Critical Factors Influencing Individual User Interactions with Building Information Modelling (BIM)

(1)

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 97 (2023) 103480

Available online 11 July 2023

Interactions between Human, Technology and Organization in Building Information Modelling (BIM) - A scoping review of critical factors for the individual user

Katarina Olofsson Hall ´ en

^*

, Mikael Forsman, Andrea Eriksson

School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:

Architecture Engineering Construction (AEC) Technology acceptance Literature review

A B S T R A C T

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a process, often mentioned as an enabler of various benefits within Architecture – Engineering – Construction (AEC), of creating and managing information for a built asset. Despite the potential benefits associated with BIM, the use seems to have been relatively inefficient. One explanation may be the lack of system perspective in the implementation and use of BIM. The aim of this study was to map critical factors influencing the use of BIM based on existing research, including interactions among the three subsystems human, technology and organization. A scoping review was performed analyzing 46 included articles. The results showed that BIM is a holistic and social system, that the technology itself is insufficient, and that the acceptance of BIM is a significant critical factor for its efficient implementation and use. The research on how humans interact with the technology of BIM, and how the organization can facilitate those interactions, is however limited.

Relevance to industry: Learnings from this study include that the AEC industry, by approaching BIM as a holistic and social system and recognizing the role of the individual user, can add another piece of the puzzle to achieving the effective use of BIM.

1. Introduction

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a process, often mentioned as an enabler of various benefits within Architecture – Engineering – Construction (AEC) creating and managing information for a built asset.

BIM tools include 3D-visualization and supports for digital descriptions throughout a built asset’s life cycle, from planning and design to construction and operations, and decommissioning. BIM has been indicated as a cornerstone in Construction 4.0, the fourth industrial revolution in the construction industry, with prospects such as improved sustainability, enhanced cost-predictability, time-saving and improved site safety (Adepoju et al., 2022).

The definition of BIM may vary depending on the source. The EUBIM Taskgroup presents a common EU performance level for the implementation of BIM, and divides the subject into four different areas:

Policy, Technical, Process, and People (EUBIM Taskgroup, 2016). Buil- dingSMART International provides a description of the concept of openBIM as a seamless collaborative process for all project participants, which helps connect people, processes, and data to achieve asset

delivery, operation, and maintenance goals (buildingSMART international, 2021).

Despite the potential benefits associated with BIM and while the technology underpinning BIM on construction projects has been around for well over a decade, BIM takes up and implementation have been relatively slow in the construction industry compared to industries such as manufacturing and engineering (Smith, 2014) because of various factors. One explanation may be the need for a systems perspective of implementing and using BIM. Wen et al. (2021) identified progress and trends in BIM research. Their results showed that the research has mainly been conducted on BIM applications from a technical or organizational perspective. Their research thus indicates that the individual user is neglected in the development of BIM, which may hinder successful implementations and positive outcomes.

Technological development is likely to have a positive impact on production but may also challenge employee and process performance and induce new kinds of risks to human well-being (Reiman et al., 2021). With a changing industry, from simple mechanical operations to the control of complex computerized processes, the demands on the

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Olofsson Hall´en).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2023.103480

Received 24 March 2023; Received in revised form 25 June 2023; Accepted 26 June 2023

(2)

humans in charge may increase. Machines and processes might become so autonomous that humans might lose awareness and control (Pacaux-Lemoine et al., 2022). Challenges of digitization had contrib- uted to that the human factor is more and more considered as, in addition to hardware and software, a key element to address for ensuring overall system safety and efficiency (Pacaux-Lemoine and Flemisch 2019). Although an evolving industry poses several ergonomic challenges, it may be worthwhile to also highlight potential benefits of technology development for the human such as greater job enrichment and increased autonomy for the workers (Kadir et al., 2019).

The HTO (Human – Technology – Organization) concept was first developed to improve safety within the nuclear power industry, but it has also been shown to be useful improving quality, system performance, and work environments in various industries (Rollenhagen, 1997). The HTO concept builds on the sociotechnical systems theory (Carayon, 2006; Eklund, 2003). In sociotechnical systems theory, the human is considered an important but separate subsystem. At the same time, HTO includes the interactions among an organizational subsystem, a technical subsystem, and a human subsystem, all inseparable in a certain activity (Karltun et al., 2017).

BIM can be defined as a work system according to the HTO concept (Fig. 1). The work system is based on three subsystems- Human, Tech- nology, and Organization, as well as the interactions among them. A work activity is defined as how a prescribed task is performed in reality.

However, the actual task performance and results often differ from the prescribed tasks and the expected results. The real-time activity de- termines the actual outcome, i.e., the system’s performance (Berglund et al., 2020). This study focuses on the interactions among the human subsystem and the technology- and the organizational subsystem in the use of BIM.

1.1. The technology subsystem

There is a range of technical tools and artifacts associated with the use of BIM: from hardware and software for planning and design to robotics technology for automation during the construction’s lifecycle.

