0.071 0.065 0.057 0.052 0.059 0.066 0.051 0.065 0 0.042 0.032
F10. Coercive pressures 0.074 0.066 0.047 0.044 0.059 0.052 0.058 0.079 0.058 0 0.036
F11. Organisation size 0.064 0.064 0.050 0.047 0.057 0.044 0.057 0.059 0.049 0.043 0

Table 6 Fuzzy-DEMATEL results of the micro BIM adoption system

Factors D R Defuzzified (D+R) Rank Defuzzified (D-R) Cause/Effect

F1. Willingness 0.529 0.743 1.272 11 -0.214 Effect
F2. Communication behaviour 0.594 0.678 1.272 3 -0.084 Effect
F3. Observability of BIM 0.597 0.559 1.156 2 0.038 Cause
F4. Compatibility of BIM 0.563 0.535 1.099 7 0.028 Cause
F5. Social motivations 0.554 0.611 1.164 9 -0.057 Effect
F6. Relative advantage of BIM 0.626 0.569 1.195 1 0.056 Cause
F7. Organisational culture 0.565 0.576 1.141 6 -0.011 Effect
F8. Top management support 0.555 0.694 1.249 8 -0.139 Effect
F9. Organisational readiness 0.582 0.576 1.158 5 0.006 Cause
F10. Coercive pressures 0.592 0.444 1.036 4 0.149 Cause
F11. Organisation size 0.553 0.325 0.878 10 0.228 Cause

Based on the average of all the elements in matrix T, a threshold of 0.052 was selected as an exclusion
criterion to exclude weak interrelationships and improve the visual communication of the results in
thediagraph (Figure 6). The diagraph includes four quadrants:
- Quadrant I: this contains the ‘core’ factors with both high prominence and high relation. These are
Relative advantage of BIM (F6), Observability of BIM benefits (F3), and Organisational readiness
(F9). These are important linkages factors that possess strong driving power and strong
dependence. These cause factors influence most of the effect factors in Quadrant IV and should be
prioritised in a BIM implementation plan.
- Quadrant II: this includes the ‘Driving’ factors - or also called autonomous givers - with low
prominence and high relation. These factors are Organisation size (F11), Coercive pressures (F10),
and Compatibility of BIM (F4). These factors are somewhat independent; hence, they cannot be
influenced easily by other factors within the system and they require dedicated actions to exert an
effect upon them. Also these factors have influence on the effect factors in Quadrant IV.
- Quadrant III: this contains independent factors or autonomous receivers. It includes only one
factor, Organisational culture (F7) with low prominence and low relation; hence, this factor should
be addressed separately. In this instance ‘organisational readiness’ has influence on two other
factors (i.e., F1 and F8 of effect Quadrant IV) within the system.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

- Quadrant IV: this includes the ‘effect’ factors with high prominence and low relation. This quadrant
comprises of four factors; willingness to adopt BIM (F1), top management support (F8),
communication behaviour of an organisation (F2), and social motivations among organisation's
members (F5). These factors depend heavily on other factors within the system and they are also
called ‘intertwined receivers’. Actions on these factors should generally wait until their driving
factors have been addressed.

Figure 5. Mapping of the 11 factors affecting the micro BIM adoption system

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Figure 6 Digraph of the 11 factors affecting micro BIM adoption and their interrelations

These results provide insights about where to focus the implementation effort and investment for
micro BIM adoption. If the BIM implementation effort is focussed on addressing the cause factors first,
the other factors involved in their cause-effect relationship would be resolved in consequence. The
top priority would be to address the factors in Quadrant II followed by those in Quadrant I. However,
some of the factors in Quadrant II such as organisation size (F11) are constant or independent factors
and cannot be changed in a BIM implementation strategy. Other factors such as Coercive pressures
(F10) and Compatibility of BIM (F4) are mostly dependent on actions from outside the micro adoption
environment and require the contribution of player groups from the macro environment; hence, the
importance of the problem posed by this study.
Addressing factors such as BIM characteristics [i.e., Relative advantage (F6), Observability (F3), and
Compatibility of BIM (F4)] would exert a positive effect in the internal environment characteristics
[i.e., Organisational readiness (F9), Organisational culture (F7), Social motivations among
organisation's members (F5), Communication behaviour of an organisation (F2), Top management
support (F8), and Willingness/intention to adopt BIM (F1)] and promote micro BIM adoption. A
selection of the cause-effect relationships identified include:
 The perceived benefits of BIM (F6) contributes to increased openness and engagement of the
potential adopters with other social groupings and networks interested in BIM adoption and
promotion (F2); stimulates the willingness or intention to adopt BIM (F1); and invite more
executive support (F8) to facilitate the BIM adoption process.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Demonstrating the benefits of BIM (F3) and clarifying how BIM can align with the potential
adopter’s current and future needs and values (F4) contribute to creating a favourable attitude
towards BIM adoption (F1) and invite more support by the senior management (F8).
 Developing shared norms and principles about the functioning of an organisation (F7) and
improving its readiness (F9) stimulate the willingness and intention to adopt BIM within the
organisation (F1).
 Coercive pressures (F10) (e.g. a formal BIM mandate by a government or a BIM mandate by a
procuring body), as an independent factor, may simultaneously invite more executive support (F8)
to support BIM adoption and change the attitude towards BIM adoption within an organisation
(F1).

