IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v185y2022ics0040162522005571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-technical inhibitors: Exploring the adoption of digital innovation in the UK construction industry

Author

Listed:
  • Shojaei, Reyhaneh S.
  • Burgess, Gemma

Abstract

Digital technologies, in particular, Building Information Modelling (BIM), are claimed to provide an effective and efficient solution for tackling the plethora of problems in the UK construction industry, including time and cost overruns, low quality, and inefficient use of resources. Despite the potential benefits and government promotion, the adoption of digital innovation in the construction sector remains low. An extensive range of existing literature has discussed the constraints hampering the widespread uptake in the construction industry. However, most provide quantitative data, preferring to focus on the technical constraints; only a few examine the theoretical framework underpinning the barriers to increased adoption. This study responds to the call of Davis et al. (2014) to apply socio-technical theory to new areas, and uses a qualitative approach to explore the non-technical barriers to the take up of digital innovation in the construction industry. A number of non-technical barriers that constrain industry uptake (e.g., sociocultural, individual) were identified in a series of interviews, and are grouped under six analytical dimensions, encompassing people, culture, process and procedure, technology, goals and infrastructure. Our findings show that collaborative culture, driven leaders with a human-centric mindset who believe in the changes being implemented, and workforce training and upskilling are all needed for the successful adoption of digital technology in construction firms. Making managers and the wider workforce aware of the benefits of digital innovation results in enhanced perceptions of, and openness to, the adoption of new technologies. Creating a clear digital strategy, early involvement of the supply chain, keeping employees on board during the digitisation journey, and effective communication and coordination, help construction companies to tackle challenges related to process and procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Shojaei, Reyhaneh S. & Burgess, Gemma, 2022. "Non-technical inhibitors: Exploring the adoption of digital innovation in the UK construction industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:185:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522005571
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522005571
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122036?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Richard Fellows & Anita M.M. Liu, 2012. "Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(8), pages 653-671, February.
    4. Jennifer Whyte & Sunila Lobo, 2010. "Coordination and control in project-based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 557-567.
    5. Carlsson, B & Stankiewicz, R, 1991. "On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 93-118, April.
    6. Geels, Frank W. & Kemp, René, 2007. "Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 441-455.
    7. Sony, Michael & Naik, Subhash, 2020. "Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    8. Cooke, Philip & Gomez Uranga, Mikel & Etxebarria, Goio, 1997. "Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 475-491, December.
    9. Oesterreich, Thuy Duong & Teuteberg, Frank, 2019. "Behind the scenes: Understanding the socio-technical barriers to BIM adoption through the theoretical lens of information systems research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 413-431.
    10. Amna Shibeika & Chris Harty, 2015. "Diffusion of digital innovation in construction: a case study of a UK engineering firm," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5-6), pages 453-466, June.
    11. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    12. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    13. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2014. "The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 772-791.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kebir Mohammed Jemal & Marzhan Kabzhassarova & Ramazan Shaimkhanov & Dinara Dikhanbayeva & Ali Turkyilmaz & Serdar Durdyev & Ferhat Karaca, 2023. "Facilitating Circular Economy Strategies Using Digital Construction Tools: Framework Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Sambo Lyson Zulu & Ali M. Saad & Barry Gledson, 2023. "Individual Characteristics as Enablers of Construction Employees’ Digital Literacy: An Exploration of Leaders’ Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    2. Nikas, A. & Koasidis, K. & Köberle, A.C. & Kourtesi, G. & Doukas, H., 2022. "A comparative study of biodiesel in Brazil and Argentina: An integrated systems of innovation perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Nasri, Shohreh & Ameri, Fatemeh & Montazer, Gholam Ali & Shayan, Ali, 2020. "Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Edsand, Hans, 2016. "Technological Innovation Systems and the wider context: A framework for developing countries," MERIT Working Papers 2016-017, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Binz, Christian & Truffer, Bernhard, 2017. "Global Innovation Systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1284-1298.
    6. Dahesh, Mehran Badin & Tabarsa, Gholamali & Zandieh, Mostafa & Hamidizadeh, Mohammadreza, 2020. "Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Batinge, Benjamin & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Brent, Alan C., 2019. "Sustainable energy transition framework for unmet electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1090-1099.
    8. Gosens, Jorrit & Lu, Yonglong & Coenen , Lars, 2013. "Clean-tech Innovation in Emerging Economies: Transnational Dimensions in Technological Innovation System Formation," Papers in Innovation Studies 2013/10, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Konstantinos Koasidis & Alexandros Nikas & Hera Neofytou & Anastasios Karamaneas & Ajay Gambhir & Jakob Wachsmuth & Haris Doukas, 2020. "The UK and German Low-Carbon Industry Transitions from a Sectoral Innovation and System Failures Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-34, September.
    10. Pradeep Racherla & Munir Mandviwalla, 2013. "Moving from Access to Use of the Information Infrastructure: A Multilevel Sociotechnical Framework," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 709-730, September.
    11. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    12. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    13. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Vas, Zsófia, 2012. "Az innovációs rendszerek 25 éve. Szakirodalmi áttekintés evolúciós közgazdaságtani megközelítésben [25 years of innovation systems. A literature review from the angle of evolutionary economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1233-1256.
    16. Palm, Alvar, 2022. "Innovation systems for technology diffusion: An analytical framework and two case studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    17. Kieft, Alco & Harmsen, Robert & Hekkert, Marko P., 2020. "Toward ranking interventions for Technological Innovation Systems via the concept of Leverage Points," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    18. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van den Berg, Jesse & Koch, Joost & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1094-1107.
    19. Jürgen Hauber & Chantal Ruppert-Winkel, 2012. "Moving towards Energy Self-Sufficiency Based on Renewables: Comparative Case Studies on the Emergence of Regional Processes of Socio-Technical Change in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-40, March.
    20. Havas, Attila, 2016. "Recent economic theorising on innovation: Lessons for analysing social innovation," MPRA Paper 77385, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:185:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522005571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.