One of the highlighted benefits of BIM is the ability to visualize a building or a construction. It helps the participants visualize what is intended to be built, at any time in the project in a virtual setting, thereby detecting any possible problems associated with the design and the construction process. This function has resulted in a reduction of costs and improved management of the project (Adepoju et al., 2022).

1.2. The organizational subsystem

BIM as an organizational subsystem offers features to enable effective collaboration but to create a positive collaborative culture in AEC, some specific factors are need to be met, including a focus on building

relationships among teams and the leadership promoting collaboration (Sujan et al., 2020). There should be processes, standards, and working methods to connect people’s actions, information, decisions, and alignment of everyone’s effort with value creation for the client to promote BIM as a well-integrated organizational subsystem (Fischer et al., 2017). There are also requirements, legal guidelines and safety aspects to consider when implementing and using BIM as an organizational subsystem.

1.3. The human subsystem

Daniellou (2001) described how the human subsystem consists of different levels, and how these levels affect individual interaction with their environment:

- The cognitive level, where the human is considered as an information-processing system, including thought processes, repre- sentations, and decisions.

- The psychological level, where the human has a unique history leading to specific subjective processing of the situations they experience.

- The social level, emphasizes that every single individual is a member of several social groups within different cultures, which will partly determine their values and habits.

In a BIM context, this subsystem contains all project participants throughout the construction’s lifecycle, for example, the project managers, constructors, designers, and other technical experts in the planning and design, and construction phases. Based on Daniellou’s (2001) levels, the human subsystem’s contribution to the implementation and use of BIM could be both soft skills (e.g. communication, planning- and organizational skills) and technical skills (computer literacy, information technology, and proficiency in BIM software), which BIM requires (Adepoju et al., 2022). It also becomes necessary for members to possess the teamwork skills to develop the best strategy to successfully imple- ment a BIM project (Adepoju et al., 2022).

Aspects related to the human subsystem are described as the most intangible parts of the organization and may be difficult to characterize precisely. As a result, they are also pointed at as the most difficult aspects to change (Porras and Robertson, 1992). The specific interactions among the human, the technology, and organizational subsystems in the use of BIM may therefore be specifically important to focus on for the successful implementation of BIM with positive outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to increase the understanding of the human relationships to the technology and the organization in using BIM, on how the individual user (human) interacts with the BIM technology, and how organizations can facilitate those interactions. The more specific aim of this literature review is to map the critical factors

Fig. 1. A redrawing of the HTO conceptual model (Berglund et al., 2020, p. 16), with BIM inserted as a work activity, including the relationships between the H -, T -, and O - subsystems, and examples of these interactions.

(3)

influencing the use of BIM based on existing research, including knowledge about:

a) The systems approach, including interactions among all the three subsystems– human, technology and organization

b) Interactions between the human and technology subsystems c) Interactions between the human and organizational subsystems

This literature study aimed to, from a HTO perspective, highlight both existing knowledge and knowledge gaps.

2. Method

Given that BIM is a relatively new technology it was assumed that research, on interactions between the human, technology and organizational factors in BIM, is still limited. Therefore, a scoping review design was considered appropriate because it is particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed (Peters et al., 2015). Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews when the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature or clarify concepts (Munn et al., 2018).

Literature searches for original scientific peer-reviewed articles in English were conducted in Ergonomics abstracts, Scopus and Web of science. No limitations regarding year of publication or country were applied. The search string applied was broadly designed to capture as many relevant studies as possible. The search string is presented in Table 1.

The searches resulted in 3720 articles and after removing duplicates, 1719 articles remained. Sixty-four articles were read in full text, and 46 studies remained for in-depth analysis. The selection process is described in Fig. 2. The process of sorting and categorizing the studies was supported by systematic review manager software (www.rayyan.

ai).

An initial evaluation of titles and abstracts, regarding the studies’

foci, was performed. The selection was based on three specific questions 1. Does the study address aspects of BIM? 2. Does the study focus on BIM users? 3. Does the study describe interactions between users, technology and/or organization? Studies that did not meet these criteria were

excluded at this stage. The broad search string generated a large number of studies on BIM, but most of them had a different focus such as software development, business development or the use of BIM for energy efficient buildings.

Before the full-text reading criteria for inclusion and exclusion were formed according to a PICo -framework (Lockwood et al., 2015) suitable for mapping literature studies (see Table 2). During the full text reading studies that were identified to cover interactions between people, technology and/or organization. However, studies that analyzed the interactions between technology and organization were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. The articles excluded during the full-text reading are listed in Appendix 1. In cases where there have been doubts about inclusion, regarding focus or quality, at least two of the authors read and assessed the study. Inclusion or exclusion of studies has in doubtful cases been discussed until consensus was reached.

Analysis- During the in-depth analysis, the critical factors for BIM implementation and use were identified by analyzing the interactions described in each study. In the first step, what kind of interactions the study included were analyzed e.g., 1) systems approach, 2) interactions between human and technology and/or 3) human and organization interactions. Metadata such as year, country, and methods were noted.

The studies were first sorted under three main categories, Systems approach, Human – Technology Interactions, and Human – Organization Interactions. In the second step, the critical factors influencing the use of BIM were identified and described under the main categories.