 Organisation size (F11), as an independent factor, has an influence on all other factors although
Figure 6 depicts its interrelationships with F1 (willingness to adopt BIM) and F2 (communication
behaviour of an organisation) only as these were above the selected threshold. This could be
addressed as a variable (i.e. micro, small, medium, and large) to explore if and how adoption
dynamics vary in organisations of different sizes in future studies.
4.2 Developing Causal Loop Diagram using Systems Thinking approach

The CLDs was developed by combining findings from the correlation analysis among the 11 top
influential factors on micro BIM adoption, and the causal relationships between pairs factors and their
classification identified by the F-DEMATEL. The 39 pairs of strong correlations are used to identify the
polarity of the feedback loops within the CLD. The polarity is denoted by (+) when two interrelated
factors increase or decrease together, and is denoted by (-) when one increases and the other
decreases or vice versa. The causal relationships among the factors, identified in the F-DEMATEL, are
used to develop the links within the CLD feedback loops. A causal arrow between two factors indicates
the direction of the change between the cause-effect pair.
Due to the numerous interrelations among the factors within a complex system, such as the micro
BIM adoption, the resultant number of CLD could be very high which limit the usefulness of results.
To address this challenge and make the results both useful and actionable, this research adopts two
key measures. The first measure consists of a known approach in the literature (as used in
Falatoonitoosi et al., 2014; López-Ospina et al., 2017; Carpitella et al., 2018) where a
threshold value is established to exclude influences with negligible effects. This threshold was
embedded in the Fuzzy DEMATEL techniques as explained earlier. However, even with the
implementation of this measure, the resultant feedback loops remained very high as illustrated in
Figure 7. The second measure consisted in prioritising the feedback loops that start with a cause factor
(i.e., identified in Quadrants I and II of the impact relation map in the Fuzzy DEMATEL analysis) as
these are driving factors that influence other factors within the micro BIM adoption system. The
developed CLD also focusses on the ‘Decision to adopt BIM’ as an outcome and analyses the causal
relationships between the involved factors that lead to such an outcome.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Figure 7 Feedback loops for micro BIM adoption with the implementation of a threshold for influence levels

The results of the thinking systems model, after implementing such measure, are illustrated in Error!
Reference source not found.. Each feedback loop is given a heading which represents its core theme
that needs to be addressed in order to activate the loop and reach the decision to adopt BIM
according to the dynamic embedded in it. Four key feedback loops, that conclude with the ‘decision
to adopt BIM’ within organisations, were identified (

Table 7). These are described as follows:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Loop R1 – Perceived benefits of BIM: This loop indicates that the perceived benefits of BIM (F6)
stimulate the intention to adopt BIM (F1) within the adopting organisation. This positively
contributes to develop a supportive and favourable organisational culture towards BIM adoption
(F7) which, in turn, encourages individuals and groups within the organisation to start sharing
knowledge about the BIM innovation and focussing on a collective direction (F5). Individuals and
groups within the organisation start engaging with other social groupings and networks - internally
and externally - interested in BIM adoption and promotion (F2). The adopting organisation starts
to recognise the benefits (F3) and perceive it as more compatible system with their current and
future needs and values (F4). This invites increased support from the senior management (F8),
and positively reflect on the organisation readiness to implement the change required to adopt
BIM (F9). Finally, this reinforces the perception that BIM provides more advantages than current
systems and practice (F6) and leads to the decision to adopt BIM within the organisation.
 Loop R2 – Observability of BIM benefits: The more visible and tangible the BIM benefits to an
organisation (F3), the more the organisation perceives BIM as a compatible innovation with their
current and future needs and values (F4). BIM compatibility (F4) in turn invites top management
(F8) support that nurture the willingness of organisational members to adopt BIM (F1). This
contributes to positive changes in the organisation culture (F) which improves the social
motivation among the organisation’s members (F6). Then, this has two effects: 1. It improves the
organisational perception of the advantages of BIM (F2) and reinforces the visibility of its benefits
(F3); and (3) leads to the decision to adopt BIM by the organisation.
 Loop R3 - Organisational readiness: The shared norms and beliefs among individuals and groups
of an organisation and their mutual determination to implement the change (F9) triggers a
cascading causal effect, respectively channelled through the three organisational characteristics
(i.e. F1 - willingness to adopt BIM; F7 - organisational culture; and F5 - social motivations among
organisation's members) and three BIM characteristics (i.e. F3 - observability of BIM benefits; F6
- relative advantage of BIM, and F4 - compatibility of BIM). Then, this increases the support of the
senior management (F8) which in turn has two consequences: it reinforces the organisation’s
readiness (F9), and leads to the decision to adopt BIM by the organisation.
 Loop R4 - Compatibility of BIM: the alignment of BIM with current and future needs of an
organisation (F4) helps in securing top management support (F5) which in turn has a positive
effect on the organisational readiness for adopting BIM (F9). Then, this strengthens the perception
of BIM benefits by the adopting organisation (F6) and improves the willingness to adopt BIM (F1),
and finally, concludes with the decision to adopt BIM by the organisation.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

