See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320289890

The adoption of 4D BIM in the UK construction industry: An Innovation

Diffusion approach

Article  in  Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · October 2017

DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0066

CITATIONS READS

24 974

2 authors:

Barry James Gledson David Greenwood

Northumbria University Northumbria University
45 PUBLICATIONS   231 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   537 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovation Diffusion within the UK Construction Sector: A Study of the Adoption of 4D BIM View project

Various View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Greenwood on 21 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
The adoption of 4D BIM in the UK construction industry: an innovation diffusion
approach
Barry J. Gledson, David Greenwood,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Barry J. Gledson, David Greenwood, (2017) "The adoption of 4D BIM in the UK construction industry:
an innovation diffusion approach", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24
Issue: 6, pp.950-967, https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0066
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0066
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 16 November 2017, At: 15:44 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 27 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:XTWJUBTFDXJDBPTBKGFF:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

ECAM
24,6 The adoption of 4D BIM in the
UK construction industry: an
innovation diffusion approach
950 Barry J. Gledson and David Greenwood
Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering,
Received 11 March 2016
Revised 5 August 2016 Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
18 October 2016
Accepted 21 October 2016
Abstract
Purpose – British construction industry KPI data collected over recent years shows a trend in projects
exceeding their time schedules. In 2013, the UK Government set a target for projects timeframes to reduce by
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

50 per cent. Proposed interventions included more rapid project delivery processes, and consistent
improvements to construction delivery predictions, deployed within the framework of 4D Building
Information Modelling (BIM). The purpose of this paper is to use Rogers’ Innovation Diffusion theory as a
basis to investigate how this adoption has taken place.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 97 construction planning practitioners were surveyed to
measure 4D BIM innovation take-up over time. Classic innovation diffusion research methods were adopted.
Findings – Results indicated an increasing rate of 4D BIM adoption and reveal a time lag between awareness
and first use that is characteristic of this type of innovation.
Research limitations/implications – Use of a non-probability sampling strategy prevents the results
being generalisable to the wider construction population. Future research directions and methods are
suggested, including qualitative investigations into decision-making processes around 4D BIM, and case
studies exploring the consequences of 4D BIM adoption.
Practical implications – Recommendations of how to facilitate the adoption of 4D BIM innovation are
proposed, which identify the critical aspects of system compatibility and safe trialling of the innovation.
Originality/value – This paper reinforces 4D BIM as an innovation and records its actual UK industry
adoption rate using an accepted diffusion research method. By focusing on UK industry-wide diffusion the
work also stands apart from more typical research efforts that limit innovation diffusion exploration to
individual organisations.
Keywords Innovation, Diffusion, Planning, Construction planning, Building information Modelling (BIM),
4D planning
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Emphasis on the time performance of the UK construction industry was documented in a
recent governmental strategy report (HM Government, 2013) where a “Vision for 2025”
presented requirements for 50 per cent faster UK project delivery benchmarked against 2013
industry performance. Data have revealed a downward trend in UK construction project time
predictability. 2012 KPI’s reported the lowest figures over a 12 year period, when no more than
34 per cent of UK construction projects were delivered on or before their original planned
project end date, and only 42 per cent of construction phases delivered on or before their
original planned completion date (Gledson, 2015; Gledson and Greenwood, 2014). Table I and
Figure 1 show the KPI data reported for measures of construction time predictability in years
2007 to 2015. Whilst the latest data reveal a small improvement across all three measures of
time predictability, it is clear that more than half of the UK construction projects continue to
exceed their agreed time schedules.
Poor construction cost and time predictability can be attributed to a number of causes.
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management These include: the unforeseen impact of delays (González et al., 2013; Larsen et al., 2015);
Vol. 24 No. 6, 2017
pp. 950-967
project complexity such as size, construction methods and technology used; and the
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
inefficient organisation of human resource (Love et al., 2013; Olaniran et al., 2015).
DOI 10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0066 González et al. (2013) identified poor planning, rather than unforeseeable events, as the
 greatest contributor to poor time performance. Planning quality is determined by the 4D BIM
effectiveness of the planning process. Design and production information act as key inputs in the UK
to the planning process, and the transformation of these inputs into planning output is construction
further affected by the competencies, judgements and biases of the persons advising about,
and undertaking, planning operations. Subsequent plan execution is also subject to similar industry
factors during plan interpretation, as well as issues revolving around resource deployment
and management. Crotty (2012) argued that traditional forms of information used to 951
plan and realise construction projects have been of “devastatingly poor quality” and also
asserts that the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) offers “far higher quality design
information”. Any improvements in the information quality, which is used as inputs for the
planning process, should therefore positively affect planning quality, planning output and
possibly improve the predictability of project delivery. Commonly used definitions of BIM
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

Table I.
KPI (%). Proportion on time or better 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013/2014 2015 Construction time
predictability for
Predictability time: project phase 58 45 45 43 45 34 45 40 years 2007-2015-
Predictability time: design phase 58 58 53 69 51 48 52 53 percentage of projects
Predictability time: construction phase 65 58 59 57 60 42 67 48 and phases delivered
Source: Adapted from Constructing Excellence (2016) on time or better

100

Project Overall
Design Phase
Construction Phase

80

60
Per cent

40

48
20 42 40
34

Figure 1.
Construction time
predictability for
0 years 2007-2015,
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013/ 2015 percentage of projects
Year 2014 and phases delivered
on time or better
Source: Table adapted from Constructing Excellence KPI’s (2016)
 ECAM revolve around representations of product and process. Turk (2016) provides a compelling
24,6 and comprehensive analysis of what BIM is, and makes distinctions between the locations
where BIM use and benefits are “pushed” through research and education, and locations such
as the UK where it has effectively been demanded in the Government Construction Strategy
(HM Government, 2011) for centrally procured public projects. Such a mandate makes any
study of the diffusion of BIM relevant within the UK context. A key benefit of the introduction
952 of BIM is its use in the planning of projects. “4D BIM” is acknowledged as a useful addition to
construction planning methods as it produces construction process visualisations (Hartmann
and Vossebeld, 2013) which enables better understanding (Heesom and Mahdjoubi, 2004;
Wang et al., 2004) and decision making (Hartmann et al., 2008). The aim of the current study is
neither to support nor challenge these assertions, but rather to examine the process through
which the innovation of 4D BIM has been communicated to and adopted by the UK
construction planners over time. To do this, use is made of Rogers (2003) Innovation Diffusion
Theory (IDT). This satisfies calls by researchers (Kale and Arditi, 2010; Reichstein et al., 2005)
who assert that too few surveys of innovation in construction use recognised theoretical
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

models, despite their validity and appeal across broader academic communities.