Because of the complexity of analyzing BIM as a working system from a system’s perspective, it was difficult, in some cases, to draw distinct boundaries for the presentation of certain studies. Therefore, some studies can be found in several categories.

3. Data analysis and findings 3.1. Overall results

The earliest study included is from 2010 and the latest from 2021.

The distribution of studies per year is presented in Fig. 3.

Table 1

Search strings per database, date of performed search and number of hits in the three included databases.

Database, date of search and

number of hits Search strings

SCOPUS TITLE-ABS-KEY(("building information model*" OR

"virtual design and construction")

2021-03-29 AND

Hits: 2010 ("sociotech*" OR "human factor*" OR "human computer interaction*" OR "Human machine interaction*" OR "users model*" OR "cogn*" OR

"psycho*" OR ”mental*” OR "internal representation"

OR perception OR ”organization*” OR collaboration OR communication OR sensemaking OR

implementation OR adopt*)) Document type: Article Web of Science Core

Collection TOPIC: ("building information model*" OR "virtual design and Construction")

2021-04-21 AND

Hits: 1685 TOPIC: ("sociotech*" OR "human factor*" OR "human computer interaction*" OR "Human machine interaction*" OR "users model*" OR "cogn*" OR

"psycho*" OR ”mental*” OR "internal representation"

OR perception OR ”organization*” OR collaboration OR communication OR sensemaking OR

implementation OR adopt*) Document type: Article

Ergonomics Abstracts ("building information model*" OR "virtual design and Construction")

All results 2021-04-12

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the study selection process.

(4)

The countries of origin are spread over the world (see Table 3). About 30% of the studies have their origin in Europe. About 43% of the studies have their origin in Asia. Most of the European studies are from the U.K, and of the Asian studies, China is dominant.

In the first main category of the results, the Systems Approach, the results of the studies include interactions between human, technology

and organization are presented in three sub-categories: BIM as a social system, adopting technology to human capacities, and the organizations’

role.

The second main category, Human-Technology Interactions, was divided into two subcategories Human-Computer Interaction and Tech- nology Acceptance and resistance.

In the third main category, results related to the interactions between humans and organizations are presented. Four subcategories were identified: collaboration and communication, leadership, and organiza- tional support to the individuals’ learning. The main categories and subcategories is presented in Table 4.

Fifteen studies had mainly a qualitative approach, and 23 studies had mainly a quantitative approach. Eight studies used a mixed-method approach. A construction’s life cycle can be broadly divided into the phases of planning and design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. All analyzed studies were linked either to the plan and design or to the construction phase, while no studies connected to the operation or decommissioning were found.

3.2. Systems approach

The studies in this main category system approach, see Table 5, have different focuses and purposes, but common is that they from a holistic approach analyze the interactions between human, technology and the organization of BIM. No studies on BIM applying an explicit HTO perspective have been found during the searches. There are, however, studies on BIM applying an explicit sociotechnical system theory (STS).

A full application of STS was identified in five articles that explicitly used STS theory in the design of the study including in the analysis of results (Sackey et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Maskil-Leitan and Reychav 2018; Maskil-Leitan and Reychav, 2019; Hua and Liu, 2017). Four studies analyzed the use of a BIM from a system perspective, i.e. include interactions between human, organizational and technology factors in their analysis of the use of BIM without stating that they apply any specific system theory (Neff et al. 2010; Çıdık et al., 2017; Verstegen et al., 2019; Villena-Manzanares et al., 2021).

Three subcategories were identified: BIM as a social system, adopting technology to human capacities, and the organizations’ role.

3.2.1. BIM as a social system

Studies applying a system approach point out that BIM is a social system showing the importance of the users being integrated and managed in the implementation and use of BIM. Maskil-Leitan and Reychav (2019) showed for example that by using a system approach Table 2

The PICo-framework, criteria for inclusion and exclusion during the full-text reading.

P - Population I – Interests Co - Context Inclusion The studied

population were active users of BIM in various roles within the AEC industry, for example, project managers, designers, and technical specialists.

Empirical research that includes the interactions between Humans and Technology, and between humans and Organizations, in BIM implementation and use.

Studies in the AEC industry from around the world.

Exclusion Students or non-

professionals. Studies focused on Technology- Organization Interactions in BIM, not involving the individual user. For example, AI, machine learning, and various other issues regarding IT without any user perspectives.

Studies of function and development of technical tools and solutions, not evaluating interactions between Humans and Technology.

Studies reporting general barriers in the implementation of BIM, not presenting interactions between users, technologies and/or organizations.

Literature studies.

Studies on BIM in organizational- or educational contexts.

Studies on BIM as a tool for studying human behavior, such as computer simulations or experiments.

Fig. 3. Selection of studies per year.