Figure 8. Four key feeback loops representing the dyanmics driving organisations to adopt BIM

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 Table 7. Loops explaining the causal chains leading to the decision to adopt BIM by organisations

Loop Loop name Interdependent factors

R1 Benefits Relative advantage of BIM (F6) ⟶ Willingness/ intention to adopt BIM (F1) ⟶
of BIM Organisational culture (F7) ⟶ Social motivations among organisation's members
innovation (F5) ⟶ Communication behaviour of an organisation (F2) ⟶ Observability of BIM
benefits (F3) ⟶ Compatibility of BIM (F4) ⟶ Top management support (F8) ⟶
Organisational readiness (F9)
⟶ Relative advantage of BIM (F6).
⟶ Decision to adopt BIM

R2 Visibility of Observability of BIM benefits (F3) ⟶ Relative advantage of BIM (F6) ⟶

BIM benefits Compatibility of BIM (F4) ⟶ Top management support (F8) ⟶ Organisational
readiness (F9) ⟶ Willingness/ intention to adopt BIM (F1) ⟶ Organisational culture
(F7) ⟶ Social motivations among organisation's members (F5)
⟶ Communication behaviour of an organisation (F2) ⟶ Observability of BIM (F3).
⟶ Decision to adopt BIM

R3 Organisational Organisational readiness (F9) ⟶ Willingness/ intention to adopt BIM (F1) ⟶

readiness to Organisational culture (F7) ⟶ Social motivations among organisation's members
perform a (F5) ⟶ Communication behaviour of an organisation (F2) ⟶ Observability of BIM
change benefits (F3) ⟶ Relative advantage of BIM (F6) ⟶ Compatibility of BIM (F4) ⟶ Top
management support (F8)
⟶ Organisational readiness (F9)
⟶ Decision to adopt BIM

R4 Aligning BIM Compatibility of BIM (F4) ⟶ Top management support (F8) ⟶ Organisational
with readiness (F9) ⟶ Relative advantage of BIM (F6) ⟶ Willingness/ intention to adopt
experiences BIM (F1) ⟶ Decision to adopt BIM
and needs
Legend
⟶ Causal relationship

⟶ Two simultaneous causal consequences

⟶

Factors in red (i.e.F1, F2, and F8): factors that can be influenced by an external coercive pressure (F10)

4.3 Linking macro-micro BIM adoption

This section uses the CLD results to link micro BIM adoption to macro BIM adoption. To develop the
links between micro and macro BIM adoption, the actions that can influence selected CLD nodes (i.e.
adoption factors) are first defined, and then the responsibilities of each action is allocated to the
relevant macro player group who is best placed to undertake it. According to the Macro Diffusion
Responsibilities model (Figure 3), there are nine player groups (i.e. PG1 to PG9): educational
institutions (PG1), policy-makers (PG2), technology advocates (PG3), technology service providers
(PG4), technology developers (PG5), communities of practice (PG6), individual practitioners (PG7),
construction organisations (PG8), and industry associations (PG9) (Figure x). The actions that can be
undertaken by the corresponding players, in a leading or supporting capacity, are listed in Table 8
alongside the affected adoption factors.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