Conventional construction planning

Construction planning is required to determine the project duration against which
performance is measured (Gledson and Greenwood, 2016). Planning is performed in order to
decide upon organisational goals and project means and solutions (Winch and Kelsey, 2005).
Plans have traditionally been communicated in a variety of formats, most frequently in bar
charts mediums using computer aided scheduling software to perform critical path
calculations. Construction projects have a need for systematic and rigorous front-end
planning, yet managers are encouraged to question prevailing solutions (Greenwood and
Gledson, 2012). Construction programmes can also suffer from systems complexity, with the
volume of Tasks Per Programme (TPP) being one indicator of such complexity. This has
been illustrated in previous research efforts where Liston et al. (2001) used a typical
construction programme that contained 8,000 tasks, and Dawood (2010) used a quantitative
technique to demonstrate that 15,631 tasks were identified across two construction projects.
In addition to TPP volume, another indicator of programme complexity is the multiplicity of
logical dependencies and different dependency types (e.g. Finish to Start; Start to Start;
Start to Start with Lag dependencies) that are applied to each individual task, meaning that
increases in the number of possible logical iterations also increase the complexity of the
programme. Furthermore, Hartmann and Vossebeld (2013) have outlined the distinct
challenges in planning the assembly of site constrained construction products that requires
the integration of knowledge across multiple product co-creators and project actors and
identify the need for greater clarity in knowledge transfer when facilitating communication
about complex construction processes.

Communication and problems of transactional distance

Effective communication is a significant factor in any successful project (Gorse and Emmitt,
2007, 2009). Communication involves iterative processes containing multiple components
set against a background of “noise” (Emmitt, 2010). Components include: the message,
any necessary coding of the message, senders, receivers, channels of communication and
some form of feedback to identify communication comprehension. Although senders trust
that they have sent clear messages, doubts may remain as to whether these messages have
been received and processed as intended. Various communication models have been
developed, including early simple linear (Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver) models (Berlo,
1960; Shannon and Weaver, 1949) and later (Encode-Transmit-Receive-Decode)
transactional models of communication (Barnlund, 2008) that recognise the importance of
 coding, communication noise and feedback to test comprehension. Communication 4D BIM
effectiveness relies on the success of closing the transactional distance between parties. in the UK
“Transactional distance” theory was developed by Moore (1993) and is defined as being the construction
psychological distance that exists between people when communicating (Barrett, 2002 as
cited by Soetanto et al., 2014). All forms of construction production information, such industry
as drawings, specifications and schedules, are generated by a sender attempting to
communicate a message. Often the receiver of production information struggles to 953
understand exactly what has been updated, or what is communicated (Li et al., 2011).
One benefit of the use of BIM is the resultant improvement in the quality of production
information (Crotty, 2012) and whilst its use helps close the transactional distance between
construction actors, it is believed that through the construction process visualisations,
the use of 4D BIM can reduce this gap further.

Closing transaction distance through the diffusion of 4D BIM innovation

Gledson (2016, p. 230) has described BIM as a “radical, transformative and disruptive
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

innovation”. As such, BIM conforms to Everett Rogers definition of an innovation –

“an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of
adoption”, where diffusion is the “process through which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels and adopted over time among the members of a social system”
(Rogers, 2003). A comprehensive review of innovation diffusion literature undertaken by
Hosseini et al. (2015) identified the fundamental characteristics of construction innovations
as: being new to the employing organisation(s), producing non-trivial change(s), forecasting
process linked benefits, generating outcome value, delivering competitive advantages,
subject to both risk and uncertainty, and introducing practices unfamiliar to construction.
Much of these attributes apply to the use of 4D BIM. Literature considers the use of 4D BIM
innovation, where the time dimension is linked to the 3D-model (x+y+z+t) as a useful
addition to construction planning (Koo and Fischer, 2000). As noted, construction
planners traditionally use a programme in order to communicate their own message, i.e. the
plan. However this medium can impede the intended message (Cullen and Nankervis, 1985).
4D planning involves making use of 4D BIM to improve construction-planning
techniques. 4D planning is when a time schedule is linked to a 3D-model to enable
visualisation of the time and space relationships of construction activities (Buchmann-
Slorup and Andersson, 2010; Liston et al., 2001). 4D Planning facilitates greater analyse of
the construction schedule to assess its implementation (Koo and Fischer, 2000; Mahalingam
et al., 2010; Trebbe et al., 2015), and help reduce scheduling errors through plan interrogation
and validation. 4D BIM aims to amplify the understanding of the construction plan through
4D visualisations which are “simpler representations of the development of the project and
can be used by a wider variety of project participants at varying levels of skills and
experience” (Mahalingam et al., 2010). Other planning related benefits of 4D BIM include
more effective coordination and review practices (Hartmann and Fischer, 2007;
Olde Scholtenhuis et al., 2016), better planning and management of on-site space and
resources (Kassem et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2004), and use of automated construction progress
tracking capabilities (Kim, Kim, Kim, 2013; Kim, Anderson, Lee and Hildreth, 2013).

Problems of resistance and diffusion

Several researchers consider there to be an increase in the uptake of construction
professionals using 4D BIM innovation (Hartmann et al., 2008; Hartmann and Fischer, 2007;
Trebbe et al., 2015). The gap between theoretical benefits, of communication and operational
efficiencies espoused within the literature, and actual use within industry has been noted
(Mahalingam et al., 2010) and because of the practical difficulties of implementing 4D BIM
there is a need to further explore implementation and perceptions of intended users towards
 ECAM this innovation. Organisational and project related barriers have impeded the widespread
24,6 diffusion of 4D BIM innovation and despite the apparent advantages afforded by 4D BIM,
it should be noted that any misunderstanding by planners and construction practitioners will
impede diffusion (Li et al., 2008), equally there is likely to be human resistance to such
innovation. A significant frustration for practitioners are the challenges faced when changes
to working processes are introduced, particularly having to learn new software, after years of
954 gaining a particular expertise. Industry professionals such as construction planners are likely
to strongly identify themselves by the professional and technical expertise skills that they
have acquired over a long period, synthesising their experiences over each project. Dodgson
and Gann (2010) identify that such disruptive innovations are likely to disturb the balance and
implicit social contracts that lie between organisations and employees. Mahalingam et al.
(2010) identified that organisational and project related barriers have impeded the widespread
diffusion of 4D BIM and warned that despite these benefits the innovation “might not diffuse
through the construction industry unless 4D modelling and analysis is integrated into existing
project planning approaches”. There is a need therefore to consider 4D BIM innovation from
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

the perspective of IDT. Previous research (Gledson and Greenwood, 2014, 2016) into the
implementation and use of 4D BIM and virtual construction (VC) found high levels of BIM
awareness with some experience of use of VC, primarily for work winning, methods planning,
and the visualisation and validation of construction processes. These researchers identified an
opportunity for further research: the need to see if the potential benefits of 4D planning are
being actualised to provide greater efficiency and effectiveness over traditional methods of
planning construction projects. An aim of this study is to address this opportunity.