(5)

sustainable social processes connected to BIM can be created. Some specific learnings on the interactions between HTO is also given in Hua and Liu (2017) study. Their conclusions indicate that the person-task fit, if the users abilities meet the demands of the task requirements, in- fluences the users adoption behavior to be more willing to adopt ICT like BIM, while the congruence of the individuals’ and the organizations’ values (i.e. person-culture fit) will not directly influence their intention to adopt BIM. Another study showed that by studying how individual actors use digital technology, how these actors organize its use in col- lectives and how they organize their work with that of other actors, increase the understanding of how the users, the digital technology and the organization interacts in order to realize collective-level goals (Verstegen et al., 2019).

3.2.2. Adopting technology to human capacities

The studies applying STS analysis showed overall that technology itself is not sufficient for the efficient implementation and use of BIM. A narrow focus on technology, without adopting human capacities and

technology, was shown to be a hindering factor in the use of BIM (Çıdık et al., 2017). Liu et al. (2017) point at that efficient collaboration requires the successful execution of and dedication to the three main components technology, people and process. These three components are in the study shown to be complementary and synergistic. The results indicate that any of these components can be implemented indepen- dently, but not including all components may lead to less successful project collaborations. Analyzed studies demonstrate how technological implementation and its effects cannot be understood separately from the context of the implementing organization (Sackey et al., 2015; Mas- kil-Leitan and Reychav 2019). Sackey et al. (2015) showed specifically that a novel technological solution could only be incorporated and eventually utilized in a working system if there is alignment between the sociotechnical components. Maskil-Leitan and Reychav (2019) pointed out that technological use alone cannot bring about social and cultural benefits (fairness, awareness, participation, and cohesion) from the project and that a sociotechnical integration is needed in the implementation for realizing such outcomes. There are also implications from the studies in this category that the design of the technology is important for its ability to support collaboration and communication between users. One study showed, for example, that for digital technologies to do so they need to have the ability to remain relatively stable as they transit across knowledge boundaries while being relatively open to interpre- tation across multiple groups (Neff et al., 2010). Çıdık et al., (2017) point out that with an overly strict technology focus, the assumption is that all information in BIM is correct does not need any intervention during site installation because all information is in the model and ready to be used. However, as stressed by Çıdık et al. (2017), in the end, the information in the model must be re-worked during site installation; and this is in line with the human-centered perspective which assumes that information is always subjective and, therefore, always only partially transferable.

Table 3

Country of origin and HTO-approach of included studies.

Systems approach Human-Technology Interactions Human-Organization Interactions

ASIA 20 studies

China 2017 Liu et al. 2021 Cao et al. 2020 Zhang et al.

2020 Ma et al.; Wang et al.; 2017 Song et al.

Zhang et al.

2019 Gong et al.

2016 Wang and Song

Hong Kong 2017 Hua and Liu 2020 Zhang et al.

Iran 2020 Mirhosseini et al.

Israel 2019 Maskil-Leitan and Reychav

2018 Maskil-Leitan and Reychav

Korea 2020 Lee and Yu 2015 Son et al.

2016 Kim et al.

Malaysia 2020 Elshafey et al. 2019 Ibrahim et al.

Singapore 2018 Liao and Teo

EUROPE 13 studies

Finland 2015 M¨aki and Kerosuo 2012 Kerosuo et al.

Norway 2016 Bråthen and Moum;

Merschbrock and Nordahl-Rolfsen

Spain 2021 Villena-Manzanares et al.

The Netherlands 2019 Verstegen et al. 2020 Voordijk and Sloot 2021 Yang et al.

U.K. 2017 Çıdık et al. 2017 Howard et al. 2017 Murphy and Nahod

2015 Sackey et al. 2013 Davies and Harty NORTH AMERICA 6 studies

Canada 2017 Poirier et al.

USA 2010 Neff et al. 2019 Chalhoub and Ayer 2016 Kokkonen and Alin

2018 Chalhoub and Ayer 2014 Dadi et al.

OCEANIA 5 studies

Australia 2018 Chu et al. 2019 Ahankoob et al.

2015 Singh and Holmstrom 2011 Brewer and Gajendram

New Zealand 2020 Okakpu et al.

AFRICA 2 studies

Ghana 2018 Acquah et al.

Nigeria 2019 Elijah and Oluwasuji

Table 4

Overview of main categories and subcategories.

Main

categories Systems approach Human- Technology Interactions

Human-Organization Interactions

Subcategories BIM as a social system Adopting technology to human capacities The organizations’

role

Human- Computer Interaction Technology Acceptance and resistance

Collaboration and communication Leadership Organizational support to the individuals’ learning.

(6)

3.2.3. The organizations’ roles

The studies with a system approach also clarify the organization’s role in effective implementation and use of BIM. Çıdık et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of collaboration among different disciplines to achieve innovation. In the study, users from different engineering disciplines are considered to have different needs and, therefore, are seen as developing different working relations with shared BIM models.

The users’ inabilities to open up to other perspectives were more specifically shown to complicate collaboration. It becomes an obstacle for BIM’s contribution to innovation. Villena-Manzanares et al., 2021 pointed out that it is important that the organization also adapt internal processes, including senior management support, to promote and support communication, collaboration, and effective technology use in design teams.