This approach can result in a coordinated and collaborative approach where: (1) each player group
can be assigned a level of responsibility (Leading or Supporting); (2) actions can be orderly organised
according the logic of the causal chains embedded in the CLDs; and (3) actions can exert a primary
effect on some nodes and a secondary effect on others. These implications are supported with some
examples supported by the findings.
For instance, according to Table 8, policy makers (PG2) can install and fund a driver to coordinate the
implementation of BIM and promote its adoption at market-wide level. In this action, policy makers
can be supported by industry associations (PG9); technology advocate (PG3), educational institutions
(PG1), and construction organisations (PG8). This action will influence the ‘Communication behaviour (F1)’
of an organisation and may lead to the establishment of some coercive pressure (F10) in the form of a
policy-sanctioned mandate (i.e., mandate demanded by policy makers from central or regional
authorities) or an ‘informal mandate’ (i.e. mandate private sector clients on their projects). This macro
action will influence most of the loops identified. The specific points of influence in the CLD are
indicated in red in Table 7. However, looking at the CLD, this is not the starting point for the micro
adoption dynamic as identified in Figure 8 and Table 7. Hence, although this finding recognises the
need for policy makers to establish a market-wide driver, the result shows that policy makers should
prioritise actions that influence the starting nodes of the CLDs. Some examples from Table 8 include:

 Action A02: Policy makers (PG2) can lead on the action of incentivising adoption through tax
rebates or credit and other incentive types. This will influence the ‘F6 - relative advantage of
BIM’ which triggers loop R1 and is present in all other loops.
 Action A03: Policy makers (PG2), supported by construction organisations (PG8) and Industry
associations (PG9), can support the development of standardised templates, BIM object
libraries and product data specification to accelerate implementation and lower its cost. This
will influence the ‘F4- Compatibility’ (starting node of Loop R4 and present in all other loops)
and contribute to improving readiness of adopting organisations. This same effect on ‘F4-
Compatibility’ can be also augmented by the leading role Policy makers (PG2) can play in
Action A05 (i.e. developing standards and guidance to support BIM implementation in
projects and organisations).
 Action A08: Policy makers (PG2), alongside construction organisations (PG8) and Educational
Institutions (PG1), can help in clarifying and demonstrating the BIM value proposition and
benefits to potential adopters. This will influence two leading adoption factors, the ‘F6 -
relative advantage’ and the ‘F3 - observability of benefits’, which trigger loop R1 and loop R2
respectively and are present in all the other loops; and according to the DEMATEL these two
factors have high prominence and high relations which means that the actions affecting these
two factors will likely have a cascading effect on several other adoption factors. Hence, actions
like this one should be prioritised.
Several other scenarios can be extracted from Table 8. Such information can be organised either by
adoption factor or by player group and then utilized to develop macro-micro BIM adoption strategies
that are tailored for a selected market. This process is synthesised in the next subsection.
Table 8. Policy actions, actions types and roles of macro player groups

Action Adoption factors

Actions Leading role Supporting role
type affected
A01 Install and fund a market Macro Policy makers (PG2) Industry associations (PG9); Communication
driver (e.g. a dedicated Technology advocate (PG3); behaviour (F1);
and funded working Educational institutions (PG1); Coercive
group) to coordinate the Construction organisations pressure (F10)
effort of BIM (PG8)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 implementation and
promote its adoption.
A02 Incentivise adoption Macro Policy makers (PG2) Construction organisations Willingness to
through tax rebates or (PG8); adopt (F1);
credit and other Industry associations (PG9) Top
incentives. management
support (F8);
Relative
advantage (F6)
A03 Develop standardised Macro Policy-makers Educational institutions (PG1); Compatibility
templates (e.g. process (PG2); Communities of practice (PG6). (F4);
protocols, product data Industry Organisational
specification, etc.) to associations (PG9); readiness (F9)
accelerate Construction
implementation and organisations (PG8)
lower its cost.
A04 Develop performance Macro Policy-makers Technology advocate (PG3) Observability of
metrics and benchmark (PG2); Construction organisations benefits (F3);
indicators to support Educational (PG8); Organisational
continual improvement. institutions (PG1); Readiness (F9)
Industry
associations (PG9)
A05 Develop standards and Macro Policy makers Educational institutions (PG1); Compatibility
guidance to support BIM (PG2); industry Technology advocate (PG3) (F4);
implementation in associations (PG9); Organisational
projects and Construction readiness (F9).
organisations. organisations (PG8)
A06 Develop a market-wide Macro Policy makers (PG2) Construction organisations Willingness to
BIM strategy and a (PG8); Educational institutions adopt (F1);
roadmap for its (PG1); Top
implementation. management
support (F8);
Coercive
pressure (F10)
A07 Clarify and address Macro Policy-makers Educational institutions (PG1); Willingness to
regulatory requirements (PG2); industry Construction organisations adopt (F1);
(e.g. contracts/protocols, associations (PG9) (PG8); Industry associations Compatibility
liabilities, intellectual (PG9) (F4)
property rights)
A08 Clarify and demonstrate Macro Educational Industry associations (PG9); Relative
BIM value proposition institutions (PG1); Communities of practice (PG6); advantage (F6);
and benefits. Construction Technology developers (PG5); Observability of
organisations benefits (F3)
(PG8);
Policy makers (PG2)