Research method
The target population of the study was all construction disciplines working for or with
contracting organisations delivering construction projects across any tier of the UK
construction industry. An online web hosted questionnaire survey was considered an
appropriate means of data collection and purposive sampling was employed. Analysis of the
available data suggests that 1,650,000 workers fit this profile at any one time (Myers, 2013)
which was the assumed population size for this study. A questionnaire survey can be
considered to be an appropriate means of data collection for this study (Easterby-Smith
et al., 2008; Fellows and Liu, 2008). The survey was undertaken in 2015 and collected 97 full
responses. An additional 54 partial responses were received although these were excluded
from analysis due to their incompleteness. In order to determine the rate of adoption of 4D
BIM innovation, the research design was approached from the perspective of classic IDT,
represented by the work of Rogers (2003). A 5-part questionnaire containing 49 questions
was formulated using several of Rogers’ key variables which were adapted to measure the
rate of 4D BIM adoption (see Figure 2). These variables included the perceived attributes of

Rate of Adoption
Perceived Attributes of 4D BIM Innovation
Type of Innovation Decision
1. Relative advantage of 4D BIM
Communication
2. Compatibility 1. Optional Channels
3. Complexity 2. Collective 1. Mass media
4. Trialability 3. Authority Innovation
2. Interpersonal
5. Observability

Figure 2.
Variables determining
the rate of 4D BIM
innovation adoption
Source: Adapted from Rogers (2003)
 the innovation, namely: the relative advantages of 4D BIM innovation against functions 4D BIM
of construction planning; the relative advantages of 4D BIM innovation against stages of in the UK
the construction planning process; issues of compatibility, complexity, trialability and construction
observability. Other independent diffusion research variables that were measured
included information regarding communication channels, and the types of innovation industry
decisions made.
955
Independent diffusion variables used in the research design
The perceived attributes of an innovation. Rogers (2003) described how individuals differing
perceptions of an innovation’s characteristics can directly affect its adoption rates.
The perceived attributes of an innovation therefore help explain these rates of adoption.
(1) Relative advantage is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
better than the idea that it supersedes” (Rogers, 2003). It is important to stress that
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

it is the perception of any advantage that is held by the individual in relation to

the existing idea which is of the most importance, rather than any actual
advantage that could be objectively measured. Diffusion theory holds that the
more favourable the perceptions of an innovation’s advantage, the greater the
increase in its adoption rate. In the questionnaire survey, various functions of
traditional construction planning practice and process were identified from a
review of the wider construction planning literature, and for each of these,
the respondents were required to assess the relative advantages of 4D BIM over
traditional approaches:
• The functions of construction planning practice identified and used in the
questionnaire were: work winning, design interrogation, planning construction
methods, visualising the construction process, facilitating understanding of the
construction process, validating the time schedule, location-based planning,
progress reporting, site layout planning (positions), logistics planning
(movements), communicating working space and safety planning.
• The elements of the construction planning process identified and used in the
questionnaire were: gathering information, identifying activities, assessing
activity durations, planning the logical dependencies, planning the construction
sequence, communicating the construction plan and communicating project
timescales.
(2) Compatibility is concerned with consistency of potential adopters’ experience, needs
and values. Diffusion theory holds that innovations that are incompatible with
existing infrastructures will not diffuse as rapidly as innovations that are
compatible with such infrastructures. In the questionnaire, research respondents
were asked to consider whether the use of 4D BIM is compatible with their current
practice of construction planning.
(3) Complexity is concerned with perceptions of relative difficulty of use. Diffusion
theory suggests that ease of comprehension by potential adopters aids the adoption
rate. In the questionnaire survey respondents were asked to consider whether the 4D
BIM planning practices would be difficult to learn and difficult to understand.
(4) Trialability is concerned with the opportunity to experiment and use an innovation
on a limited basis. Diffusion theory asserts that innovations that can be trialled
without commitment are more readily adopted. In the questionnaire, research
respondents we asked to consider if 4D BIM methods would have to be
experimented with before using to plan real construction work.
 ECAM (5) Observability is concerned with visibility of the results of an innovation. Diffusion
24,6 theory maintains that innovations that are more visible, or have visible positive
results are adopted more readily. In the questionnaire, research respondents were
asked to identify the impact that 4D BIM has on construction planning effectiveness.
To summarise, Rogers’ (2003) view of the influence of the perceived attributes of an
innovation is that “Innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater relative
956 advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and less complexity will be adopted
more rapidly than other innovations”. It is proposed therefore, that these are especially
appropriate for explaining the rate of adoption of an innovation such as 4D BIM and as
such, they formed part of the questionnaire survey.
Communication channels. Diffusion theory also considers that “communication channels”
may impact upon the rate of adoption of an innovation. Rogers (2003) makes the distinction
between the originating “source” of a communication and the “channel” through which it is
sent. He categorises communication channels as “external” mass media communication
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