3.3. Human–technology interactions

In this section, studies exploring –Human-Technology Interactions are presented. Two sub categories, Human-Computer Interaction and Technology acceptance and Technology resistance, were identified.

3.3.1. Human-computer interactions

Six studies were found in this category (see Table 6).

3.3.1.1. Visualizations’ benefits for the users - understanding, reduced mental workload and learning. The analyzed studies indicated that some specific benefits could be achieved by visualization in the use of BIM.

These benefits seem, according to included studies, to be related to that virtual 3D-models were observed to be easier to comprehend compared to 2D plans (Chalhoub and Ayer, 2018; Chu et al., 2018), and giving a

better understanding of the planned building (Bråthen and Moum, 2016).

Other potential benefits of visualization found in included studies were, for example, increased quality by fewer errors (Chalhoub and Ayer 2018; Chu et al., 2018), more efficient collaboration and communication (Bråthen and Moum, 2016), and positive effects on the execution time for different tasks (Chu et al., 2018; Chalhoub and Ayer, 2019). Reduced mental workload is another outcome that, according to three studies, is associated with visualization (Chalhoub and Ayer, 2019; Chu et al., 2018; Dadi et al., 2014). Finally, three of the analyzed studies considered visualization a suitable tool for training and education, due to its ability to increase users’ understanding of a construction (Chalhoub and Ayer, 2018; Bråthen and Moum, 2016; Chalhoub and Ayer, 2019).

However, there are indications that the technology needs to be further designed to provide the user with sufficient and adequate information in order to obtain the identified benefits (Chu et al., 2018;

M¨aki and Kerosuo, 2015) and be accepted by professionals (Mersch- brock and Nordahl-Rolfsen, 2016).

3.3.2. Technology acceptance and technology resistance

Sixteen studies related to technology acceptance and resistance were found (see Table 7). During the in-depth analysis, four related factors emerged: Perceived usefulness, attitudes and innovativeness, experience, expectations, and social factors.

There appear to be specific factors that influence whether professionals accept or resist BIM:

3.3.2.1. Perceived usefulness, attitudes, and innovativeness. Three perceptions - perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user satisfaction - play prominent roles in providing a positive attitude and Table 5

Analyzed studies – System approach.

Academic research works Country Methods Material Focus (selection of keywords)

Çıdık et al. (2017) U.K. Case study 2 projects Innovation; Change; Practice

7 interviews 5 observations Hua and Liu (2017) Hong Kong Secondary analysis of a

questionnaire study 188 respondents Person-culture fit; Person-task fit; Person-environment perspective

Liu et al. (2017) China Interviews 11 participants in focus group

discussions Collaboration; Design; Construction 12 interviews

Maskil-Leitan and Reychav

(2019) Israel Case study 30 interviews Corporate social responsibility; Sustainability

30 questionnaires Maskil-Leitan and Reychav

(2018) Israel Case study 23 interviews Integrated project delivery; Sociocultural sustainability;

Managerial areas of BIM 23 questionnaires

Neff et al. (2010) USA Case study 3 projects

65 interviews Collaboration; Teams

Sackey et al. (2015) U.K. Case study 1 organization Construction organization; Sociotechnical systems 10 interviews

Observations

Verstegen et al. (2019) Netherlands Case study 15 interviews Digital innovation; Collective affordance; Organizing technology

8 observations Villena-Manzanares et al.

(2021) Spain Questionnaires 92 respondents Technological learning; Collaborative culture; Senior

management

Table 6

Analyzed studies- Human-Computer Interactions.

Academic research works Country Methods Material Focus (selection of keywords)

Bråthen and Moum (2016) Norway Case studies 1 projects Collaboration; Visualization

4 observations 19 interviews

Chalhoub and Ayer (2019) USA Experiments 32 participants AR; Task classification

Chalhoub and Ayer (2018) USA Experiments 18 participants MR; Productivity

Chu et al. (2018) Australia Experiments 20 participants AR; Task efficiency

Dadi et al. (2014) USA Experiments 26 participants Visualization; Productivity

M¨aki and Kerosuo (2015) Finland Ethnografic approach 2 projects Construction management; Site management 2 observations

Merschbrock and Nordahl-Rolfsen (2016) Norway Case studies 8 interviews BIM; on-site construction work

(7)

behavioral intention to adopt and use BIM. These three perceptions have been shown to be closely connected to acceptance or resistance of the technology (Acquah et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Elshafey et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). According to Elshafey et al.

(2020), users can perceive BIM as useful and have confidence in it, if they believe that they have control over it and access to the required resources. Differences in attitudes can, according to Kim et al. (2016) cause a barrier to changing the existing 2D process to the BIM-based one.

Ma et al. (2020) point at that user satisfaction, perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness promote the use and exploration of BIM. Per- sonal innovativeness in BIM adoption is, according to Singh and Holmstrom (2015), a function of environmental conditions. When the individuals’ needs are met, for example, assured job security, their need for creativity and change takes over, and they tend to challenge existing solutions, tools, and practices and open up opportunities for innovation and adoption of BIM. Finally, the task-technology-fit also seems to play a significant role in the individual user’s attitude and BIM acceptance (Gong et al., 2019).