A09 Develop and encourage Macro Policy-makers Industry associations (PG9); Observability of
adoption of more (PG2) Educational institutions (PG1); benefits (F3);
collaborative project Construction organisations Compatibility
delivery systems (PG8); (F4)
A10 Make available technical Macro Technology Communities of practice (PG6); Compatibility
guidance for BIM developers (PG5); Technology service providers (F4);
implementation and BIM Construction (PG4); Policy makers (PG2); Relative
uses. organisations (PG8) Industry associations (PG9) advantage (F6);
Organisational
readiness (F9)

A11 Improve capacity Macro Policy-makers Educational institutions (PG1); Relative

building through pilot (PG2); Construction Communities of practice (PG6); advantage (F6);
projects, and organisations Industry associations (PG9) Observability of
share/disseminate BIM (PG8); benefits (F3);

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

 best practice to motivate Organisational
other potential adopters. readiness (F9)

A12 Make available learning Macro Educational Technology service providers Willingness to
and training institutions (PG1); (PG4); adopt (F1);
opportunities for all Industry Technology developers (PG5); Top
types of learners associations (PG9); Communities of practice (PG6); management
(practitioners and Construction Construction organisations support (F8);
students) within the organisations (PG8) (PG8); Organisational
market. readiness (F9)
A13 Encourage BIM learning Macro Educational Policy makers (PG2); Willingness to
outcomes in institutions (PG1); Technology advocates (PG3) adopt (F1);
accreditation of relevant Industry Top
degrees and associations (PG9) management
specialisations (e.g. support (F8);
architecture, built Organisational
environment and readiness (F9)
engineering disciplines).
A14 Empowering BIM Micro Construction Industry associations (PG9) Organisational
champions / change organisations culture (F7);
agents within (PG8); individual Communication
organisations. practitioners (PG7). behaviour (F2);
Social
motivations (F5)

A15 Provide financial Micro Construction Organisational

resources to support organisations Readiness (F9)
implementation of BIM (PG8);
within organisations.
A16 Motivate and encourage Macro/ Construction Technology advocates (PG3); Social
involvement of Micro organisations Technology developers (PG5); motivations (F5);
organisations in BIM (PG8); individual Communities of practice (PG6); c
social networking and practitioners (PG7); Communication
knowledge sharing industry behaviour (F2)
events. associations (PG9)
A17 Improve the affordability Macro Technology Policy-makers (PG2) Willingness to
of BIM technologies, developers (PG5); adopt (F1);
hardware and network to technology service Top
adopters. providers (PG4) management
support (F8).
A18 Improve the Macro Technology Communities of practice (PG6); Compatibility
compatibility of BIM developers (PG5); Construction organisations (F4);
software technologies. Technology service (PG8) Relative
providers (PG4); advantage (F6)
Technology
advocates (PG3).

A19 Develop digital extranet Macro Technology Technology advocates (PG3); Compatibility
platforms (e.g., servers developers (PG5); Educational institutions (PG1). (F4);
and extranets for Technology service Relative
enterprises and supply providers (PG4) advantage (F6);
chain collaboration). Willingness to
adopt (F1).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

4.4 Theoretical and practical Contribution
This study has developed the first macro-micro coupled approach to BIM adoption which addressed
the emerging decoupling between these two levels. This study has both theoretical and practical
contributions. The theoretical contribution is present at two levels. At a global level (overall aim), this
study provided an extensive analysis of the micro BIM adoption within an organisation, an
investigative lens that was extended to market level (i.e. the United Kingdom in this case) through the
inclusion of 177 organisations in the study. At the level of individual research methods used, each
method applied had its own contribution. The classification of factors into cause-and-effect groups
using the DEMATEL enabled the identification and understanding of the independencies among the
micro BIM adoption factors. These results can be used to tailor and prioritise BIM implementation
actions and investments. The Systems Thinking Models enabled a detailed analysis of the interactions
among the micro BIM adoption factors as part of a causal relationship networks. There are further
contributions in the underpinning conceptual models used in this paper as a point of departure.
Although it is useful to briefly mention these contributions to further support the importance of the
findings in this paper, such contributions lie within their published outputs. One such a contribution is
that the micro BIM adoption factors used, their ranking and correlations rely on an extensive
taxonomy which merges factors related to the BIM innovation itself, the external environment
surrounding an organisation, and its internal environment (Ahmed and Kassem, 2018).
Another core contribution is the linking of the macro BIM adoption to the micro BIM adoption which
is the first attempt of its kind in the literature. This linking can support the development BIM adoption
strategies that are tailored to the micro adoption dynamics of a selected market, and hence, have a
greater chance to achieve the desired outcomes. This process is synthesised in Figure 9 which shows
how the approach, proposed and demonstrated in this paper, can be applied to develop an effective
BIM adoption strategy for a selected market. This provides a comprehensive method that links
together all the relevant BIM adoption factors, the market’s player groups, and their actions. The
findings and the approach proposed can be used by researchers to replicate the research in a different
market or extend it with systems dynamics approaches to model predictive adoption of innovation.
Policy makers can use the findings and the approach to design a coordinated and collaborative
approach for an effective digital transformation through BIM.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

