This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

The use of interorganisational ICT in United States construction projects

Arjen Adriaanse 1, Hans Voordijk ⁎, Geert Dewulf 2

University of Twente, Construction Management and Engineering, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Accepted 17 September 2009

Keywords:Interorganisational ICTConstruction projectsExpert interviewsUnited States

In recent research, the use of ICT applications in real time construction projects have been documented andanalysed extensively. However, there is a need for identifying and analysing in-depth the mechanismsinfluencing the use of interorganisational ICT applications and for solutions to eliminate potential barriers tothe successful use of ICT. A model is developed providing insights in these mechanisms. Based on this modeland expert interviews in the United States construction industry directions for solutions to barriers to thesuccessful use of interorganisational ICT — document management applications, workflow managementapplications, and product modelling applications — in construction projects are formulated. These solutionsfocus on stimulating the personal motivation to use ICT, the external motivation to use this technology, andfacilitating conditions in terms of knowledge and skills and acting opportunities to use ICT.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The application of Information and Communication Technology(ICT) stimulates a more standardised communication betweendifferent actors in construction. ICT is also creating many opportuni-ties for a more efficient and effective project execution. Argyres [1]showed how the use of interorganisational product modellingapplications in the aviation industry supported the coordination ofdesign and production activities and allowed the design andproduction of a high-technology aircraft (B-2 “Stealth” Bomber),whichmight have been impossible without the use of this application.Numerous scholars have discussed the opportunities and poten-tial benefits of these ICT applications for the construction industry too[2–6]. Boland et al. [3] showed that the implementation of inter-organisational 3D CAD in construction projects was a driving force fortechnological and organisational innovations. The use of interorgani-sational ICT in construction projects, however, still seems quitelimited and not as effective as it could be (e.g., [7–12]). Designing,engineering, and constructing parties all speak their own languagesand all have their own approaches. The underlying problem is theconstantly changing coalitions of firms working on different projects.Therefore, investments in ICT-applications that formalise interorga-nisational communication seem to have limited added value inconstruction projects and have failed to meet expectations.

Several investigators documented and analysed the use of ICTapplications in real time construction projects (e.g., [4,8,9,13–18]).Harty [13] suggested that social and organizational aspects need to betaken in account to understand the adoption of interorganisationalICT. Taylor [16] showed that the introduction of 3D CAD inconstruction requires addressing regulatory, technological and orga-nisational issues. In other words, there is a need for an analysis ofmechanisms influencing the use of ICT applications across organisa-tional boundaries and how these mechanisms influence usage overtime. Bouchlaghem et al. [4] suggest that organisational and humanissues in particular stand in the way of realising the potential benefitsof these applications. Potential benefits of ICT-applications in thefuture can be realised when these mechanisms are understood andsolutions found to eliminate potential barriers to the successful use ofICT. The first objective of our research is therefore to develop andvalidate a model providing insights in mechanisms influencing theuse of interorganisational ICT in construction projects. The secondobjective is to formulate directions for solutions to barriers to thesuccessful use of interorganisational ICT in construction projects.

Based on a discussion of the literature on ICT-adoption andcharacteristics of the construction industry, a model is developedproviding an understanding of mechanisms influencing the use ofinterorganisational ICT in construction projects. The mechanismsaddress technological, organisational, and human barriers and driversto the successful use of these applications. Based on expert interviews,the robustness of our theoretical model is validated in the context of(1) the interorganisational use of ICT in construction projects in theUnited States, and (2) document management, workflow manage-ment, and product modelling applications.

In this research, we define interorganisational ICT as a digitalcoordination and collaboration tool used for communicating andsharing project information between participating organisations in a

Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 53 4894214; fax: +31 53 4892511.E-mail addresses: a.m.adriaanse@utwente.nl (A. Adriaanse),

j.t.voordijk@utwente.nl (H. Voordijk), g.p.m.r.dewulf@utwente.nl (G. Dewulf).1 Tel.: +31 53 4894135; fax: +31 53 4892511.2 Tel.: +31 53 4894254; fax: +31 53 4892511.

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.09.004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /autcon

Author's personal copy

construction project. We focus on document management applica-tions, workflow management applications, and product modellingapplications. Document management applications are used to store,organise, and manage a collection of documents within constructionprojects in a digital way. Workflow management applications areused to manage the flow of documents and information and tomonitor and record the progress of tasks in construction projects.Product modelling applications (e.g., 3D modelling, 4D modelling,building information modelling) are able to support interorganisa-tional cooperation, coordination, and communication as well. Theseapplications can be used to make a graphical model (i.e., represen-tation) of a building object. 4D applications add a further dimension(i.e., time) to 3D applications. Productmodels can store both graphicaland non-graphical data.

The article unfolds in the following way. First, we develop a modelof mechanisms influencing the use of interorganisational ICT inconstruction projects. The second section presents the research designof our study. The third section describes the results of our study inwhich the interorganisational use of document management, work-flow management, and product modelling applications in the contextof the United States construction industry is examined. In the fourthsection we present directions for solutions based on the analysis ofinterorganisational use of ICT in the United States' constructionindustry. We conclude this study by discussing and assessing thecontributions of our findings, our research limitations, and theimplications.

2. Interorganisational use of ICT in construction projects

In our study, we focus on the key mechanisms that influence theway actors use interorganisational ICT in construction projects. Threeinfluential models about the adoption and use of ICT are theTechnology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Theory of PlannedBehaviour (TPB), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology (UTAUT). TAM is considered to be the most influentialand commonly employed theory about user acceptance of ICT [19–21]. TAMwas designed to predict ICT acceptance and use and has beenwidely applied to a diverse set of technologies and users [22]. Coreconstructs of TAM are the perceived usefulness of a particulartechnology and the perceived ease of use. TPB is a general theory ofhuman behaviour (see e.g., [23]) that is often applied to the adoptionand use of ICT [24–26]. The basic idea of this model is that the decisionto perform or not to perform a certain behaviour depends jointly onmotivation (intention) and ability (behavioural control). UTAUTintegrates several existing models about the individual acceptanceof ICT [22]. In this model, the intention to use ICT is determined byperformance and effort expectancy. Usage behaviour is determined bythis intention and facilitating conditions.

In this section, we confront constructs of these models withcharacteristics of the construction industry. Based on this confronta-tion, a model is developed consisting of mechanisms influencing theuse of interorganisational ICT in construction projects. Thesemechanisms are related to the personal motivation to use ICT, theexternal motivation to use this technology, and facilitating conditionsin terms of knowledge and skills and acting opportunities to use ICT.In this section, we will discuss these mechanisms.

2.1. Personal motivation to use ICT

A central construct in the three existing theoretical models is theindividual's intention to perform a given behaviour. Intentions are‘indications how hard people are willing to try, of how much of aneffort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behaviour([23], p. 181). The personal attitude or motivation determines theintention to use ICT. Personal motivation refers to the extent to whichactors are willing to use interorganisational ICT themselves. Personal

motivation influences both the willingness of the actors to use ICTand their willingness to invest resources to overcome barriers to theintended use of ICT. This motivation is in particular influenced by theperceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use. Analysing theperceived benefits and disadvantages of the different actors involvedprovides a rich picture on personal commitments and rewards asmotivation to use ICT. Individuals are not only motivated by financialincentives or the ‘carrot and stick’ approach but by a number of otherfactors as well (see for this discussion also Bresnen and Marshall [27]and Allen et al. [28]). All three models on ICT adoption and use paytherefore attention to perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use.