3.3.2.2. Experience. One study showed that the resistance to use BIM can be overcome by educating users about BIM and making them aware of the potential benefits through skills development (Voordijk and Sloot, 2020). Another study shows, in line with this, that the degree of users’

beliefs regarding BIM technology may change throughout their training period; as users gain practical experience using the technology, irre- spective of whether they accept the technology, BIM requires specialized training over an extended period (Lee and Yu, 2020). The same study showed that user acceptance of BIM technology might also change over time as the scope of acceptance in the organization changes because organizational and individual intents to accept BIM have significant implications. To achieve both individual and organizational intention of BIM acceptance, efforts to improve the usefulness and easiness of BIM

usage are required (Lee and Yu, 2020). According to Wang et al. (2020), age may also be a factor associated with behaviors in BIM implementation; older users tend to be less flexible with changes.

3.3.2.3. Expectations. Three studies examined expectations as an important factor in the implementation and use of BIM. According to Davies and Harty (2013), the expectation that BIM can improve work performance is related to the expectation that BIM use is compatible with preferred and existing ways of working. Two studies indicated that performance expectancy do not seem to influence behavioral intention directly, which means that BIM is perceived as an unrewarded addition to existing work processes. Therefore, the studies underline a need to redefine strategies, policies, and incentive systems to promote the acceptance of BIM (Howard et al., 2017; Okakpu et al., 2020). Okakpu et al. (2020) argued, based on the results of their study, that when the culture of an organization favor BIM adoption, it also improves the expectation of clients-organizations.

3.3.2.4. Social factors. Social influence in the use of BIM is complex (Davies and Harty, 2013), but it seems like some social factors can affect the acceptance of BIM (Wang and Song, 2016). The individuals’ personal characteristics can affect the current project organizational culture in both positive and negative ways (Brewer and Gajendram, 2011), and the dimension of acceptance or resistance is more substantially impacted by the team-level factor, while the dimension of actual use of BIM appears to be more significantly associated with the project-level factor (Cao et al., 2021).

3.4. Human–organization interactions

Fifteen studies were related to interactions between humans and Table 7

Analyzed studies – Technology acceptance and resistance.

Academic research

works Country Methods Material Focus (selection of keywords)

Acquah et al. (2018) Ghana Questionnaires 125

respondents TAM; Construction Industry Brewer and Gajendram

(2011) Australia Meta-analysis of two earlier interview-based studies of the

same construction project 12 interviews Attitudes; Behaviors; Project team culture

Cao et al. (2021) China Interviews 11 informants Construction projects; Technology acceptance;

Technology resistance

Questionnaires 125

respondents Davies and Harty

(2013) U.K. Questionnaires 762

respondents Beliefs; Information systems

Elshafey et al. (2020) Malaysia Questionnaires 58 respondents Technology acceptance; Augmented Reality Egypt

Saudi –Arabia Turkey

Gong et al. (2019) China Questionnaires 81 respondents 4D BIM; Technology acceptance

Howard et al. (2017) U.K. Questionnaires 84 respondents Diffusion of innovations; Technology adoption

Kim et al. (2016) Korea Questionnaires 303

respondents BIM acceptance degree

Lee and Yu (2020) Korea Questionnaires 109

respondents BIM acceptance model; construction organization

Ma et al. (2020) China Questionnaires 151

respondents Postadoption; Exploitation; Exploration

Okakpu et al. (2020) New Zealand Questionnaires 105 responses BIM; Sustainable refurbishment

Singh and Holmstrom

(2015) Australia Focus group Interviews 24-30

informants Motivation; Innovation; Information management Observations

Voordijk and Sloot

(2020) The

Netherlands Interviews 12 informants ICT; Learning

Wang et al. (2020) China Questionnaires 175

respondents Resistance behaviors; Construction projects

Interviews 13 informants

Observations

Wang and Song (2016) China Questionnaires 118

respondents BIM user satisfaction; Perceived ease of use;

Perceived usefulness

Zhang et al. (2020) China Questionnaires 353

respondents Sustainable construction; Application behavior

(8)

organization (see Table 8). During the in-depth analysis, three subcategories connected to the user perspective have emerged: Collabora- tion and communication, Leadership and Organizational support to the individuals’ learning.

3.4.1. Collaboration and communication

According to Ibrahim et al. (2019), BIM can be assumed to be influential in creating better collective and collaborative information sharing in a virtual environment. BIM impacts collaboration, according to the included studies, through a complex and multifarious process. It spans, according to Poirier et al. (2017), across many domains and no overarching approach exists to support its investigation. By focusing on the individual collaborator, Poirier et al. (2017) identified five cognitive determinants for collaboration: requirements, expectations, intentions, incentives and capabilities. Their study showed that in the context of BIM-enabled collaborations, these elements are being reshaped and solicited in new ways which may or may not cause misalignments

amongst members of a project team. This highlights the importance of negotiated alignments not only at the structural level but also at the cognitive level to ensure successful BIM-enabled collaboration (Poirier et al., 2017). Trust and shared vision within the project team seem also, according to Zhang et al. (2020), to be essential for teamwork effectiveness (Zhang et al., 2020). BIM has been adopted quite generally to the design use but according to one study the old ways of collaboration seem to prevail, e.g. new BIM technology is adopted in to old collaboration practices and ways of working, and its benefits are then limited (Kerosuo et al., 2012).