Figure 9. Visual summary of macro-micro coupled approach to BIM adoption

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

5. Conclusions

Digital transformation through BIM has received a significant attention over the last decade. Policy
makers in several countries have been launching BIM-focussed digital transformation initiatives for
their construction market. However, there is a dearth of studies investigating micro BIM adoption in
details and its potential links with macro BIM initiatives. Indeed, the review of related studies
confirmed this gap and concluded that all studies in this domain are siloed at a specific level of analysis
(i.e., either micro, meso, or macro). The aim is to improve the understanding of BIM adoption within
organisations (i.e., micro BIM adoption) and initiate the effort of connecting micro BIM adoption with
macro BIM adoption. Departing from an extensive taxonomy of factors that affect micro BIM
adoption, this study proposed an analytical approach to the analysis of micro BIM adoption and its
linking with the macro BIM level’s initiatives such as the policy actions of the macro’s player groups.
177 UK architecture organisation who had already adopted BIM were retrospectively studies to
capture the micro BIM adoption dynamics.

The study developed a classification of micro adoption factors into cause-and-effect factors using the
F-DEMATEL method, causal loop diagrams representing the dynamics that lead organisations to adopt
BIM using a Systems Thinking approach, and a conceptual model that enables the linking of micro BIM
adoption dynamics to the macro level BIM initiative through an inventory of proposed policy actions
allocated to selected policy players or groups.

This study is not without limitations. When developing macro BIM adoption initiatives, the type of
micro BIM adoption insights generated by this study is usually unattainable due to the potentially low
rates of adoption. Hence, this study has relied on 177 organisations that had already adopted BIM
using a retrospective analysis. While this increased the quality and reliability of the findings, its ability
to inform future macro BIM adoption initiatives rely on the assumption that the future diffusion
process (e.g. new organisations that have yet to adopt the innovation) would follow a similar micro
adoption process to that of the 177 organisations involved in this study.

Reference

ABDULLAH, L. & ZULKIFLI, N. 2018. A new DEMATEL method based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets for
developing causal relationship of knowledge management criteria. Neural Computing and
Applications, 1-17.
AHMED, A. L. & KASSEM, M. 2018. A unified BIM adoption taxonomy: Conceptual development, empirical
validation and application. Automation in Construction, 96, 103-127.
AKINTOLA, A., VENKATACHALAM, S. & ROOT, D. 2020. Understanding BIM’s impact on professional work
practices using activity theory. Construction management and economics, 38, 447-467.
AKSENOVA, G., KIVINIEMI, A., KOCATURK, T. & LEJEUNE, A. 2019. From Finnish AEC knowledge
ecosystem to business ecosystem: lessons learned from the national deployment of BIM.
Construction management and economics, 37, 317-335.
AVISO, K. B., LUCAS, R. I. G., TAPIA, J. F. D., PROMENTILLA, M. A. B. & TAN, R. R. 2018. Identifying Key
Factors to Learning Process Systems Engineering and Process Integration through DEMATEL.
Chemical Engineering Transactions, 70, 265-270.
CARPITELLA, S., CARPITELLA, F., CERTA, A., BENÍTEZ, J. & IZQUIERDO, J. 2018. Managing Human Factors
to Reduce Organisational Risk in Industry. Mathematical and Computational Applications, 23, 67.
CHANG, B., CHANG, C.-W. & WU, C.-H. 2011. Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection
criteria. Expert systems with Applications, 38, 1850-1858.
CHEN, I.-S. 2016. A combined MCDM model based on DEMATEL and ANP for the selection of airline
service quality improvement criteria: A study based on the Taiwanese airline industry. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 57, 7-18.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