Second, in construction perceived time pressure is a dominantmechanism influencing personal motivation to use ICT. Temporaryrelations and the short time frames in a project based industry asconstruction [29] influence personal motivation to use ICT. Twoimportant constructs of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology (UTAUT) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)deal with the factor time pressure: effort expectancy and ease of use.This construct is related to the time investment needed to learn to useICT. The perceived time pressure and perceived benefits anddisadvantages are important factors influencing personal motivationand thereby the intention to use ICT in construction.

2.2. External motivation to use ICT

One important characteristic of construction projects is theimportance of interorganisational relations and contractual arrange-ments. Tendering, in combinationwith the one-off nature of the work,means that several bilateral contracts are negotiated between par-ticipating organisations (e.g., the client, the architect, the engineeringfirm, and the contractor). Different interpretations of what is includedin the contract, also in terms of ICT-applications to be used, givesrise to many conflicts between parties during the building process[30]. Therefore, contractual arrangements are an important factorexplaining the use of interorganisational ICT in construction projects.Another important characteristic of construction is the way power isdistributed among project participants in a project [13,28,31]. Powercan be considered as distributed, but also as something that canbe accepted or resisted, especially in case when an actor inside oroutside an organization requests another actor to use a particular ICT-application.

So, in construction projects contractual arrangements and thepresence of a requesting actor may force other actors in a constructionproject to use a particular ICT-application. Management of firms in theconstruction industry often reacts to external factors and do not havea strategic vision on state-of-the-art IT solutions [3,32]. These actorsare often forced by other actors or external factors to use ICT. Thisexternal motivation influences both the use of ICT and the effortsmade by actors to invest time and money to overcome barriers tothe use of ICT. Both the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology (UTAUT), and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)include a construct that is related to the presence of a requestingactor, but a construct similar to contractual arrangements about ICTuse is not included in themodels. This can be explained by the contextin which these models are developed and used: a student context, oran organisational context, but not an interorganisational context.

2.3. Knowledge, skills, acting opportunities and the use of ICT

Construction is a highly fragmented industry compared to othermanufacturing industries [29,31]. In construction projects, oftenmanyparticipants from different organisations have to collaborate on atemporary basis. Each organisation has its own working practices,resources and objectives. As a result, working practices needs to bealigned and interorganisational ICT has to be set up for the course ofonly one project. The short time frames available to change working

74 A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

practices and to set up and learn to use new ICT are typical for theconstruction industry when compared to other industries, such asautomotive and aerospace [29]. In aerospace and — at least theEuropean and Asian — automotive industry, long-standing interfirmrelationships dominate. The fragmented and temporary nature ofconstruction projects, and the different working practices, resourcesand objectives of the organisations constrain skill developmentand acting opportunities for employees to use ICT. In literature,partnering and long-term interfirm relationships are suggested toencourage better integration and collaboration between organisationsin construction [13,27].

According to Henderson and Venkatraman [33] the alignmentbetween ICT and operational processes proved to be a majorprecondition for a successful adoption and use of ICT in sectors likethe pharmaceutical industry, fast moving consumer goods and banking.Also in construction, alignment between ICT and working practices andavailability of ICT are very influential in determining opportunities touse ICT. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology(UTAUT) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) include constructsincorporating these factors. An important factor explaining the use ofICT in the TPB is the opportunities available to a person to act. In theUTAUT, the alignment between the system and working practices andthe provision of technical support are part of the construct facilitatingconditions that explain the opportunities to act. In UTAUT, also clarityabout the functioning of the system and specialized instruction to usersare important factors explaining the use of ICT [22].

Table 1 summarises the main constructs of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT,shows definitions of them and relates the constructs to thesubcategories of the theoretical model developed in this study.

Based on the discussion of ICT-adoption models and theirapplicability to the construction industry above, a basic model isdeveloped providing an understanding ofmechanisms influencing theuse of ICT across organisational boundaries in construction projects(see Fig. 1).

In our model, four dominant mechanisms influencing the inter-organisational use of ICT in construction projects are personalmotivation, external motivation, knowledge and skills and actingopportunities. Personal motivation to use ICT is influenced by theperceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use. This mechanism ismoderated by perceived time pressure. Perceived time pressureinfluences the personal motivation to use ICT because of the timeinvestment required to learn to use ICT. External motivation isinfluenced by the availability of contractual arrangements about ICTuse and the presence of a requesting actor. Several mechanismsrestrict an actor in using ICT: lack of knowledge and skills and actingopportunities and accompanying subcategories. Organisations need toget in line to be able to use the interorganisational ICT application inthe appropriate way.

Personal and external motivation (clustered as the intention to useICT) does not only influence the use of interorganisational ICT, but alsothe motivation to overcome barriers to the intended use of ICT. If themotivation to overcome barriers to the intended use of ICT is high anactor tries to overcome the barriers he or she is experiencing in theclarity of procedural agreements, the clarity about the operation ofICT, the alignment between ICT and working practices, and/or theavailability of technical means (see straight lines in Fig. 1). An actormay also try to overcome the barriers for other actors (dotted andstraight lines in Fig. 1).

Table 1Main constructs of existing models and relationships with the developed theoretical model.

Categories and subcategories of the model developed Constructs and definitions of existing models (TAM, TPB, UTAUT)

Personal motivationPerceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use: the extent to whichactors perceive the use of ICT as benefiting and/or disadvantagingthem.

● Perceived usefulness (TAM): “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular systemwould enhance his or job performance” ([19], p.320).● Attitude towards behaviour (TPB): “an individual's positive or negative feelings (evaluated effect)about performing the targeted behaviour” ([36], p.216).● Performance expectancy (UTAUT): “the degree to which an individual believes that using the systemwill help him or her to attain gains in job performance ([22], p.447).

Perceived time pressure: the extent to which actors perceive thatthey have to act quickly when using, or considering the use of, ICT.

● Perceived ease of use (TAM): “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular systemwould be free of effort” ([19], p.320).● Attitude towards behaviour (TPB): “an individual's positive or negative feelings (evaluated effect)about performing the targeted behaviour” ([36], p.216).● Effort expectancy (UTAUT): “the degree of ease associated with the use of the system” ([22], p.450).

External motivationAvailability of contractual arrangements: the extent to which actorsare forced to use ICT or other means of communication becausethis is mandated in the contract.

Presence of a requesting actor: the extent to which another actorrequests certain action(s) (e.g. use of ICT, or non-use of ICT) totake place and the extent that this request impacts on actors.

● Subjective norm (TPB): “the person's perception that most people who are important to him thinkhe should or should not perform the behavior in question” ([36], p.302).● Social influence (UTAUT): “the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believehe or she should use the new system” ([22], p.451).

Knowledge and skillsClarity of procedural agreements: the extent to which actors knowhow to act concerning the ICT application (e.g., what informationhas to be communicated to whom, and in what form and at whattime).

● Perceived behavioural control (TPB): “perceptions of internal and external constraints on behaviour”([26], p.149).● Facilitating conditions (UTAUT): “the degree to which an individual believes that an organizationaland technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system” ([22], p.453).