channels and “internal” interpersonal communication channels and makes the point that
external mass media communication channels (print media, broadcast media, and new
online media) are able to quickly reach bigger audiences than internal interpersonal
channels, thus accelerating the dissemination of information, understanding and
comprehension. External channels are more important at the knowledge stage of the
innovation-diffusion process, whereas internal channels are more important at the
persuasion stage of the process as they involve two-way dynamic face-to-face exchanges of
information which help decrease resistance to adoption and secure greater favourable
attitudes towards the innovation. Furthermore, Rogers’ theory asserts that adopter
categories of innovators and early adopters are more susceptible to external communication
channels whereas internal communication channels are more favourable for the late
adopters and laggards. Interpersonal communication is particularly useful for innovation
diffusion if the information transfer is truly internal – that is it is between near-peers, with
someone from within the interpersonal network of a potential adopter rather than with
external experts (Rogers, 2003).
In this research, the issue of communication channels was approached in a manner
consistent with classic diffusion theory. Respondents were asked to select their preferences
between external and internal sources, for obtaining of information about 4D BIM.
Respondents were also asked to identify which of these sources would have the biggest
impact on their own personal adoption or rejection decision of 4D BIM.
Classification of adopt-reject decisions. Innovation adoption/rejection decisions can be
made either by individual or organisational decision-making units. Within the construction
industry, it is more likely that decisions to adopt or reject an innovation are taken by a
number of individuals or a group, rather than unilaterally. Larger companies may have to
make a strategic decision to adopt an innovation, before any individual working for that
organisation can then subsequently adopted it. Smaller enterprises may be more flexible
with decisions taken by appropriate individuals. There is a need then to understand the
types of innovation decision that can be made. Within diffusion theory, these types are:
(1) Optional innovation decisions: made by individuals regardless of decisions made by
other persons within the social system.
(2) Collective innovation decisions: made in consensus with other persons within the
social system (e.g. committee decisions).
(3) Authority innovation decisions: made by a single person or small handful of people
(e.g. company directors) who possess the power to command the others within the
social system to comply with their decision.
 In addition, sequential combinations of any of the above decision types can also be made. 4D BIM
These can be considered as “contingent decisions”. In this research, the questionnaire in the UK
provided a brief description of these three main classifications of decision making and construction
required respondents to place any innovation-adoption or -rejection decision into one of
these categories. If no decision had yet been made, respondents were also asked to explain industry
which type of decision would be likely to be made in adopting or rejecting 4D BIM.
957
Findings
Organisational characteristics
Demographic questions were asked to establish some information about the respondents
and the types of organisations in which they worked. A profile of the research participants
is presented in Table II.
Several questions related to company size and organisational BIM maturity. Q9 required
the respondent to reveal the size of the company that they currently worked for
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

(as measured by number of employees rather than by financial measures such as profit or
turnover). The majority of respondents (63.9 per cent; n ¼ 62) identified themselves as
working for a large company (250+ employees); 19.6 per cent (n ¼ 19) described themselves
as working for a small company (1-49 employees); and the remaining 16.5 per cent (n ¼ 16)
worked for medium-size enterprises. In Q11 the respondents’ perception of their
organisation’s BIM maturity was assessed by reproducing the simple definitions of
various BIM maturity levels explained on the NBS website (NBS, 2014) and asking the
respondent to identify the current BIM maturity level of their company. In response,
44.3 per cent (n ¼ 43) assessed their companies’ BIM maturity at Level 2, and 34.0 per cent
(n ¼ 33) at Level 1; 11.3 per cent (n ¼ 11) assessed their companies’ BIM maturity at Level 3
and 10.3 per cent (n ¼ 10) at Level 0.
Inferential analysis was undertaken in order to explore statistical associations in the
relationship between company size and organisational BIM Maturity, with appropriate null
(H0) and alternative (H1) hypotheses formulated as follows:
H0. There is no relationship between company size and organisational BIM Maturity.
H1. There is a relationship between company size and organisational BIM Maturity.

N Frequency % Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Gender 97 100.0
Male 86 88.7
Female 11 11.3
Age 97 46 22 68 40.2 10.7
Current job function 97 100.0
Management Professional 47 48.5
Design Professional 5 5.2
Technical Specialist 45 46.4
Job level 97 100.0
Upper Management (Strategy responsibility) 23 23.7
Middle Management (Tactical responsibility) 40 41.2
Lower Management (Day to day running) 34 35.1
Number of years worked in the construction industry 97 47 1 48 17.9 11.6
Year started working in the construction industry 97 45 1969 2014 1996.7 11.7
Company Size (number of employees) 97 100.0
Small (1-49) 19 19.6
Medium (50-249) 16 16.5 Table II.
Large (250+) 62 63.9 Profile of survey
Year company established 97 166 1848 2014 1951.9 50.6 respondents
 ECAM In this test, all 97 responses were usable. Conditions for χ2 were not met as two cells had
24,6 expected counts of less than 5; therefore a Fisher’s Exact Test was used. This gave a test
statistic of 0.001 allowing H0 to be rejected in favour of H1, i.e.: there is a relationship
between company size compared against organisational BIM Maturity. Further examination
of the largest proportion (42.3 per cent) of data produced in the cross-tabulation about
this relationship appears to suggest that larger companies are more likely to have greater
958 organisational BIM maturity.

Rate of adoption
In response to Q14, “Do you currently use 4D BIM in your construction planning practices?”
51.5 per cent (n ¼ 50) of the total respondents confirmed that they did. Respondents who
answered “NO” were then asked Q16 “Are you aware of anyone in your organisation who
currently uses 4D BIM in their construction planning practices?” 11.3 per cent of the total
respondents (n ¼ 11) confirmed use. Combining these positive responses implies that
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

62.8 per cent (n ¼ 61) of respondents use 4D BIM themselves or are aware of someone in
their organisation who does. The remaining 37.2 per cent (n ¼ 36) do not use 4D BIM and are
not aware of anyone in their organisation who does. Focussing only on respondents who
self-identified as adopters, these were asked separately, in which year they first became
aware of 4D BIM (Q12) and in which year they adopted 4D BIM innovation in their
construction planning practices for the first time (Q15). The earliest year of awareness was
1998, with the mean year being 2009, and the median 2011. The majority of the responses
fell within the date range of 2002-2015. The earliest year of adoption was 2002, the mean
2011, and the median 2013. (Note: For those only reporting upon awareness of others in their
organisation that have adopted 4D BIM, the earliest year of adoption was assumed to be
2010, the mean year was 2012 and the median year was 2013.)
Focussing again on self-identified adopters, a comparison was made between the year of
first awareness and the year of first use (adoption). The Pearson Correlation coefficient for
these two measures is 0.764 which, according to (Bryman and Cramer, 2011) can be
described as a “strong positive relationship” and the two-tailed statistic is 0.000, which is
significant at the 0.01 level. The coefficient of determination (R2 Statistic) is 0.583 as shown
in Figure 3, which means that more than half (58.3 per cent) of the variance in the timing of
first adoption can be attributed to the timing of first awareness.
The data also revealed a handful of interesting outliers, all of whom worked for large
contracting organisations of 250+ employees. The earliest recorded awareness of 4D BIM in
this sample was respondent 6 who first became aware in 1998 but did not adopt until 2005
and then only because of a company (authority) decision. The longest period between
awareness and adoption – a lag of 11 years – was observed in respondent 58 who first
became aware in 2003 but did not adopt until 2014. This adoption was described as a
“collective decision”. Respondent 41 is another outlier who first became aware in 2004 but
did not adopt until 2014, a lag of ten years, and whose adoption was described as an
“authority decision”. Apart from these outliers, the usual time lag recorded between
awareness and adoption was generally between 2.38 and 3.00 years (28.5-36.0 months).
Sufficient data were available to permit a separate comparison of personal use of 4D BIM
and (in turn) company size and organisational BIM Maturity. Competing hypotheses for the
first test were:
H0. There is no relationship between company size and personal use of 4D BIM.
H1. There is a relationship between company size and personal use of 4D BIM.
In this test, all 97 cases were used. Conditions for χ2 were met and a test statistic of 0.002
resulted, meaning that H0 could be rejected in favour of H1. Examination of the largest
 R 2 Linear = 0.583 4D BIM
in the UK
2015
construction
industry
First awareness of 4D BIM Innovation (Year)