3.4.2. Leadership

Liao and Teo (2018) classified the shift to BIM as an organizational change, and suggested that the management team should set the tone of changing toward BIM implementation. This would largely break out of the adversarial project culture and build trust-based collaboration within the project. Once the appropriate contractual structure and trust-based collaboration are established, the resistance to change would, according to Liao and Teo (2018) be removed. Considering leadership as a critical factor in the implementation and use of BIM, an involving leadership style is recommended following the results of Mirhosseini et al. (2020) studies. They summarize that vision and imagination, critical analysis and strategic perspective are the most important of all competencies for BIM leadership (Mirhosseini et al., 2020). Top-management support (Song et al., 2017; Son et al., 2015) and guidance (Yang et al., 2021; Voordijk and Sloot, 2020) are also mentioned as important factors in creating acceptance of BIM (Song et al., 2017; Son et al., 2015). Users are more likely to trust and accept innovation like BIM and AR if there is enough guidance, and if the technology’s situation is based on their familiar environment (Yang et al., 2021). However, management incentives, for example financial compensation, appear to be ineffective at the operational stage of adopting and using BIM (Gong et al., 2019).

3.4.3. Organizational support to the individuals’ learning

There are implications that increasing experience generally contributes to an awareness of potential BIM benefits, that BIM experience is a significant factor in the realization of potential BIM benefits and that contractors with more years of BIM experience were more likely to apply BIM in complex construction (Ahankoob et al., 2019). Three studies show that it is important in organizational changes, like the trans- formation to BIM, that the individual user actively create knowledge and skills (Kokkonen and Alin, 2016; Murphy and Nahod, 2017; Elijah et al., 2019). There is a need for practitioners in AEC, to deconstruct the basic ideas of the old practices of the construction process, and reconstruct new practices through reflective learning. (Kokkonen and Alin, 2016).

Although software is developing rapidly, Murphy and Nahod (2017) suggested that the focus for AEC companies should be more aligned with the development of relevant people’s competencies and interpersonal attributes rather than the emphasis on technical skills. According to Elijah et al. (2019), organizing regular workshops and attending related conferences on BIM, on-the-job training/project-based training, including BIM training in the company’s syllabus and hiring a BIM specialist for staff training, are all significant activities to improve the professional skills.

4. Discussion

Implementation of BIM has been relatively slow in the construction industry (Smith, 2014). There are indications that the individual user is neglected in the development of BIM (Wen et al., 2021), which may hinder successful implementations and positive outcomes. This study is, to our knowledge, the first study that explores the use of BIM from an HTO perspective. This review has a particular focus on the individual users’ interaction with the technology and the organization of BIM as the human subsystem can be seen as specifically critical for successful Table 8

Analyzed studies – Human Organization Interactions.

Academic research works

Country Methods Material Focus (selection of keywords)

Ahankoob et al.

(2019)

Australia Questionnaires 56

respondents BIM potential benefits; BIM experience Elijah et al.

(2019) Nigeria Questionnaires 285

respondents Skills; Training needs Gong et al.

(2019) China Questionnaires 81

respondents 4D BIM;

Technology acceptance Ibrahim

et al.

(2019)

Malaysia Questionnaires 42

respondents Behavior;

Information exchange Interviews 9 informants

Kerosuo et al.

(2012)

Finland Interviews 25

informants Multi-partner project collaboration Kokkonen

and Alin (2016)

USA Case study 1 project Change;

Learning Observations

41 interviews Liao and

Teo (2018)

Singapore Questionnaires 84

respondents People management;

Organizational change Interviews 5 informants Mirhosseini

et al.

(2020)

Iran Questionnaires 32

respondents BIM Leader;

Leadership competencies Murphy and

Nahod (2017)

U.K Questionnaires 71

respondents Project management;

Competency Croatia

Poirier et al.

(2017) Canada Longitudinal

case study 1 project Cognition;

Collaboration 116 interviews

52 Observations 4 Surveys Son et al.

(2015) Korea Questionnaires 162

respondents BIM; Behavioral intentions Song et al.

(2017) China Questionnaires 113

respondents BIM user satisfaction;

Top- management support Voordijk

and Sloot (2020)

The Netherlands Interviews 12

informants ICT; Learning Yang et al.

(2021) The

Netherlands Experiments 160

participants Data innovation;

Construction sites Zhang et al.

(2020) Hong Kong

China Questionnaires 144

respondents Teamwork effectiveness;

Social capital

(9)

implementation of BIM. The findings from this study contribute with knowledge on how, for example, leadership and organizational support influence the BIM acceptance and use of BIM.

Few studies applied a system approach when studying BIM. How- ever, the results from these studies thus provide more insights and a deeper understanding of BIM from a system perspective, compared to the other analyzed studies. The majority of studies concerned interactions between humans and technology more narrowly, with only limited consideration of the importance of organizational contextual factors and organizational implementation strategies.

From the in-depth analysis of 46 publications, some critical factors influencing the use of BIM were observed in multiple studies. Such factors were identified in three interaction categories. Critical factors connected to human and technology interactions showed to be BIM acceptance. Perceived usefulness, attitudes, innovativeness, experience, expectations, and social factors were closely related to whether BIM was accepted or not, while increased understanding, support in decision- making and learning, and decreased mental workload seem to be user benefits using visualization. Factors connected to human and organizational interactions were identified as collaboration, communication, leadership, and organizational support.

When combining the knowledge from different studies, it is clear that for optimal human use of BIM the organization should, from a HTO perspective, be aware that the shift to BIM is a major organizational change (Liao and Teo, 2018; Kokkonen and Alin, 2016; Murphy and Nahod, 2017; Elijah et al., 2019), that all subsystems may be affected (Çıdık et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017; Sackey et al., 2015; Maskil-Leitan and Reychav 2019) and know how to build an organizational culture based on trust (Zhang et al., 2020; Liao and Teo, 2018; Yang et al., 2021). Using visualization as a natural part of daily operations can be beneficial to increase learning and understanding (Chalhoub and Ayer, 2018; Bråthen and Moum, 2016; Chalhoub and Ayer, 2019), as well as communication and collaboration in a project (Bråthen and Moum, 2016).

The studies in the category Systems approach highlight the complexity of using BIM, and offer a more in-depth knowledge of BIM as a system. Only a limited number of studies were however found, which point at that more research on BIM from a systems approach is needed.

The research in the sub-category Human-Computer Interactions, point in summary on some benefits of visualization in the use of BIM. More research is however needed on human-computer interactions in the use of BIM to draw generalizable conclusions on the benefits of visualization. In the sub-category Technology Acceptance, there are consistent results from a number of studies, in particular regarding the interplay between perceived usefulness, attitude and behavioral intention to adopt and use BIM. Fifteen studies with different perspectives on human – organization interactions in the use of BIM were found. There were few studies addressing similar factors and there is thus not enough consistent research to draw any firm conclusions about human - organization interactions in the use of BIM.

The majority of the included studies are either based on quantitative cross-sectional questionnaires with small sample sizes or on qualitative case studies. There is some consistent research performed on factors associated to BIM-acceptance. Most research is, however, scattered to explore different perspectives and perceptions of BIM, which also limits possibilities to draw consistent conclusions of critical HTO interactions for the use of BIM. In order to create generalizable results about use of BIM from a system approach longitudinal studies studying how HTO interactions in different organizational contexts impact the outcomes of BIM can be recommended. Future research may focus on finding indicators for critical interactions between human, technology and organization in use of BIM. Such indicators could for example include user’s attitudes to and competence on BIM for adapting organizational implementation strategies to users needs. Other indicators recommended to focus on include leadership, collaboration and communication during implementation and use of BIM.

In 2014, the European Commission released a new directive on (2014/24/EU) adding aspects of social and environmental sustainability to the public procurement process in the building and construction industry. Although there is a lack of research on how digitalization can promote social sustainability (Ferreira et al., 2023), the directive sends positive signals to the industry to start embracing these issues. Most of the studies included in this review were conducted after 2014, which may be an effect of the directive. However, the majority (70%) of the studies are from outside Europe, so it is possible that BIM is simply in an evolutionary phase where the user is starting to play a more significant role in the development.

The results of this study give, in summary, an overview of existing research on critical factors influencing the adoption and use of BIM.

Searches were performed in a wide range of databases with a search string that iteratively was developed in collaboration with information specialists and there are no indications on that a significant amount of relevant peer reviewed studies have been excluded.

5. Conclusions

By analyzing existing research on human, technology, and organization interactions in BIM, this review contributes to an overview of some critical factors for the use of BIM. The results from our scoping review show that technology itself is not sufficient for the efficient implementation and use of BIM. To not see BIM as a holistic system and not considered the individual user in research on organizations’ implementations and use of BIM is likely a limitation in the process of learning on hindering and facilitating factors for achieving the potential benefits of BIM. There are studies showing specifically that technology acceptance is a critical factor for the use of BIM. A positive attitude contributes to a behavioral intention to adopt and use BIM and is promoted by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user satisfaction. How- ever, the research on how humans interact with the technology of BIM, and how the organization can facilitate those interactions is limited, and it is recommended for further research on BIM use to include such perspectives.

The practical implications of the study include that BIM is a social system, and organization should have strategies for integrating and managing the users’ needs in BIM implementation and use. We recom- mend that organizational key actors leading the implementation consider BIM as a holistic HTO system to gain a deeper understanding of the critical factors in successful BIM implementation and use.

Funding

The Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) funded this work.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Aknowledgement

We would like to thank information specialists from KTH library for support in doing the literature searches for this study.