Clarity about the operation of ICT: the extent to which actors knowhow to operate the application.

Acting opportunitiesAlignment between ICT and working practices: the extent to whichICT fits in with actors' working practices in the project and theirorganisation(s).

● Perceived behavioural control (TPB): “perceptions of internal and external constraints on behaviour”([26], p.149).● Facilitating conditions (UTAUT): “the degree to which an individual believes that an organizationaland technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system” ([22], p.453).Availability of technical means: the extent to which technological

aspects restrict actors in using ICT in the intended way.

75A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

3. Research design

We wanted to validate our theoretical model in the context of theUnited States construction industry. This construction industry waschosen because of their experience with document managementapplications, workflow management applications, and product model-ling applications. We gained access to companies in the United Statesand decided to collect data by conducting expert interviews. In theexpert interviews, we did not reflect on a single case (i.e., constructionproject) butmore generally on drivers and barriers to the successful useof interorganisational ICT in construction projects and directions forsolutions to potential barriers. In our study, we used pattern-matchingto compare the empirically based pattern of the real-life situation in thecase, with a theoretical pattern based on our literature study [34]. Wecomparedwhat the interviewees indicated as the actual situation in theUSwithwhat was expected based on our framework. Pattern-matchingis recommended as a strategy for qualitative analysis [34].

We conducted interviews with experts from the United Statesconstruction industry. In total 20 experts from 10 companies wereinvolved in this study. The main criteria for selecting these organisa-tions and experts were: (1) their experiences: they needed to beinvolved in several concrete construction projects in which inter-organisational ICT was used, and (2) the type of organisation theywork for: client, designer (architect, engineer), or contractor. Thus wefocused on representatives of the main actors in the constructionprocess. At least two representatives of each of these types oforganisations were selected. Since our focus is on mechanisms andsolutions, we selected frontrunners rather than selecting a randomsample of users. These experts could better reflect on possiblesolutions to potential barriers based on their experiences. A limitationof this decision is that the experts might be biased (or as one expertcalls it “brain washed”) by the opportunities of interorganisational ICTand not be representative of the United States construction industry.However, because this study focuses on mechanisms and solutions tobarriers this choice is defendable.

To make the interviews as efficient as possible experts wereasked to complete a short questionnaire by e-mail in advance. Thisquestionnaire included general questions about the position of theexpert and the organisation the expert is working in, the experiencesof this organisation with ICT-applications and their introduction, thepotential benefits, and disadvantages of the use of ICT, and barriers tothe successful use of ICT.

With the responses the researcher could prepare the interviews asthoroughly as possible; he could ask more informed questions, andconcentrate in the interview on the most interesting points raised.The interviews were held in the offices of the experts in October 2006.The experts interviewed were project leaders, project directors,persons responsible for the implementation of the ICT-applications,and users of ICT. Each interview took about 2 h and focused ondifferences between types of applications, differences in experiencesbetween projects, and solutions to potential barriers. When theexperts identified a barrier they were asked to suggest potentialsolutions to these barriers. In addition, the researcher added addi-tional questions based on understanding that evolved from carryingout the interviews. The experiences of the experts with documentmanagement (DM), workflow management (WF), and productmodelling (PM) applications are summarised in Table 2. This tableshows:

• Experiences of the expert's organisation with the different types ofICT varied from no experience to very little experience (used in oneor two projects), moderate experience (used in several projects),and frequent use (used in the majority of projects). The experiencesmay also be unclear to an expert (i.e., an expert does not know aboutthe experiences).

• The organisations this organisation is using the applications with(CL is client; AR is architect; EC is engineer; CO is contractor; SC issubcontractor);

• The construction phase in which the organisation is using theapplications (programming, design, construction, and maintenance);

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

76 A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

• Types of applications that the experts have experiences in. Forexample, one of the experts was able to reflect on the use ofproduct modelling applications, but not on the use of documentmanagement applications. The interview focused on the applica-tions that the expert could reflect on.

4. Results from the United States construction industry

In this section, we present the results of our empirical research.

4.1. Personal motivation

In our model, we distinguish two subcategories influencingpersonal motivation: perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICTuse and perceived time pressure. The perception of the experts on thebenefits and disadvantages of ICT and time pressure are presented inthe next sections.

4.1.1. Perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT useNot surprisingly because of our selection criteria (i.e., we selected

frontrunners in the use of ICT), the experts are very positive about thepotential benefits of the use of interorganisational ICT in construc-tion projects. According to the experts, construction projects wouldbenefit greatly from the use of interorganisational ICT. In generalterms, important benefits are, for example single data source, bettercoordination, and higher speed of communication.

When we shift our focus to the benefits their colleagues and otherorganisations perceive in using interorganisational ICT, the experts

are less optimistic. They stress that some colleagues and some otherorganisations start to see benefits. Two experts (two contractors)mention that some subcontractors (e.g., mechanical contractors) arebecoming advanced in using product modelling applications andthat the awareness of the usefulness among architects on theseapplications is increasing rapidly as well. In the context of ‘perceivedbenefits and disadvantages of ICT use’ the experts mention thefollowing barriers:

• A limited awareness of potential benefits: the attitude about the use ofinterorganisational ICT is often determined by a limited under-standing about this ICT and, therefore, a limited awareness of its realbenefits. People and organisations can overestimate the benefits,making the real value disappointing. The opposite happens aswell: people and organisations do not see the value of usinginterorganisational ICT because of a limited understanding aboutthe application.

• A limited awareness of the needed budget: there are costs associatedwith the introduction and use of interorganisational ICT. If thesecosts are not clear and not included in the cost estimates thoseproject managers who do not see the value of it and whose entirefocus is on project margins will resist the application. In their viewthey have to spend additional money and these expenses are cuttinginto their profit margins.

• The use of ICT can be a disadvantage: benefits and disadvantages ofthe use of interorganisational ICT are not distributed evenly acrossorganisations and people. When interorganisational ICT is used in aconstruction project some organisations can benefit more than

Table 2Summary of experiences of the experts involved.

Type of organisation Experiences of the experts' organisations CL AR EC CO SC Phases Experiences of the experts

1 Client DM: unclear Programming, design, construction PMWF: unclearPM: moderate x x x x

2 Client, architect, engineer DM: frequent x x x x Programming, design, construction DM, WF, PMWF: moderate x xPM: moderate x x x x x

3 Engineer DM: moderate x x x x Programming, design, construction,maintenance

DM, WF, PMWF: moderate x x x xPM: moderate x x x x

4 Architect DM: very little x x x x Design, construction DM, WF, PMWF: nonePM: none

5 Architect DM: very little x x x x x Programming, design, construction DM, WF, PMWF: very little x x x xPD: moderate x x

6 Contractor DM: frequent x x x x x Design, construction DM, WF, PMWF: moderate x x x x xPM: moderate x x x

7 Contractor DM: frequent x x x x x Design, construction DM, WF, PMWF: frequent x x x xPM: frequent x x x

8 Contractor, owner DM: frequent x x x x Design, construction PMWF: very littlePM: moderate x x x x x

9 Contractor DM: frequent x x x x Design, construction, maintenance PMWF: nonePM: moderate x x x x

10 General contractor DM: frequent x x x x x Design, construction DM, WF, PMWF: frequent x x x x xPM: moderate x x x x

77A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

others, and some participating organisations even have to carry outadditional activities (e.g., communicate both digitally and paper-based to another organisation; make a 3D model as well instead ofonly paper drawings). As a result of the fragmented nature ofconstruction projects, the organisations involved often havedifferent priorities and objectives that are not aligned. Whenorganisations have to carry out additional activities for otherorganisations they will charge money for that, or they will resistthe use of ICT. On a personal level, benefits and disadvantages maybe distributed unevenly as well. For example, people may have todownload and plot drawings themselves instead of — as they usedto do — calling someone else that they want to receive paperdrawings.

• An upfront investment is needed: when organisations want to useinterorganisational ICT they need to invest first (e.g., costs ofdeployment of hardware, software, and training, coordinationcosts). Some organisations perceive the introduction and use ofinterorganisational ICT as an additional cost, others as a greatinvestment (expert: “It is not a cost. It is a primary saving.”) The oneswho are confronted with an organisation mandating or requestingthe use of ICT and who see it as an additional cost will try to includethese costs in their bids.

• The introduction of interorganisational ICT is associated with risks:when interorganisational ICT is used for the first time itsintroduction is associated with additional risks (e.g., what will bethe real costs and value of ICT, will all partners use ICT in theintended way, can all information be exchanged digitally betweenapplications of different organisations). After participants haveused the application a number of times ICT is not associated withadditional risks anymore.

• Resistance to increased transparency: interorganisational ICT is able toprovidemore transparency in a construction project for the organisa-tions involved. All experts stress that increased transparency is abenefit to the project. However, two experts (two contractors) thinkthat someother organisationswill view this increased transparency asa disadvantage. For example, contractors and subcontractors can try tomakemoney on change orders. Theymight not benefit from increasedtransparency in the project. In addition, they couldbuild a 3Dmodel toshow shortcoming in drawings from other organisations and lookwhat change order opportunities are.

The barriers mentioned above influence the attitudes of the peopleand organisations involved towards the use of interorganisational ICTand in the end their use of this ICT. The lack of an appropriate level ofparticipation of the key members of an organisation is an importantbarrier to the successful use of interorganisational ICT. The moreorganisations that use interorganisational ICT in a coordinated way,the more the project can benefit from the use of it.

From the interviews, it becomes clear that the value of ICT isdependent on the characteristics of a project and the organisationsand people involved. Several experts (three contractors, one client,architect, engineer) have developed criteria to assess whether aproject is suitable for the use of ICT and which features are valuable ina project. These criteria are based on characteristics of the project(e.g., complexity, size, contract types, delivery models), and theorganisations involved (e.g., capabilities, motivation to use ICT). Oneexpert (contractor) says about the decision whether a project issuitable for using interorganisational ICT: “It is largely related tointerorganisational questions: If everybody else on the team is interestedand capable we might decide to deploy our resources there rather thensomewhere else. If all the trade contractors, the architect, and the ownerwant to do it then it is high on our list.”

4.1.2. Perceived time pressureAccording to all the experts, time pressure is an important barrier

to the successful use of interorganisational ICT. If actors have to use an

application for the first time and time pressure is high they tend torevert to the traditional way of communication.

Time pressure moderates the effects of a positive configuration ofperceived benefits and disadvantages. When this configuration ispositive enough actors will still try to use ICT in situations of high timepressure; when this configuration is negative no time pressure, oronly a limited amount of time pressure is needed for actors to revert totraditional means of communication. One expert (client, architect,engineer) says: “As soon as the contractor sees the benefit he will spendtime on it.” The main reasons why actors revert to traditional means insituations of high time pressure are discussed below.

• Ability to invest the necessary time to learn to use ICT: people have toinvest time to learn to use new interorganisational ICT and toovercome barriers to its use. Sometimes actors are not able to investthis time in a project (“people don't come over the hump”; “[ICT] is notsomething on the radar”). They think they do not have time for it.

• Risks of using ICT when time pressure is high: people or organisationsare more comfortable doing things in the traditional way than byusing new ICT, especially in situations of high time pressure. They donot know the application and if it is working properly, they do notknow if they are using it in the right way, and they are uncertainabout the outcome of its use. They know that traditional workingpractices used to be effective, because they have already used thesefor years. When people start to have bad experiences with the use ofinterorganisational ICT in their project (e.g. bugs in the application),the perceived risks of using ICT increases as well. Therefore, peopletend to revert to traditional working practices again.

Above, the use of new interorganisational ICT is presented assomething risky. However, not all experts (one contractor, one client,architect, engineer) agree on that. In a project where everybody isusing interorganisational ICT it is more risky for an actor to usetraditional means of communication. Everything that is outside theapplication stands the risk of being completely ignored. Thus, itdepends on the way actors use ICT and traditional means ofcommunication as to whether the use of ICT is a risk.

After a while when participants get familiar with the applicationand its effectiveness is well proven the use of ICT is not associatedwith risk anymore. Actors have incorporated the use of ICT in theirworking practices and have learned to use ICT (“It is all about alearning curve”). This situation may occur in the first project in whichinterorganisational ICT is used, but may also occur in subsequentprojects. In the end, the introduction of interorganisational ICT can bea great investment in a context of high time pressure. The learningcurve seems to differ between types of applications. According toseveral experts (three contractors), the learning curve is steeper forproduct modelling applications than for document management andworkflow management applications. Product modelling applicationsrequire a completely new way of working and thinking which makesits introduction more difficult. Therefore, it takes longer at the start ofthe project to set things up and to get familiar with the application.

4.2. External motivation

In our model, two subcategories influence external motivation:availability of contractual arrangements about ICT use and thepresence of a requesting actor. Results of the expert interviews onboth subcategories are discussed below.

4.2.1. Availability of contractual arrangements about ICT useThe organisations of all the experts try to initiate the use of

interorganisational ICT themselves, at least for one of the studiedtypes of applications. Which of the applications they initiate dependson the value these organisations perceive of using these applicationsin their projects. This is based on perceptions of potential benefits, ortheir experience of using this application in the past. Sometimes these

78 A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

organisations are confronted with other organisations initiating theuse of interorganisational ICT as well. For example, since January2007, in the United States the General Services Administration(GSA) — the largest owner in the United States — mandates thatnew buildings designed through its Public Buildings Service useproduct modelling applications (i.e., building information models) inthe design stage. This mandate will enforce contractors whowill workfor GSA to use product modelling applications.

Whether interorganisational ICT is actually used depends onthe willingness of the organisations involved or the opportunities ofthe initiating organisation to mandate its use in their contracts. Oneexpert (contractor) suggests that the need to mandate the use ofinterorganisational ICT in the contract differs between types ofapplications. He says: “Working with [product modelling applications]is more difficult than with document management tools so you have toprescribe. [Product modelling applications] need to be prescribed in orderto get the organisations in line. (…) Document management toolsand workflow management tools requires more discussion and notmandating in the contract. It is up to the project team how they are goingto use it. The other organisations see the benefits of it, so they cooperate”.In other words, by mandating the use of interorganisational ICT incontracts organisations force other organisations involved in theconstruction project to use it. However, all experts mention draw-backs to mandating the use of ICT:

• Mandating reduces competition: the more advanced ICT is mandatedthe less number of firms will offer a bid because fewer organisationsare able to use this ICT. So, potential competition decreases. There-fore, some organisationsmandate the use of documentmanagementapplications, but do not mandate product modelling applications.

• Mandating of outcomes is preferable: experts prefer to mandate onlythe outcomes of the use of ICT instead of mandating digital workingpractices. In the context of product modelling they can, for example,mandate that the model needs to be current and updated, that itshould represent the true dimensions, and that it should be anobject-based model. In their view, other organisations must be ableto determine their own working practices because other organisa-tions might work with other applications and according to otherdigital working practices. These might be more sophisticated thanthe ones used by the mandating organisation.

• Mandating the use of ICT may raise the price: when the use of ICT ismandated in contracts other organisations may ask money for it.Some organisations will charge the mandating organisation moneyfor using ICT, others simply will not do. The mandating organisationwill still have a lowest bidder. However, this price might be higheras a result of mandating the use of ICT.

Due to these barriers some organisations decide not to mandatethe use of ICT. The experts prefer to convince others about the benefitsof the use of ICT instead of forcing them to use interorganisational ICTby a mandate.

According to all the experts, for most organisations the introduc-tion and use of product modelling applications across organisationalboundaries is a learning process at the moment in the United States'construction industry. Therefore, in current situations, its use is oftennot mandated in a strict way because the prescribing organisationshave to learn how these applications need to be used andmandated atfirst. Some experts (two contractors) admit that they have to updatetheir contractual clauses, based on their increased understandingabout the way they want to use product models (i.e., BuildingInformation Models). In their view it is important to update theclauses because when the use of interorganisational ICT is mandatedvaguely other actors have some space to optimise the use of productmodelling to their own purposes. This is not what the mandatingorganisations want because this might not meet their objectives.

Another option is to prequalify other organisations with regard totheir ICT capabilities. Some of the experts (one client, one client,

architect, engineer, two contractors) already prequalify other organi-sations with regard to their product modelling capabilities or plan todo so. When they prequalify with regard to these capabilities onlythose organisations that can deal with product models will be invitedor they will get a low score on the ‘product modelling criteria’.However, the other experts are reserved in their use of prequalifica-tions. In their view, there are insufficient numbers of organisationsthat can deal with product models. Therefore, prequalification willreduce competition and raise prices (see also ‘Availability ofcontractual arrangements about ICT use’).

4.2.2. Presence of a requesting actorOrganisations can mandate the use of interorganisational ICT for

other organisations in their contracts. However, they can request (i.e.,ask for) its use as well. The request might be clearly or vaguelyformulated based on the experiences of the requesting organisation.In addition, the request might result in added costs (see also‘Availability of contractual arrangements about ICT use’).

Within organisations, actors such as the line management orproject management might also request the use of interorganisationalICT (“We get a lot of support from the executive management. So thepeople don't have that much choice.”; “The use of [workflowmanagementapplication/document management application] is a corporate man-date”). However, they might also prohibit or discourage the use of ICT(“When the manager doesn't really see the benefits of it and he sees aperson spending a lot of time building a model he might have problemswith it.”). Therefore, several experts (one client, one engineer, onecontractor) stress the importance of strong leadership and a positiveorganisational culture for change. People need space to invest sometime and money and to take some risk to adopt interorganisationalICT. One expert (client) says about actors willing to use ICT: “If theysee support and put high priority on it, they can change. It is, in theend, people doing it. If there is a positive culture for change it would beeasier. Sometimes they are forced to change. That is why leadership isthe key.”

4.3. Knowledge and skills

The knowledge and skills to use ICT refer to the degree actors knowhow to use ICT.

Two subcategories influence knowledge and skills: clarity ofprocedural agreements and clarity about the operation of ICT. Bothsubcategories will be discussed below.

4.3.1. Clarity of procedural agreementsAll the experts stress the importance of making clear agreements

about the use of interorganisational ICT in a project before actors startto use ICT (e.g., what information has to be communicated to whom,and in what form and at what time). They give examples for workflowmanagement and product modelling applications:

• Workflow management applications: organisations have to makeclear agreements about the workflow processes that are going to beused in the project. An expert (client, architect, engineer) says: “Ifyou don't make a requirement that all communication is via [workflowmanagement application] you can expect information inmany differentways. Digitally or not digitally. Is a fax received or a letter dropped onyour table or is there electronic communication? Once you say we aregoing to use this particular workflow – and I am talking about at thestart of a construction projects – then you want to enforce it in a singlepath. Anybody has to use the same line.”

• Product modelling applications: if organisations want to use andreuse information interorganisationally they have to make agree-ments, for example, about who is going to make changes in themodel and at what time, and about the level of detail that is going tobe provided in the model.

79A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

Making clear procedural agreements is an important requisite forattaining the potential benefits of interorganisational ICT, such asstreamlining information and communication and eliminating uselessactivities. Actors have to coordinate their activities. However, makingclear procedural agreements takes a lot of time at the start of theproject.According to the experts, actors often do not take enough time for this.When theuseof interorganisational ICT is newto the actors involved it isdifficult for these actors to assess how the application needs to be usedand how this usewill affect them. Therefore, actors need to spendmoretime in coordinating and making clear procedural agreements.

One of the characteristics of construction projects is that organi-sations often work together on a temporary basis. Each of theorganisations involved has its own standard working practices and inevery project these organisations have to make procedural agreementsagain in order to coordinate activities and to make the use of inter-organisational ICT possible. Because of the ‘one-off’ nature of thesecooperations organisations are not very familiar with each othersworkingpractices. Therefore, theyhave tofindout, in everyproject, howparticipating organisations work and how ICT can be used in the mostbeneficialway. An expert (client, architect, engineer) says: “Wedon't seedeeply enough into the contractors' organisations to be able to say: “Youhave three subcontractors therewho do theirwork electronically. Let's havea separatemeetingwith themand findout howexactly they do it andwhichstandards they are using. Or can we do something so we can communicatemore directly with them so they have the full benefit of the designinformation we have got. The reverse is true as well: the contractor cannotlook into our organisation to understandwhat data hemight be able to takeforward with great utility.”

4.3.2. Clarity about the operation of ICTAccording to all the experts the capabilities that the actors

involved need to operate interorganisational ICT in a constructionproject, is sometimes an important barrier to the successful use of thisICT, both internally within their own organisation and within otherorganisations. The effectiveness of interorganisational ICT becomesmarginalised when actors do not have the necessary capabilities tooperate the application. The chance of there being a lack of thecapability to operate interorganisational ICT introduces risk in theproject. One expert (client, architect, engineer) says, in the context ofproduct modelling applications: “Unskilled people cause problems. Ifyou give a 3D model of this column to somebody, you have to make surethat the person you are giving it to knows exactly what to do with it. Thathe doesn't have a question about how to scale it or where to locate it inyour project. You need to make exactly sure that the entire transaction isgoing to be complete. That they are not missing anything.”

A lack of skills to operate interorganisational ICT is particularly athreat when ICT is new. The experts stress that current knowledge andcapability problems will disappear in the near future because peoplestart to have experience with interorganisational ICT and youngpeople have a basic set of ICT skills. When the skills to operateinterorganisational ICT increase the risks of using these applicationsdecrease. One expert (engineer) mentions about this mechanism: “Asthe skill sets come in you see better usage in the projects. What you haveto do with the old blood is to make them comfortable with it and showthem the benefits and encourage not only the use of it but also explainwhy they should use it and what the benefits are of using it. Also weprovide internal training. (…) The more training they get the morecomfortable they get and they can see what they can do with the toolwhich they weren't aware of.”

4.4. Acting opportunities

Acting opportunities refer to the extent to which actors are able touse ICT in the intended way. Two subcategories influence the actingopportunities: alignment between ICT and working practices andavailability of technical means.

4.4.1. Alignment between ICT and working practicesAccording to all the experts, a limited alignment between ICT and

working practices is an important barrier to the successful use of ICT.Every organisation has its ownworking practices and these need to bealigned first in order to attain the benefits of interorganisational ICT.Actors need to invest resources in aligning these working practices.The motivation to align is not always present. In addition, organisa-tions are not always able to change their working practices. Theexperts give two main reasons for that. First, organisations have theirown standard working practices and internal applications. The use ofinterorganisational ICT may conflict with these working practices andapplications. Actors sometimes refuse to adapt these applications andworking practices for one project. Second, organisations may chooseto follow their traditional working practices, because they see noopportunities to act digitally. The experts give several examples aboutwhy organisations do not see these opportunities:

• Need for signatures: some organisations require signed documentsto know for sure that the document is approved or to be sureabout the legal status of information. Some organisations are verystrict about the need for signatures and do not accept only digitalcommunication.

• Insurance models do not support digital communication: insurancecompanies perceive the exchange of 3D models as a risk because, intheir view, the more information is provided to other organisationsthe more the exposure to lawsuits will increase.

• Government agencies request paper-baseddrawings:drawings still go inpaper-based form to government agencies because they still requestinformation this way. One expert (client, architect, engineer)describes this process of sending drawings to the building depart-ment: “You print it out. Stamp it and sign it. You give it to the buildingdepartment. The building department reviews it. They mark it up. Theystamp it as approved or require changes and send it back to you. Youmakemore corrections and bring it back to their original comments. This is anentirely paper-based system.”

• Drawings and documents need to be paper-based on-site: people on-site often still want to receive paper-based documents anddrawings. One expert (contractor) says: “You never get rid of paperdrawings. A foreman wants to have paper drawings.”

As a result, organisations still choose to communicate drawingsand some documents in paper-based form as a supplement to digitalcommunications. Therefore, participants duplicate their efforts.However, when actors decide to duplicate their processes as a resultof the reasons mentioned above, additional risks are imported in theproject. Actors can be in a problem if there happens to be a differencebetween the electronic data and the paper documents.

4.4.2. Availability of technical meansAccording to all the experts, a lack of the necessary technical

means is sometimes an important barrier to the successful use ofinterorganisational ICT. Sometimes this impels actors to limit thescope of the use of interorganisational ICT. However, according to theexperts this problem soon starts to decline. The organisations of theexperts have appropriated technical means and sometimes they evendeal with other organisations that are more sophisticated than theirown. The experts mention several technical barriers to the successfuluse of interorganisational ICT:

• Software interoperability: paper-based communication is veryflexible. Each organisation can use its own application. However,when organisations start to communicate and exchange informa-tion digitally interorganisationally then these organisations have toalign their applications. If the experts' organisations implement adocument management application and/or workflow managementapplication among organisational boundaries in a project theychoose to implement one application and not to integrate different

80 A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

corporate applications as a result of a lack of standards andinterfaces between applications. Therefore, they avoid interopera-bility problems. At the moment, organisations often use differentproduct modelling applications in a project. Each organisation alreadypurchased their software licenses independent of the project. Thiscan give interoperability problems in the project because organisa-tions cannot import the needed information from applications ofother organisations.

• Technology infrastructure in offices: the availability of the technologyinfrastructure that is needed to use interorganisational ICT isrestricting a lot of organisations in the United States constructionindustry in their use of ICT (e.g., hardware, software, appropriateInternet connections). According to the experts some organisationsdo not even have e-mail. One expert (contractor) suggests that, ingeneral, the bigger the company, the more sophisticated their tech-nology infrastructure is.

• Technology infrastructure on the job-site: the availability of atechnology infrastructure might be a problem on the job-site. Forexample, the necessary peripherals (e.g., plotter) are often notpresent on site, especially in smaller projects. In addition, not all theorganisations involved have an Internet connection on site or thisconnection only becomes available after some months. An expertcomments about arranging an Internet connection on the job-site:“Our job-sites are very well connected. However, it does sometimestake 1 to 2 months to get an Internet connection on-site. We do have toknow when we are going to start the job. And we do start them up withless than adequate access and then bring it in as quickly as we can.”This may restrict actors in their use of interorganisational ICT.However, it seems that temporary solutions to this problem can befound as well. Another expert says: “It takes a few weeks to get accesson site. You can always go wireless for a short period. Satellite providersoffer Internet services too nowadays. We use it often.”

Table 3Directions for solutions.

Directions for solutions Purpose of direction for solution and related mechanisms

Educate the actors involved about (1) the ICT application, (2) how this ICT can be used,and (3) the potential benefits, disadvantages and risks (and provide solutions tothese).

Reduce distorted perceptions about benefits, disadvantages, risk, and possiblesolutions. This influences the ‘perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use’.

Be clear to the actors involved about the necessary investment, so organisations caninclude these in their cost estimates.

Reduce resistance caused by unforeseen investments. This influences the ‘perceivedbenefits and disadvantages of ICT use’ because actors know from the start thenecessary investment.

Decrease the investment of other organisations by paying for the use of ICT (application,training, etc.), or convince the client to do so.

Reduce an important disadvantage, that is, the necessary investment. This influencesthe ‘perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use’.

Customise the application and make agreements about the use of the application basedon the purposes, needs, and working practices of the actors involved.

Make all participating organisations benefit from the use of ICT. This influences (1) the‘alignment between ICT and working practices’ (organisations are able to use ICT), (2)the ‘clarity of procedural agreement’ (organisations know how to use ICT) and (3) the‘perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use’ (organisations can benefit from theuse of ICT because it fits to their purposes and needs).

Use incentives to the use of ICT (e.g., divide savings between participating organisations,link payments to ICT use).

Build in financial drivers to encourage the use of ICT, so actors become moremotivated to use ICT. This influences the ‘perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICTuse’.

Customise the ICT application in scope and used functionalities to the specific projectbased on the mechanisms shown in the theoretical model.

Reduce the risk of malfunctioning of ICT, which eliminates its potential benefits. Thisinfluences all mechanisms because the scope is based on an analysis of thesemechanisms.

Evaluate the realised benefits of the use of ICT regularly and intervene quickly if theintended benefits are not realised.

Reduce the risk of frustrated users, a lack of confidence in ICT, and user rejection as aresult of malfunctioning of ICT. This influences the ‘perceived benefits anddisadvantages of ICT use’.

Let actors use their current applications when using interorganisational ICT orimplement ICT that works in a similar way to the applications participants already use.

Reduce the novelty of ICT (mechanisms related to ‘knowledge and skills’ becauseactors know how to use ICT) and, therefore, the required time investment to learn touse ICT (mechanism ‘perceived time pressure’).

Prequalify organisations regarding their ICT capabilities. Reduce the risk of selecting organisations that are not able to use ICT (mechanismsrelated to ‘knowledge and skills’ and ‘acting opportunities’) or have to spent a lot oftime to learn to use ICT (mechanism ‘perceived time pressure’).

Provide user support to potential uses (e.g., training, user manuals, support on-site) tolet them understand quickly the application, and the way it needs to be used.

Reduce the time investment needed to learn to use ICT, the perceived risks of using ICT(mechanism ‘perceived time pressure’), and any frustration as a result of wrong use(mechanism ‘perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use’).

Select ICT that is easy to use, that prevent users from making mistakes, and that hasfeatures build in that reduces risks (e.g., notification features). Propagate this user-friendliness towards potential users.

Reduce the required time investment to learn to use ICT, the perceived risks of usingICT (mechanism ‘perceived time pressure’), and any frustration as a result of wronguse. (mechanism ‘perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICT use’).

Educate the actors involved about the importance of building time into the timetable tofit ICT to their purposes, to make clear agreements, to learn to use ICT, to align theirworking practices to each other and to ICT, and to test ICT and working practices.

Enlarge the awareness of the need to invest time at the start of the project to attainbenefits later on. This influences all mechanisms (except the mechanisms related to‘external motivation’).

Let an actor who is able to use ICT properly operate the application. This actor can be anemployee of the organisation, but can also be hired from another organisation.

Prevent situations in which actors are not able to use ICT. This influences themechanisms related to ‘knowledge and skills’ and the required time investment tolearn to use ICT (mechanism ‘perceived time pressure’).

Mandate the use of ICT in the contract or convince the client to do so. Do not allow usersto by-pass ICT.

Force actors to use ICT. This influences the mechanism ‘availability of contractualarrangements about ICT use’.

Convince other actors (e.g., client, management of organisation) about the benefits ofthe use of ICT so they start to request its use. Do not allow users to by-pass ICT.

Force actors to use ICT. This influences the mechanism ‘presence of a requesting actor’.

Educate the people and organisations involved on (1) the ICT application, (2) how thisICT can be used and aligned to their working practices, (3) their technical needs.

Reduce distorted perceptions about the opportunities to align ICT and workingpractices and the technical needs. This influences the mechanisms ‘alignmentbetween ICT andworking practices’ and ‘availability of technical means because actorsknow how they have to align and what the technical needs are.

Give electronic communication legal status, for example, by making use of electronicsignatures or by approving statements of electronic communication formally inmeetings.

Give electronic communication legal status. This influences the mechanism‘alignment between ICT and working practices’ because actors are now able tocommunicate formally electronically.

Develop a project standard for exchanging information (i.e., all actors use the sameapplication, or use applications that are able to exchange information).

Eliminate interoperability problems. This influences the mechanism ‘availability oftechnical means’.

81A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

All the experts agree on the fact that technical means do not haveto be a barrier to the use of interorganisational ICT anymore especiallyon large projects. However, sometimes people use a lack of adequatetechnology infrastructure as an excuse for not using ICT.

5. Directions for solutions

The mechanisms of our theoretical model show barriers anddrivers to the successful use of interorganisational ICT in constructionprojects. In this section, we present directions for solutions topotential barriers (see Table 3). These solutions follow from theinterviews with experts from the United States construction industry.In Table 3, we focus on solutions that can be implemented at a projectlevel. We do not present directions for solutions at an organisationallevel, or at the level of the construction industry. We present (1) thedirections for solutions, and (2) the purpose of these solutions andthemechanisms this solution is related to. In Table 3, the relationshipsbetween the directions for solutions and the mechanisms are ex-plained briefly (if necessary).

6. Conclusions and implications for research and practice

In this paper we have discussed the mechanisms that influence theway in which actors use interorganisational ICT in constructionprojects and directions for solutions for the potential barriers to thesuccessful use of this ICT. Because the insights into these mechanismswere limited, an explorative approach was used to analyse the use ofICT in construction projects.

We have shown the usefulness of our model for analysing,understanding, and explaining the use of interorganisational ICT andthe drivers and barriers to the successful use of this ICT in the UnitedStates construction industry. Our research showed differencesbetween types of applications on the dimensional level of subcate-gories. For example, product modelling applications are more difficultto learn and to understand than document management applicationsbecause a different way of working and thinking is needed. Thisinfluences several categories and subcategories (i.e., personal moti-vation, knowledge and skills and acting opportunities). Furthermore,we were able to classify directions for solutions.

To date, little is known about the mechanisms that determine theuse of interorganisational ICT in the context of construction projects.When we compare our findings with results from other studies inwhich the use of interorganisational ICT in real time constructionprojects is documented (e.g., [8,9,13–15,17,18]) thenwe canmake thefollowing observations.

Our model adds some important mechanisms to the existingliterature. The subcategory ‘availability of contractual arrangements’ —which is a very influential mechanism in our research — is animportant addition. In addition, some subcategories only have gotlimited attention in the literature. Only several researchers mention(often to a limited extent) issues related to perceived time pressure[14,15,17], presence of a requesting actor [15,18], clarity of proceduralagreements [8,15], and alignment between ICT and working practices[8,15,35]. The subcategories ‘perceived benefits and disadvantages ofICT use’ and ‘clarity about the operation of ICT’ get extensive attentionin the studies.

Second, our study does focus on developing directions for solu-tions to barriers to the successful use of interorganisational ICT. Inaddition to similar studies (e.g., [8,15]) we connect these solutions ina structured way to mechanisms influencing the use of interorganisa-tional ICT. These solutions focus on stimulating the personalmotivation to use ICT, the external motivation to use this technology,and facilitating conditions in terms of knowledge and skills and actingopportunities to use ICT.

Thus, our main contribution is that we present a model that is ableto explain the use of interorganisational ICT in construction projects.

In addition, we present solutions to potential barriers that can berelated to this model. Our study can be seen as a first step towardsdeveloping (1) a theoretical model that is able to explain and predictthe use of interorganisational ICT, and (2) solutions to potentialbarriers to the successful use of ICT in the context of constructionprojects. Therefore, in future research, the mechanisms and directionsfor solutions need to be further developed and tested. Other directionsfor future research are:

• Relate the theoretical model to social theories: our study showed thatthe use of interorganisational ICT in construction projects isembedded in a web of (social) actions. The way one actor actsinfluences the way another actor acts and the benefits this actor canattain from the use of ICT. In addition, ICT is only one of the meansthat actors can use to communicate. To gain a better understandingof the way actors act in their social and interorganisational contextand how their acts are affected by social relationships, thetheoretical model needs to be confronted with social theories.

• Develop directions for solutions at organisational and industry level: inour research we developed directions for solutions at project level,based on the mechanisms influencing the use of interorganisationalICT in construction projects. However, we can also try to intervenein the mechanisms at an organisational (i.e., what can anorganisation do?) or industry level (i.e., what can the industrydo?). The mechanisms developed in our study are important entrypoints for developing these directions for solutions. Our researchalready shows some — obvious — directions for solutions at theselevels: (1) develop standard digital working practices at anorganisational level, (2) use ICT within long-term relationshipsbetween organisations, (3) develop an industry standard forexchanging information, and (4) make legislation fit with digitalworking practices. Note that the implementation of these solutionsstarts by implementing them in a first project. Thus, all barriers tothe introduction of interorganisational ICT at project level do applyto the introduction of these ‘higher level’ solutions in the firstproject as well.

• Develop strategies and protocols for implementing ICT: based on themechanisms and directions for solutions developed in this research,strategies and protocols need to be developed and tested whichfacilitate the successful implementation of interorganisational ICT.

• Test the developed directions for solutions: the directions for solutionspresented in this study need to be further tested in constructionprojects. Therefore, an obvious direction for future research is toimplement these solutions in real time construction projects andevaluate the effects of the solutions on the successful use ofinterorganisational ICT. Based on this evaluation the solutions canbe further refined.

• Carry out a comparative study with other industries: in our study wefocussed on the use of interorganisational ICT in constructionprojects. In future research, the mechanisms, related barriers, anddirections for solutions developed in this research should becompared with experiences in other industries. A comparativestudy might help the construction industry, and other industries tofind opportunities to further improve the use of interorganisationalICT. In this comparative study researchers should try to understandmechanisms influencing the way actors use interorganisational ICTin the industry context.

The theoretical model and directions for solutions have relevancefor practice as well. It can help project managers and/or peopleresponsible for implementing interorganisational ICT to identify thetechnical and nontechnical risks of introducing and using ICT inconstruction projects. Based on this risk analysis and an assessment ofthe directions for solutions, they can formulate and implementmeasures to overcome these risks or choose to limit the scope of theapplication (e.g., limit the scope to only some organisations or to only

82 A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83

Author's personal copy

some communication processes). In addition, the model can be usedas an analytical tool to evaluate the status quo use of an underutilisedapplication in a construction project and to formulate and implementimprovements based on this analysis.

References

[1] N.S. Argyres, The impact of information technology on coordination: evidencefrom the B-2 ‘Stealth’ bomber, Organization Science 10 (2) (1999) 162–180.

[2] B. Akinci, M. Fischer, R. Levitt, R. Carlson, Formalization and automation of time-space conflict analysis, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 16 (2) (2002)124.

[3] R.J. Boland, K. Lyytinen, Y. Yoo, Wakes of innovation in project networks: the caseof digital 3-D representations in archictecture, engineering, and construction,Organization Science 18 (4) (2007) 631–647.

[4] D. Bouchlaghem, H. Shang, J. Whyte, A. Ganah, Visualisation in architecture,engineering and construction (AEC), Automation in Construction 14 (3) (2005)287–295.

[5] K. Mckinney, M. Fischer, Generating, evaluating and visualizing constructionschedules with CAD tools, Automation in Construction 7 (6) (1998) 433–447.

[6] J. Whyte, N. Bouchlaghem, A. Thorpe, R. Mccaffer, From CAD to virtual reality:modelling approaches, data exchange and interactive 3D building design tools,Automation in Construction 10 (1) (2000) 43–55.

[7] M. Alshawi, B. Ingirige, Web-enabled project management: an emerging paradigmin construction, Automation in Construction 12 (4) (2003) 349–364.

[8] J.L. Andresen, K. Christensen, R.W. Howard, Project management with a projectweb, Journal of Information Technology in Construction 8 (2003) 29–41.

[9] M. Hjelt, B.C. Björk, Experiences of EDM usage in construction projects, Journal ofInformation Technology in Construction 11 (2006) 113–125.

[10] P. Nitithamyong, M.J. Skibniewski, Web-based construction project managementsystems: how to make them successful? Automation in Construction 13 (4)(2004) 491–506.

[11] P. Nitithamyong, M.J. Skibniewski, Key success/failure factors and their impacts onsystem performance of web-based project management systems in construction,Journal of Information Technology in Construction 12 (2007) 39–59.

[12] K. Sulankivi, Benefits of centralized digital information management in multi-partner projects, Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction 9(2004) 35–63.

[13] C. Harty, Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach, BuildingResearch & Information 33 (6) (2005) 512–522.

[14] R. Howard, E.S. Petersen, Monitoring communications in partnering projects,Journal of Information Technology in Construction 4 (2001) 1–16.

[15] W.J. O'brien, Implementation issues in project web-sites: a practitioner'sviewpoint, Journal of Management in Engineering 16 (3) (2000) 34–39.

[16] J.E. Taylor, Antecedents of successful three-dimensional computer-aided designimplementation in design and construction networks, Journal of ConstructionEngineering and Management 133 (12) (2007) 993–1002.

[17] T. Thorpe, S. Mead, Project-specific web sites: friend or foe? Journal of Construc-tion Engineering and Management 127 (5) (2001) 406–413.

[18] A. Weippert, S.L. Kajewski, P.A. Tilley, Internet-based information and communi-cation systems on remote construction projects: a case study analysis, Construc-tion Innovation 2 (2) (2002) 103–116.

[19] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance ofinformation technology, MIS Quarterly 13 (3) (1989) 319–340.

[20] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: acomparison of two theoretical models, Management Science 35 (8) (1989)982–1003.

[21] Y. Lee, K.A. Kozar, K.R.T. Larsen, The technology acceptance model: past, present,and future, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12 (2003)752–780.

[22] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of informationtechnology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly 27 (3) (2003) 425–478.

[23] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes 50 (2) (1991) 179–211.

[24] K. Mathieson, Predicting user intentions: comparting the technology acceptancemodel with the theory of planned behavior, Information Systems Research 2 (3)(1991) 173–191.

[25] K. Mathieson, E. Peacock, W. Chin, Extending the technology acceptance model:the influence of perceived user resources, ACM SIGMIS Database 32 (3) (2001)86–112.

[26] S. Taylor, P.A. Todd, Understanding information technology usage: a test ofcompetitive models, Information System Research 6 (2) (1995) 144–176.

[27] M. Bresnen, N. Marshall, Motivation, commitment and the use of incentives inpartnerships and alliances, Construction Management and Economics 18 (5)(2000) 587–598.

[28] D.K. Allen, D. Colligan, A. Finnie, T. Kern, Trust, power and interorganizationalsystems: the case of the electronic trading community TranSlease, InformationSystems Journal 10 (1) (2000) 21–40.

[29] S. Green, F. Scott, S. Weller, Making sense of supply chain management: acomparative study of aerospace and construction, Construction Management andEconomics 23 (6) (2005) 579–594.

[30] A. Adriaanse, H. Voordijk, Interorganisational communication and ICT inconstruction projects using metatriangulation, Construction Innovation 5 (3)(2005) 159–177.

[31] A. Cox, P. Ireland, Managing construction supply chains: the common senseapproach, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 9 (5/6)(2002) 409–418.

[32] H. Voordijk, R. Stegwee, R. Helmus, ERP and the changing role of IT in engineeringconsultancy firms, Business Process Management Journal 11 (4) (2005) 418–430.

[33] J.C. Henderson, N. Venkatraman, Strategic alignment: leveraging informationtechnology for transforming organizations, IBM Systems Journal 38 (2&3) (1999)472–484.

[34] R.K. Yin, Case study research: design and methods, SAGE, Newbury Park/London,1994.

[35] D. Thorpe, Online remote construction management trials in QueenslandDepartment of Main Roads: a participant's perspective, Construction Innovation3 (2003) 65–79.

[36] M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction totheory and research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.

83A. Adriaanse et al. / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 73–83