2010 y=4.43E2 + 0.78*x 959

2005 41
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

58

2000

Figure 3.
Year of awareness vs
year of adoption for
1995
respondents self-
2003 2005 2008 2010 2013 2015
identifying as
First adoption of 4D BIM innovation in construction adopters
planning practices (Year)

proportion (39.2 per cent) of data produced in the cross-tabulation about this relationship
suggests that there is more likely to be personal use of 4D BIM innovation within larger
companies of 250+ employees.
Competing hypotheses for the further test were also formulated:
H0. There is no relationship between organisational BIM maturity compared against
personal use of 4D BIM.
H1. There is a relationship between organisational BIM maturity compared against
personal use of 4D BIM.
In this test, all 97 cases could be used. Conditions for χ2 were not met as one cell had
expected counts of less than 5; therefore, a Fisher’s Exact Test was used. This gave a test
statistic of 0.000 meaning that H0 could be rejected in favour of H1. The implication being
that higher personal usage of 4D BIM will occur within organisations that are considered to
have higher levels of BIM maturity.

Decision types
Several questions focussed on decision types. Q44 asked the respondent to “confirm if a
[subsequent] decision has been made to adopt or reject the use of 4D BIM for the planning of
construction work”. Depending upon this response Q45/46 asked which type of decision was
made to adopt/reject 4D BIM. As a result, 67.0 per cent of respondents (n ¼ 65) confirmed
that a decision had been made to adopt 4D BIM for the planning of construction work, with
1.0 per cent (n ¼ 1) of respondents confirming that a decision had been made to reject
4D BIM. The remaining 32.0 per cent (n ¼ 31) of respondents selected the undecided/no
decision made option. Following this Q45 asked “If possible, please explain which type of
 ECAM decision was made to adopt 4D BIM”. An explanation, as outlined above, was provided
24,6 about the three available response options: namely, optional, collective and authority
-decisions. Taking the subset of 65 respondents who confirmed that an adopt decision had
been made, the most frequent type of decision, recorded by 46.2 per cent (n ¼ 30), was an
“authority-type” decision The next most frequent, with 33.8 per cent (n ¼ 22) of responses,
was the “collective-type” decision, and the least frequent was the “optional-type” decision,
960 with 20 per cent (n ¼ 13) of respondents reported this option (note “valid percentages” used
for this question so that the responses from the 65 respondents totalled 100 per cent).
In Q46 respondents were asked “If possible, please explain which type of decision was made
to reject 4D BIM”, and the sole respondent who advised that a definite reject decision had
been made, confirmed that this had been a “collective-type” decision.

Perceived attributes: relative advantages

In this section, we briefly examine the perceived relative advantages of 4D BIM in two distinct
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

aspects of construction planning. These are construction planning functions (i.e. the required
outcomes of the planning process) and construction planning processes (i.e. the things that
planners do when they plan).
Relative advantages of 4D BIM in construction planning functions. A series of five-point
Likert scales was used to measure strength of agreement where 4D BIM could offer a relative
advantage against the various functions of construction planning practice identified within the
research methods section. In order to rank, by function, the relative advantage offered by
the use of 4D BIM over traditional methods a Relative Importance Index (RII) was calculated
for each. The use of RII to illustrate the ranking of responses is relatively commonplace in
construction management literature (see for example, Gündüz et al., 2012, in the context of
factors causing project delays). The RII was calculated as shown in the following equation:
P
W
RII ¼ (1)
AN
where W is the weight given to each factor by respondents ( from 1 to 5), A is the highest
weight (i.e. always 5) and N is the number of responses.
It is clear from Table III that most of the highest ranked advantages of 4D BIM,
as compared with current traditional approaches (visualising the construction process,
facilitating understanding of the construction process, communicating working space)
relate to its potential to alleviate the problems of communication and understanding that
were identified earlier. Functions that represented the “internal workings” of the planning

Functions N ∑W A×N RII Rank

Visualising the construction process 97 424 485 0.874 1

Facilitating understanding of the construction process 97 414 485 0.854 2
Logistics planning (movements) 97 401 485 0.827 3
Communicating working space 97 399 485 0.823 4
Site layout planning (positions) 97 398 485 0.821 5
Design interrogation 97 396 485 0.816 6
Table III. Planning construction methods 97 394 485 0.812 7
Perceived relative Work winning 97 379 485 0.781 8
importance (RII) and Validating the time schedule 97 378 485 0.779 9
ranking of use of 4D Safety planning 97 373 485 0.769 10
BIM in 12 identified Location-based planning 97 369 485 0.761 11 ¼
planning functions Progress reporting 97 369 485 0.761 11 ¼
 process (validating the time schedule, location-based planning, progress reporting) were the 4D BIM
lowest ranked. in the UK
Relative advantages of 4D BIM against construction planning process. The same method construction
of analysis was used to assess the relative advantages of 4D BIM against the elements of the
construction planning process also identified in the research methods section. Again, industry
the RII, calculated as above, measures the relative importance of the use of 4D BIM in each
of the above construction planning processes, as shown in Table IV. 961
The processes listed in Table IV relate to what is described above as “internal workings” of
the planning process, i.e. “the things that planners do”. Again, the highest ranked item, by a
considerable margin, related to the planner’s task of “Communicating the construction plan”.