CHIEN, K. F., WU, Z. H. & HUANG, S. C. 2014. Identifying and assessing critical risk factors for BIM projects:
Empirical study. Automation in Construction, 45, 1-15.
DOWSETT, R. M. & HARTY, C. F. 2019. Assessing the implementation of BIM–an information systems
approach. Construction management and economics, 37, 551-566.
EADIE, R., ODEYINKA, H., BROWNE, M., MCKEOWN, C. & YOHANIS, M. 2013. An analysis of the drivers for
adopting building information modelling. Journal of Information Technology in Construction
(ITcon), 18, 338-352.
FALATOONITOOSI, E., AHMED, S. & SOROOSHIAN, S. 2014. Expanded DEMATEL for determining cause
and effect group in bidirectional relations. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
HALL, D. M., ALGIERS, A. & LEVITT, R. E. 2018. Identifying the role of supply chain integration practices in
the adoption of systemic innovations. Journal of management in engineering, 34, 04018030.
HALL, D. M., WHYTE, J. K. & LESSING, J. 2020. Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital manufacturing
in Silicon Valley construction firms: a comparative case study. Construction management and
economics, 38, 322-339.
HARRELL, F. E. 2001. Ordinal logistic regression. Regression modeling strategies. Springer.
HOCHSCHEID, E. & HALIN, G. 2020. Les agences d’architecture françaises à l’ère du BIM: contradictions,
pratiques, réactions et perspectives. Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et
paysagère.
KASSEM, M. & SUCCAR, B. 2017. Macro BIM adoption: Comparative market analysis. Automation in
Construction, 81, 286-299.
KIM, S., PARK, C. H. & CHIN, S. 2015. Assessment of BIM acceptance degree of Korean AEC participants.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering.
LEE, Y.-C., LI, M.-L., YEN, T.-M. & HUANG, T.-H. 2010. Analysis of adopting an integrated decision making
trial and evaluation laboratory on a technology acceptance model. Expert Systems with
Applications, 37, 1745-1754.
LEE, Y.-C., WU, C.-H. & TSAI, S.-B. 2014. Grey system theory and fuzzy time series forecasting for the
growth of green electronic materials. International Journal of Production Research, 52, 2931-
2945.
LIN, K.-P., TSENG, M.-L. & PAI, P.-F. 2018. Sustainable supply chain management using approximate fuzzy
DEMATEL method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 134-142.
LIN, R.-J. 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 40, 32-39.
LINDBLAD, H. & KARRBOM GUSTAVSSON, T. 2021. Public clients ability to drive industry change: the case
of implementing BIM. Construction Management and Economics, 39, 21-35.
LINDGREN, J. 2016. Diffusing systemic innovations: influencing factors, approaches and further research.
Architectural engineering and design management, 12, 19-28.
LÓPEZ-OSPINA, H., QUEZADA, L. E., BARROS-CASTRO, R. A., GONZALEZ, M. A. & PALOMINOS, P. I. 2017. A
method for designing strategy maps using DEMATEL and linear programming. Management
Decision, 55, 1802-1823.
LUTHRA, S., GOVINDAN, K., KHARB, R. K. & MANGLA, S. K. 2016. Evaluating the enablers in solar power
developments in the current scenario using fuzzy DEMATEL: An Indian perspective. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 63, 379-397.
MARDANI, A., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., KHALIFAH, Z., ZAKUAN, N., JUSOH, A., NOR, K. M. & KHOSHNOUDI, M.
2017. A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management
problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 71, 216-
256.
MIRMOUSA, S. & DEHNAVI, H. D. 2016. Development of Criteria of Selecting the Supplier by Using the
Fuzzy DEMATEL Method. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 281-289.
NØRKJAER GADE, P., NØRKJAER GADE, A., OTREL-CASS, K. & SVIDT, K. 2019. A holistic analysis of a BIM-
mediated building design process using activity theory. Construction management and economics,
37, 336-350.
OCAMPO, L. A., TAN, T. A. G. & SIA, L. A. 2018. Using fuzzy DEMATEL in modeling the causal relationships
of the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the hospitality industry: A case
study in the Philippines. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 34, 11-29.
PAPADONIKOLAKI, E., VAN OEL, C. & KAGIOGLOU, M. 2019. Organising and Managing boundaries: A
structurational view of collaboration with Building Information Modelling (BIM). International
Journal of Project Management, 37, 378-394.
ROGERS, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition, Free Press.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

SINGH, P. K. & SARKAR, P. 2020. A framework based on fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL for sustainable
product development: a case of Indian automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246,
118991.
SUCCAR, B. 2009. Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for
industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18, 357-375.
SUCCAR, B. & KASSEM, M. 2015. Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures. Automation in Construction,
57, 64-79.
SUPRUN, E., SAHIN, O., STEWART, R. A. & PANUWATWANICH, K. 2016. Model of the Russian Federation
construction innovation system: An integrated participatory systems approach. Systems, 4, 29.
TAKIM, R., HARRIS, M. & NAWAWI, A. H. 2013. Building Information Modeling (BIM): A New Paradigm for
Quality of Life Within Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101, 23-32.
TAYLOR, J. & LEVITT, R. 2004. Understanding and managing systemic innovation in project-based
industries. Innovations: Project management research, 83-99.
TAYLOR, J. E. 2006. Three perspectives on innovation in interorganizational networks: Systemic innovation,
boundary object change, and the alignment of innovations and networks, Stanford university.
TSAI, S.-B., CHIEN, M.-F., XUE, Y., LI, L., JIANG, X., CHEN, Q., ZHOU, J. & WANG, L. 2015. Using the fuzzy
DEMATEL to determine environmental performance: a case of printed circuit board industry in
Taiwan. PloS one, 10, e0129153.
TSAI, W.-H., CHOU, Y.-W., LEE, K.-C., LIN, W.-R. & HWANG, E. T. Y. 2012. Combining Decision Making Trial
and Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process to Perform an Investigation of
Information Technology Auditing and Risk Control in an Enterprise Resource Planning
Environment. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30, 176-193.
TSAUR, R.-C. & KUO, T.-C. 2011. The adaptive fuzzy time series model with an application to Taiwan’s
tourism demand. Expert systems with Applications, 38, 9164-9171.
WU, W.-W. & LEE, Y.-T. 2007. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL
method. Expert systems with applications, 32, 499-507.
YEON, S.-J., PARK, S.-H. & KIM, S.-W. 2006. A dynamic diffusion model for managing customer's
expectation and satisfaction. Technological Forecasting and social change, 73, 648-665.
ZHAO, L. & YI, Q. 2017. Study on the Influential Factors of Destructive Technology Innovation in
Latecomer Firms Based on DEMATEL. Science and Technology Management Research, 3, 005.
ZOMER, T., NEELY, A., SACKS, R. & PARLIKAD, A. 2021. Exploring the influence of socio-historical
constructs on BIM implementation: an activity theory perspective. Construction Management and
Economics, 39, 1-20.

Appendix

Table A 2. Correlations among the 11 factors with strongest influence on BIM adoption process: 39 pairs of strong
relationships

Rank Pair of correlated factors Correlation value (rs, p)

1 Social motivations ⟺ Organisational culture (rs= .503, p=.000)
2 Relative advantage ⟺ Observability (rs= .418, p=.000)
3 Relative advantage ⟺ Organisational culture (rs= .382, p=.000)
4 Social motivations ⟺ Willingness (rs= .373, p=.000)
5 Observability ⟺ Communication behaviour (rs= .368, p=.000)
6 Compatibility ⟺ Communication behaviour (rs= .349, p=.000)
7 Organisational culture ⟺ Willingness (rs= .336, p=.000)
8 Organisational culture ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .336, p=.000)
9 Relative advantage ⟺ Social motivations (rs= .308, p=.000)
10 Social motivations ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .302, p=.000)
11 Observability ⟺ Top management support (rs= .297, p=.000)
12 Top management support ⟺ Willingness (rs= .295, p=.000)
13 Relative advantage ⟺ Organisational readiness (rs= .283, p=.000)
14 Organisational readiness ⟺ Willingness (rs= .282, p=.000)
15 Organisational readiness ⟺ Organisational culture (rs= .282, p=.000)
16 Compatibility ⟺ Observability (rs= .280, p=.000)
17 Top management support ⟺ Social motivations (rs= .280, p=.000)
18 Top management support ⟺ Communication behaviour (rs= .277, p=.000)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929

19 Communication behaviour ⟺ Social motivations (rs= .273, p=.000)
20 Observability ⟺ Organisational culture (rs= .267, p=.000)
21 Compatibility ⟺ Top management support (rs= .255, p=.001)
22 Organisational readiness ⟺ Social motivations (rs= .249, p=.001)
23 Willingness ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .244, p=.001)
24 Communication behaviour ⟺ Organisational readiness (rs= .239, p=.001)
25 Organisational readiness ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .238, p=.001)
26 Relative advantage ⟺ Communication behaviour (rs= .236, p=.002)
27 Compatibility ⟺ Organisational readiness (rs= .235, p=.002)
28 Relative advantage ⟺ Willingness (rs= .230, p=.002)
29 Observability ⟺ Willingness (rs= .221, p=.003)
30 Top management support ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .217, p=.004)
31 Observability ⟺ Social motivations (rs= .215, p=.004)
32 Top management support ⟺ Organisational readiness (rs= .214, p=.004)
33 Relative advantage ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .214, p=.004)
34 Observability ⟺ Organisation size (rs= .198, p=.008)
35 Communication behaviour ⟺ Coercive pressures (rs= .176, p=.019)
36 Relative advantage ⟺ Compatibility (rs= .165, p=.028)
37 Top management support ⟺ Organisational culture (rs= .165, p=.028)
38 Communication behaviour ⟺ Willingness (rs= .162, p=.031)
39 Observability ⟺ Organisational readiness (rs= .162, p=.031)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081929