Perceived attributes: compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability

Statements were posed relating to the aspects of compatibility, complexity, trialability and
observability, and strength of agreement was again measured using five-point Likert scales.
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

To measure compatibility, Q38 stated “the use of 4D BIM is compatible with our current
practice of construction planning”. Diffusion theory asserts that innovations that are
compatible with existing infrastructures will diffuse more rapidly than those innovations that
are not compatible with such infrastructures. The statement met with 61.9 per cent (n ¼ 60)
agreement, with the mean response being 3.58 and the median response being 4.00 out of 5.00.
Complexity is considered to be a barrier to innovation diffusion (and thus to 4D BIM
adoption). Several expressions of complexity were presented and the direction of response was
fairly consistent. To Q39 (“4D BIM methods would be difficult to learn”) only 23.7 per cent
(n ¼ 23) of participants registered agreement, with the mean response being 2.84 and the
median response being 3.00 out of 5.00. In response to Q40 (“4D BIM methods would be
difficult for planners to understand”) there was again a low rate of agreement, with only
14.4 per cent (n ¼ 14) of the participants agreeing, and the mean response being
2.47 and the median response being 2.00 out of 5.00. There was another relatively low rate of
agreement to Q41 (“The training required in order to learn 4D BIM methods would be
complicated”) with 30.9 per cent (n ¼ 30) in agreement. The mean response was 2.86 and the
median response was 3.00 out of 5.00. As diffusion theory considers that ease of
comprehension by potential adopters aids adoption rate, these lower scores can be considered
to be positive in terms of the avoidance of potential barriers to the adoption of 4D BIM.
To measure “trialability” Q42 stated “4D BIM methods would have to be experimented
with before using to plan real construction work”. Diffusion theory states that innovations
that cannot be trialled without commitment are less readily adopted. There was 58.7 per cent
(n ¼ 57) agreement with this statement, with the mean response being 3.46 and the median
response being 4.00 out of 5.00.
The final question concerning the perceived attributes of 4D BIM innovation related to
“observability”. Diffusion theory holds that innovations that are more visible, or have
visible positive results are adopted more readily. Accordingly, Q42 was worded “It is easy to

Processes N ∑W A×N RII Rank

Communicating the construction plan 97 418 485 0.862 1 Table IV.

Planning the construction sequence 97 387 485 0.798 2 Perceived relative
Planning the logical dependencies 97 380 485 0.784 3 importance (RII) and
Communicating project timescales 97 370 485 0.763 4 ranking of use of
Identifying activities 97 364 485 0.751 5 4D BIM in seven
Gathering information 97 342 485 0.705 6 identified planning
Assessing activity durations 97 335 485 0.691 7 processes
 ECAM see the impact that 4D BIM has on construction planning effectiveness” and 74.2 per cent
24,6 (n ¼ 72) of the participants were in agreement, with the mean response being 3.80 and the
median response being 4.00 out of 5.00.

Communication channels
Respondents were asked two questions in relation to communication channels with the
962 same two response options (“External Sources, i.e.: Mass media including websites, journals,
magazines; government” and “Internal sources i.e.: Colleagues, peers, workmates or
interpersonal networks”) provided for each question. In Q47 respondents were asked
“Please select your preference for obtaining information about 4D BIM Innovation”. This is
important at the knowledge stage of the innovation-decision process, and 53.6 per cent
(n ¼ 52) of respondents identified “external sources” as being their preference for obtaining
of information about 4D BIM, with the remaining 46.4 per cent (n ¼ 45) of respondents
identifying “internal sources” as being their preference.
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

Focusing on the “persuasion stage” of the innovation-decision process, Q48 asked “which
of the following has had/would have the biggest impact on your own personal decision to
adopt or reject the use of 4D BIM Innovation”). This time 64.9 per cent (n ¼ 63) of
respondents identified that internal sources had/would have the biggest impact on their own
personal decision in relation to their adoption or rejection of 4D BIM, with the remaining
35.1 per cent (n ¼ 34) of respondents, identifying external sources would have the greater
influence. These results allowed competing hypotheses to be formed and tested:
H0. There is no relationship between a preferred source of information about 4D BIM
and the impact of such influences in any adoption or rejection decision.
H1. There is a relationship between a preferred source of information about 4D BIM and
the impact of such influences in any adoption or rejection decision.
Conditions for a χ2 test of independence were met, and all 97 cases could be used. A test
statistic of 0.000 was given meaning that H0 could be rejected in favour of H1. A review of
the cross-tabulation results confirmed the strongest association (43.3 per cent) was between
internal sources for information preference and internal influences for impact upon decision-
making. This finding, that construction professionals prefer to obtain innovation
information from within their own interpersonal networks, is in opposition to one of
Rogers’ (2003) key generalisations (5-13) that “mass media channels are relatively more
important at the knowledge stage and interpersonal channels are relatively more important
at the persuasion stage in the innovation-decision process”.

Which variables determine the rate of 4D BIM adoption?

The time lag for 4D BIM adoption, that is, between first awareness and use, was found to be
between 2.38 and 3.00 years (28.5-36.0 months). To further explain the rate of adoption, we
return to the independent variables incorporated in the research design as diffusion
predictors. Each of these independent variables can be tested against the adoption of 4D
BIM, which was measured by way of a simple categorical YES/NO question in Q14 for
“Do you currently use 4D BIM in your construction planning practices?” where 51.5 per cent
(n ¼ 50) of the total respondents confirmed use. Ordinal variables were used for the
“perceived attribute” questions and categorical variables were used for the “decision type”
and “communication channels” questions, meaning that χ2 or Fishers Exact tests could be
used to test for the following possible associations:
• relative advantages of 4D BIM against use of 4D BIM;
• compatibility of 4D BIM against use of 4D BIM;
 • complexity of 4D BIM against use of 4D BIM; 4D BIM
• trialability of 4D BIM against use of 4D BIM; in the UK
• observability of 4D BIM against use of 4D BIM; construction
industry
• types of innovation adoption decisions taken against use of 4D BIM; and
• communication channel preferences against use of 4D BIM.
963
This required 28 separate tests. In each test, appropriate null (H0) and alternative
(H1) hypotheses were formulated. Where no significant associations were found the results
of the tests are not detailed, however, among them it is worth noting that a Fishers Exact
Test provided a statistic of 0.079 (slightly outside the margins of significance) for the
relative advantage of using 4D BIM for communicating the construction plan.
Significant associations were found in the tests of association involving compatibility
and trialability as a means of explaining the rate of 4D BIM adoption. The competing
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

hypotheses for the test of compatibility were:

H0. There is no relationship between how compatible 4D BIM is with the current practice
of construction planning, compared against the personal adoption and use of 4D
BIM.
H1. There is a relationship between how compatible 4D BIM is with the current practice
of construction planning, compared against the personal adoption and use of
4D BIM.
In this test, all 97 cases could be used. Conditions for χ2 were not met as two cells had
expected counts of less than 5; therefore, a Fisher’s Exact Test was used. This gave a test
statistic of 0.026 which meant that H0 could be rejected in favour of H1. Exploration of the
data produced in the cross-tabulation about this relationship suggests that whilst both
adopters and non-adopters alike consider 4D BIM compatible with current planning
practices (61.9 per cent), only 5.2 per cent of those who have adopted 4D BIM consider it to
be incompatible with current planning practices.
The second test concerns the trialability of 4D BIM against use of 4D BIM.
The competing hypotheses were:
H0. There is no relationship between a need to experiment with 4D BIM prior to using it
to plan real construction work, compared against the personal adoption and use of
4D BIM.
H1. There is a relationship between a need to experiment with 4D BIM prior to using it to
plan real construction work, compared against the personal adoption and use of 4D BIM.
In this test, all 97 cases could be used. Conditions for χ2 were not met as two cells had
expected counts of less than 5; therefore, a Fisher’s Exact Test was used. This gave a test
statistic of 0.005 which meant that H0 could be rejected in favour of H1. Analysis of the data
produced in the cross-tabulation about this relationship appears to suggest that whilst
adopters are equally likely to agree or disagree with the need for experimenting or trialling
4D BIM (i.e. there is no real trend in this category), persons who have not yet adopted it feel
much more strongly that there is a need to trial 4D BIM before using it to plan real
construction work (35.0 per cent).

Conclusions
IDT considers how, why and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. The aim of this
survey was to investigate the diffusion of 4D BIM within the UK construction planning
practice. In doing so, the work provides further validation of the applicability of IDT for
 ECAM studying innovation diffusion in, and around, the Architecture Engineering and
24,6 Construction (AEC) industry. In designing the survey, key variables from classic
diffusion theory were used alongside constructs derived from the literature on construction
planning. The research aimed to explore and explain the rate of adoption of 4D BIM, and
used statistical analysis of the results to demonstrate how first adoption of 4D BIM is related
to the timing of first awareness of the innovation. Results indicate that adoption of 4D BIM
964 for the planning of construction projects has a typical time lag of 2.38-3.00 years between
awareness and first use. Decisions to adopt 4D BIM are typically authority-type decisions
made by organisational upper management and exploration of the data at individual case
level also revealed situations where, despite instances of early innovation awareness,
the absence of authority-type adoption decisions has slowed diffusion. Many construction
planning functions and stages of the construction planning process were considered to be
more effective using 4D BIM than current construction planning practices. A particular
example was the relative advantage of the use of 4D BIM for communicating the
construction plan. High complexity and lack of observability, compatibility and
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

opportunities for trialling are all theoretical barriers to the diffusion of innovations.
Whilst complexity and observability remain important aspects of any innovation adoption,
in the case of 4D BIM adoption, concerns over compatibility and opportunities for trialling
the innovation appear to be the more prominent factors.
The study offers a number of implications for practice. First, in order for 4D BIM to
diffuse more rapidly, potential adopters have to be convinced that whilst 4D BIM is a
technological process-based innovation, it is also a “modular innovation” (Slaughter, 1998,
2000) which may produce significant improvements but does not require alteration of
other system level components and therefore is compatible with existing
planning practices. Second, it is advantageous if the innovation can be trialled in a safe
environment prior to use on a live construction project. Finally, at very least, there was a
consensus that the relative advantage of being able to communicate the construction
plan using 4D methods rather than traditional formats mean that this innovation is
worth adopting.
There are limitations to this study, most prominently in the manner in which the
dependent variable of adoption was measured (via a simple categorical YES/NO
response option). This means that the research team have not been able to distinguish
between different levels of 4D BIM adoption in use. For example, in some organisations 4D
BIM may merely have been adopted for purposes of visualisation and work
winning efforts, where in other organisations perhaps use of the innovation was
discontinued after limited use. Despite these limitations, the findings of this study do
provide a basis for future research efforts. For example, studies that provided rich
qualitative data on any of the remaining classic diffusion variables would be of value.
Further studies could involve:
• interviews around the 4D BIM innovation-decision process, which is concerned with
aspects of innovation knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and
confirmation;
• observations of key actors from within the social system such as opinion leaders and
change agents; and
• case studies exploring the consequences of 4D BIM innovation adoption.
Finally, in the light of the finding of this study, that information preferences and adoption/
rejection decisions are more likely to be influenced by internal than external factors, Rogers’
(2003) assertion that “interpersonal communication with near peers drives the diffusion
process” would merit closer in-depth exploration.
 References 4D BIM
Barnlund, C. (2008), “A transactional model of communication”, in Mortensen, C. (Ed.), Communication in the UK
Theory, 2nd ed., Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 47-57. construction
Berlo, D. (1960), The Process of Communication, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY. industry
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2011), Quantitative Data Analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19, Analysis,
1st ed., Routledge, Hove, doi: 10.4324/9780203471548.
Buchmann-Slorup, R. and Andersson, N. (2010), “BIM-based scheduling of construction–a comparative 965
analysis of prevailing and BIM-based scheduling processes”, Proceedings of the CIB W78 2010:
27th International Conference, Cairo, pp. 16-18.
Constructing Excellence (2016), “UK Industry Performance Report 2015”, Based on the UK
Construction Industry KPI’s, available at: www.glenigan.com/sites/default/files/UK_Industry_
Performance_Report_2015_883.pdf
Crotty, R. (2012), The Impact of Building Information Modelling: Transforming Construction,
SPON Press, Oxon.
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

Cullen, J. and Nankervis, C. (1985), “Overcoming the luddite factor: some behavioural aspects of the
field supervisor’s role in construction planning”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 133-140.
Dawood, N. (2010), “Development of 4D-based performance indicators in construction industry”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 210-230.
Dodgson, M. and Gann, D. (2010), Innovation, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, available at: http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/northumbria-ac/items/1482707
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2008), Management Research, 3rd ed., SAGE, London.
Emmitt, S. (2010), Managing Interdisciplinary Projects: A Primer for Architecture, Engineering and
Construction, Spon Press, Abingdon, Oxon.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2008), Research Methods for Construction, 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell,
West Sussex, available at: www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip088/2008002534.html
Gledson, B. (2015), “Investigating the diffusion of 4D BIM innovation”, in Raiden, A. and Aboagye-Nimo, E.
(Eds), Proceedings 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, ARCOM, Lincoln, pp. 641-650.
Gledson, B.J. (2016), “Hybrid project delivery processes observed in constructor BIM innovation
adoption”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 229-246.
Gledson, B.J. and Greenwood, D. (2014), “The implementation and use of 4D BIM and virtual
construction”, in Raiden, A.B. and Aboagye-Nimo, E. (Eds), Proceedings 30th Annual ARCOM
Conference, ARCOM, Portsmouth, pp. 673-682.
Gledson, B.J. and Greenwood, D.J. (2016), “Surveying the extent and use of 4D BIM in the UK”, Journal
of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 21, pp. 57-71, available at: www.itcon.org/
paper/2016/4
González, P., González, V., Molenaar, K. and Orozco, F. (2013), “Analysis of causes of delay and time
performance in construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Gorse, C. and Emmitt, S. (2007), “Communication behaviour during management and design team
meetings: a comparison of group interaction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25
No. 11, pp. 1197-1213.
Gorse, C. and Emmitt, S. (2009), “Informal interaction in construction progress meetings”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 983-993.
Greenwood, D. and Gledson, B.J. (2012), “The efficient scheduling of resources in engineering
construction projects : reflections on a case study from Iran”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 687-695.
Hartmann, T. and Fischer, M. (2007), “Supporting the constructability review with 3D/4D models”,
Building Research & Information, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 70-80.
 ECAM Hartmann, T. and Vossebeld, N. (2013), “A semiotic framework to understand how signs in
24,6 construction process simulations convey information”, Advanced Engineering Informatics,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 378-385.
Hartmann, T., Gao, J. and Fischer, M. (2008), “Areas of application for 3D and 4D models”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 10, pp. 776-785.
Heesom, D. and Mahdjoubi, L. (2004), “Trends of 4D CAD applications for construction planning”,
966 Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 171-182.
HM Government (2011), Government Construction Strategy, HM Government, London.
HM Government (2013), Construction 2025. Industrial Strategy: Government and Industry in
Partnership, HM Government, London, available at: www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/
docs/b/12-1327-building-information-modelling.pdf
Hosseini, M.R., Chileshe, N., Zuo, J. and Baroudi, B. (2015), “Adopting global virtual engineering teams
in AEC projects: a qualitative metaanalysis of innovation diffusion studies”, Construction
Innovation: Information, Process, Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 151-179.
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

Kale, S. and Arditi, D. (2010), “Innovation diffusion modeling in the construction industry”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 3, pp. 329-340.
Kassem, M., Dawood, N. and Chavada, R. (2015), “Construction workspace management within an
industry foundation class-compliant 4D tool”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 52, pp. 42-58,
available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580515000278
Kim, C., Kim, B. and Kim, H. (2013), “4D CAD model updating using image processing-based
construction progress monitoring”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 35, pp. 44-52, available at:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580513000332
Kim, H., Anderson, K., Lee, S. and Hildreth, J. (2013), “Generating construction schedules through
automatic data extraction using open BIM (building information modeling) technology”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 35, pp. 285-295, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0926580513000873
Koo, B. and Fischer, M. (2000), “Feasibility study of 4D CAD in commercial construction”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 251-260.
Larsen, J.K., Shen, G.Q., Lindhard, S.M. and Brunoe, T.D. (2015), “Factors affecting schedule delay,
cost overrun, and quality level in public construction projects”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Li, H., Guo, H.L., Skitmore, M., Huang, T., Chan, K. and Chan, G. (2011), “Rethinking prefabricated
construction management using the VP-based IKEA model in Hong Kong”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 233-245.
Li, H., Huang, T., Kong, C.W.W., Guo, H.L.L., Baldwin, A., Chan, N. and Wong, J. (2008), “Integrating
design and construction through virtual prototyping”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 17
No. 8, pp. 915-922.
Liston, K., Fischer, M. and Winograd, T. (2001), “Focused sharing of information for multidisciplinary
decision making by project teams”, ITCon, Vol. 6, pp. 69-82, available at: http://itcon.org/
paper/2001/6
Love, P.E.D., Sing, C.-P., Wang, X., Edwards, D.J. and Odeyinka, H. (2013), “Probability distribution
fitting of schedule overruns in construction projects”, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 1231-1247.
Mahalingam, A., Kashyap, R. and Mahajan, C. (2010), “An evaluation of the applicability of 4D CAD on
construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 148-159.
Moore, M. (1993), “Theory of transactional distance”, in Keegan, D. (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of
Distance Education, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 22-38.
Myers, D. (2013), Construction Economics: A New Approach, 3rd ed., Routledge, Oxon, available at:
www.amazon.com/Construction-Economics-A-New-Approach/dp/0415527791 (accessed
5 November 2013).
 NBS (2014), “BIM levels explained”, available at: www.thenbs.com/knowledge/bim-levels-explained 4D BIM
(accessed 24 November 2014). in the UK
Olaniran, O.J., Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D., Olatunji, O.A. and Matthews, J. (2015), “Cost overruns in construction
hydrocarbon megaprojects: a critical review and implications for research”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 126-138. industry
Olde Scholtenhuis, L.L., Hartmann, T. and Dorée, A.G. (2016), “4D CAD based method for supporting
coordination of Urban subsurface utility projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 62,
pp. 66-77, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580515002186
967
Reichstein, T., Salter, A.J. and Gann, D.M. (2005), “Last among equals: a comparison of innovation in
construction, services and manufacturing in the UK”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 631-644.
Rogers, E. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, IL.
Downloaded by Mr Barry Gledson At 15:44 16 November 2017 (PT)

Slaughter, E. (1998), “Models of construction innovation”, Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 226-231.
Slaughter, E. (2000), “Implementation of construction innovations”, Building Research & Information,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Soetanto, R., Childs, M., Poh, P., Austin, S. and Hao, J. (2014), “Virtual collaborative learning for
building design”, Proceedings of the ICE-Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 167 No. 1,
pp. 25-34.
Trebbe, M., Hartmann, T. and Dorée, A. (2015), “4D CAD models to support the coordination of
construction activities between contractors”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 49, pp. 83-91,
available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580514002131
Turk, Ž. (2016), “Ten questions concerning building information modelling”, Building and
Environment, Vol. 107, pp. 274-284, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0
36013231630292X
Wang, H., Zhang, J., Chau, K. and Anson, M. (2004), “4D dynamic management for construction
planning and resource utilization”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 575-589.
Winch, G. and Kelsey, J. (2005), “What do construction project planners do?”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 141-149.

Corresponding author
Barry J. Gledson can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats