Construction Economics and Building Vol. 20, No. 4 December 2020 © 2020 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. Citation: Chaurasia, S. S. and Verma, S. 2020. Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework. Construction Economics and Building, 20:4, 63-81. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB. v20i4.6649 ISSN 2204-9029 | Published by UTS ePRESS | https://epress. lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. php/AJCEB RESEARCH ARTICLE Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Sushil S. Chaurasia1* and Surabhi Verma2 1 The J Herbert Smith Centre for Technology Management & Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Engineering, University of New Brunswick. Email- chaurasia.sushil@gmail.com 2 Center for Integrative Innovation Management, Department of Marketing & Management, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark *Corresponding author: Sushil S. Chaurasia, The J Herbert Smith Centre for Technology Management & Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Engineering, University of New Brunswick. Email- chaurasia.sushil@gmail.com DOI 10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.6649 Article history: Received 25/06/2019; Revised 12/02/2020; Accepted 18/10/2020; Published 07/12/2020 ABSTRACT With constant flow of large data sets generated by different organisations, big data analytics promises to be a revolutionary game changer for Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. Despite the potential of Big Data, there has been little research conducted thus far to understand the Big Data phenomenon, specifically in the AEC industry. The objective of this research therefore is to understand the contributing factors for adopting big data in AEC firms. The investigation combined the perceived strategic value of BDA with the TOE framework (technology, organization, and environment), to develop and test a holistic model on big data adoption. A set of hypotheses derived from the extant literature was tested on data from structured surveys of about 365 firms, categorised as construction service firms (engineering and architecture) and construction firms (firms engaged in managing construction projects). The results indicated that the inhibitors and facilitators of BDA adoption are different in the construction services (architecture and engineering) and construction firms. For effective adoption of BDA solutions, the findings will guide the business managers to have realistic expectations of BDA integration challenges in AEC sector. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. FUNDING The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 63 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.6649 http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.6649 http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.6649 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB mailto:chaurasia.sushil%40gmail.com?subject= mailto:chaurasia.sushil@gmail.com http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.6649 Keywords: Big data analytics, technology-organization-environment framework, perceived strategic value, IT adoption, AEC sector. INTRODUCTION As strategic emphasis on data-driven decision-making and innovation increases, firms today cannot afford to ignore the rewards of data science and advanced analytics for real-time insights of customers and machines by a big data application (BDA)-driven environment. Firms thereby are almost being compelled to increase IT investments on BDA (Wu, et al., 2017). Herein, it is interesting to note that both construction firms and construction service firms do play an essential role within a nation’s economy. Construction firms (like manufacturing) include the ‘hard’ part, i.e. construction of non-residential (heavy industrial, institutional and commercial, engineering), and residential buildings; while, construction services consist of the ‘soft’ part, i.e. activities where people offer the time and knowledge to improve productivity, sustainability, performance, and potentiality through innovation (Huang, Lu and Chen, 2017; Sarnovsky, Bednar and Smatana, 2018). Today, BDA is equally important in the service industry, as the quality of service provided just tends to be the key differentiator, as opposed to the traditional construction industry, where it is the quality of product, which is more important (Math, 2018). With major economic development and urbanisation in progress, India is estimated to annually build 700–900 million square meters of residential and commercial space, till about 2020 (McKinsey, 2010). With such anticipated volume of construction, the Indian Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector is certainly going to play a significant role in contributing to the Indian economy (Ahmed, et al., 2017). The key antecedents that can help in achieving adoption success of BDA include big data quality (Verma, 2018), support of top management (Gunasekaran, et al., 2017), external pressure (Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017), organisational data environment (Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017) and perceived benefits (Verma, 2018; Verma and Chaurasia, 2019). BDA implementation requires major modifications in the existing business processes to enable willing organisations to adapt, while looking to match the capabilities of their current system (Wang, et al., 2016a; Chaurasia and Rosin, 2017; Wang, et al., 2018b). However, despite the benefits of BDA, not all AEC firms are accelerating BDA solution adoption (Chen, Preston and Swink, 2015). Specifically, SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprise), which dominate the supply chain, have a fragmented data pool, which are collected by different organisations during an asset’s life cycle (Ahmed, et al., 2017). Thus, collating them under one umbrella is a humongous task in itself. Moreover, organisations in specific sectors may work within a constrained budget for technology; for instance, the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) may have inadequate technical capabilities, whereby they depend on smaller groups of IT support staff or professionals for their IT needs (Verma, 2018). However, one must acknowledge the fact that although BDA is a disruptive technology, the reasons for reluctance to adopt BDA solutions are real and noteworthy (Wang, Kung and Byrd, 2018a). Review of existing literature also suggests that the BDA phenomenon is not a panacea for all firms (Verma, 2018). So, the objective of this research is to understand the contributing factors for adopting BDA, vis a vis its strategic value to AEC firms. As preceding studies on BDA focused on operational and technical issues (Raguseo, 2018), the current investigation seeks to develop Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202064 and test a model by integrating the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990) and strategic value of big data analytics perspectives (Grandon and Pearson, 2004) that underlie its adoption. LITERATURE REVIEW Adoption Models Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) investigated the TOE factors primarily through the TOE framework. The TOE framework considers three main features of a firm, which in turn impacts any innovation’s adoption, i.e., technology, organisation, and environment (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990). Grandon and Pearson (2004) and Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson (2006) have earlier investigated the strategic value of IT through the Perceived Strategic Value based Adoption Model (PSVAM). However, studies using models like Theory of Planned Behaviour, Theory of Reasoned Action, Technology Acceptance Model and Unified Theory of Acceptance models, are significantly less, especially in an organisational context (Oliveira and Martins, 2011). On the other hand, Diffusion of Innovation (DOI), Technology- Organization-Environment (TOE) Framework and Perceived Strategic Valued based Adoption Model (PSVAM) have been widely used in studying technology adoption at an organisational level (Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson, 2006). Therefore, researchers in the IT domain have suggested integrating the TOE framework with PSVAM, which does not seem to have been done before. The strategic value of technology and the business manager’s perceptions of innovation constructs predominate PSVAM (Saffu, Walker and Mazurek, 2012). The elements prompting the adoption of an innovation within organisations include external characteristics (i.e. system openness), individuals (i.e. leadership’s attitude toward change), and internal organisational structure (i.e. centralisation, complexity, interconnectedness, organisational slack and the size of employees) of a firm. RELATED LITERATURE ON BIG DATA ANALYTICS ADOPTION As mentioned earlier, several research in the past have discussed the operational and technical adoption concerns related to BDA (Table 1). Erstwhile researchers have also studied themes like BDA service selection, based on costs and associated risks (Kwon, Lee and Shin, 2014); big data audit protocol for computation and secure storage (Whyte, et al., 2016); financial readiness (Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017) and economic performance (Dubey, Gunasekaran and Samar Ali, 2015); data management and computation software and technology (Shin, 2015); issues of privacy, information loss and security risks (Chen, Preston and Swink, 2015). Table 1 Big data analytics research published IT adoption as Dependent variable Adoption theory Methods Author Big data analytics Resource- based view and Isomorphism Structural equation modeling based on partial least squares analysis Kwon et al., 2014 Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202065 IT adoption as Dependent variable Adoption theory Methods Author Big data services UTAUT model Quantitative data based on a survey method, and quantitative data based on an interpretative method Shin, 2015 Big data analytics TOE Framework and dynamic capabilities theory Partial least squares Chen et al., 2015 Big data Socio-technical systems theory Qualitative and quantitative Shin et al., 2014 Big data analysis TOE framework and assimilation model case-based study and survey-based study Nam et al., 2018 Big data analytics TOE framework and perceived strategic value Qualitative study Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017 Big data analytics sytems TAM Quantitative study Verma et al., 2018 Grounded on review of existing literature (Table 2), a BDA adoption model has been proposed (Figure 1). This model advocates that the BDA adoption is mostly governed by a perceived strategic value of top management. Importantly, in this model, TOE factors do influence the strategic value of BDA adoption. Table 2 TOE framework and PSVAM framework Model constructs in peer-reviewed journals Table 1 continued Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202066 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES By combining the perceived strategic value of BDA with the TOE framework (technology, organization and environment), this study aims to develop and test a holistic model on adoption of IT innovation. HYPOTHESES OF PERCEIVED STRATEGIC VALUE CHARACTERISTICS Urbany, et al. (1997) argued ‘utility’ to be an important predictor of purchase intention and behaviour. Additionally, perceived strategic value compares the benefits with challenges, and is therefore, an indicator of adoption intention. Innovations (e.g. BDA) with clear and explicit competitive advantage in creating operational and strategic effectiveness have a more significant incentive for adoption (Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017). Furthermore, if the benefits of the technology (i.e., BDA) surpass prevailing processes and practices (Shin, 2015), the strategic value will positively steer its adoption. Therefore, H1. The perceived strategic value will positively influence the adoption of BDA in AEC. Figure 1 Proposed research model Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202067 HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT FOR TOE FRAMEWORK The technology perspective Technology perspective outlines the technological characteristics present in an organisation for technology adoption (Wang, Wang and Yang, 2010). Big Data Quality Big data quality includes adequate characterisation of data, real-time view of data, right interpretation of results and determining the relevance of results, while addressing the trustworthiness of input data. Van den Broek and Van Veenstra (2017) pointed out that inadequate level of big data quality can be distracting, as it tends to increase errors and wastes time and efforts. Erstwhile researchers identified big data quality as an important driver in building perception about the benefits and potential values of BDA (Wamba, et al., 2015). We thus posit… H2. Big data quality in AEC will positively influence the perceived strategic value of BDA. Complexity It is the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be comparatively challenging to use and understand (Low, Chen and Wu, 2011). Chance of BDA adoption is more when businesses incorporate innovation into its operations (Oliveira and Martins, 2014). Connectivity (i.e. straightforward and instant), system reliability (i.e., and consistently available and error-free), and efficiency (i.e. minimal response time) are used to measure the complexity of innovation. If precise protocol for data security, protecting the business process, and privacy within a shared environment are not completely developed, challenges could also mount in the usage of BDA- based solutions (Verma, 2018). Thus, we posit… H3. Complexity will negatively influence the strategic value of BDA in AEC. Compatibility It is the extent to which an innovation suits with the prospective adopter’s current needs and existing values (Oliveira and Martins, 2014). It is a key determinant of innovation adoption (Wang, et al., 2016). It refers to an innovation congruence with the value systems and business practices of a firm (Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017). The compatibility construct includes the fitment of innovation from an integration perspective (Wang, et al., 2016). Gangwar, Date and Ramaswamy (2015) reasoned that if an innovation integrates smoothly with an existing system, it has a positive impact on the perceived strategic value. Therefore, compatibility could also affect the strategic value of innovation. Thus, we posit… H4. Compatibility will positively influence the strategic value of BDA in AEC. Technology Readiness Technology readiness defines the technological preparedness and IT support resources (Zhu, et al., 2004). It defines the skills and knowledge required to leverage BDA associated IT applications (Wang, Wang and Yang, 2010). However, firms that do not have a robust technology and IT expertise may not understand the strategic benefits of an innovation per se (Yang, et al., 2015). On the other hand, firms with greater technology awareness and readiness Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202068 are in better position to understand the benefits of innovation and are thereby in a better position to adopt it (Chen, Preston and Swink, 2015). Thus, we posit… H5. Technological readiness will positively influence the strategic value of BDA in AEC. The Organisation Perspective The organisational context represents the resources that are required for sustenance of technology adoption process (Wang, et al., 2016). Top Management Support Support of top management is an integral organisational factor, which does play an essential role in BDA adoption, as it guides the re-engineering of business processes, it helps in allocating appropriate resources, while integrating the services (Dutta and Bose, 2015; Kim, Jang and Yang, 2017). The management that recognises and understands the benefits or strategic values associated with BDA, would naturally be inclined to apportion the required resources. This apart, they also influence and motivate the entire chain below them to implement the change. Therefore, we posit… H6. Top management support in AEC will positively influence the strategic value of BDA. Firm Size Big organisations have an added advantage over smaller ones due to the availability of more resources, based on which they are willing to take greater risks associated with innovation adoption (Wang, et al., 2016). Although several studies have found smaller organisations to be more versatile, as they have less understanding about the benefits associated with newer technologies and innovation (Alshamaila, Papagiannidis and Li, 2013). Therefore, firm size is certainly an important determinant of the strategic value of BDA (Martins, Oliveira and Popovič, 2014). Hence, we posit… H7. Firm size will positively influence the strategic value of BDA. The Environment Perspective The environmental context describes the arrangement in which a company manages its business (Wang, et al., 2016). Among all factors, the determinants, which do tend to have an impact on BDA, include the regulatory environment along with a firm’s competitiveness (Shin, 2015). Competitive Pressure It can be defined as the extent of pressure experienced by a firm from its competitors (Martins, Oliveira and Popovič, 2014). The strategic value associated with innovation is mostly a necessity to compete in the marketplace (Yang, et al., 2015). BDA can benefit firms by providing higher operational efficiency, real-time analytics, better insights, customer segmentation and better market visibility (Gangwar, Date and Ramaswamy, 2015). Hence, we posit… H8. Competitive pressure does positively influence the strategic value of BDA. Regulatory Support It is the support given by a government authority for the adoption and assimilation of IT innovation (Zhu, et al., 2004). The effect of existing rules, policies, and regulations can be Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202069 acute, especially while creating a perception about values associated with innovations (White, 2012). For instance, a government prerequisite for organisations to comply with big data- specific protocols and standards, may lead to more awareness of the potential benefits for organisations, which subsequently leads to their willingness to adopt BDA (Verma and Bhattacharyya, 2017). Thus, we posit… H9. Regulatory support does positively influence the strategic value of BDA. METHODOLOGY Preceding technology adoption investigations has been majorly steered in developed nations (Alshamaila, Papagiannidis and Li, 2013; Dubey, Gunasekaran and Samar Ali, 2015). So, the current study limits the scope of the current study to developing country (i.e. Indian AEC firms). MEASUREMENT Extant literature from relevant areas have been used to select the items of the questionnaire to evaluate the theoretical constructs (Table 3). The constructs (i.e. perceived strategic value, big data quality, compatibility, complexity, technology readiness, top management support, firm size, competitive pressure and regulatory support) were measured using a five-point Likert scale (extending from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). Number of employees along with the organisation’s turnover volume were used to measure the organisation size (Martins, Oliveira and Popovič, 2014; Wang, et al., 2016). Six academic and industry experts in big data, business analytics and business intelligence from the AEC sector pretested the questionnaire (i.e. two from each). 34 firms were chosen for a pilot test, and to test the instrument. The main survey did not include these firms. According to Hair, et al. (2012), Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 0.7 are acceptable. Also, Hair, et al. (2012) recommended to remove items with inter-item correlations greater than 0.3 from the instrument. Three items were removed due to low correlations with the other items of constructs. This lead to improve the Cronbach’s alpha values of constructs. The outcomes of the pilot test indicated that the scales had translation equivalence, along with confirming its validity and reliability (Brislin, 1970). Table 3 Measurement items Constructs Source Perceived Strategic Value of big data analytics Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson (2006); Saffu et al. (2012) Complexity Low et al., (2011) Compatibility Wang et al., (2010) Technology readiness Oliveria et al., (2014) Top management support Low et al., (2011) Firm size Oliveria et al. (2014) Competitive pressure Alshamaila et al., (2013) Regulatory support Chen et al., (2015); Shin, (2015) Big data quality Gandomi and Haider, (2015); Chen and Zhang, (2014) Adoption intention Oliveria et al. (2014) Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202070 DATA The structured survey questionnaire was emailed to the identified individuals (i.e. CTOs, CIOs, Directors, Senior business managers and IT managers) of 1800 Indian AEC firms. The sample firms were non-probabilistically selected from Bloomberg database, and a popular construction industry magazine. Respondents were categorised for construction service firms (i.e. engineering and architecture) and construction firms (i.e. firms engaged in managing construction projects). Construction firms were categorised as all operative builders and general contractors, primarily engaged in the construction of non-residential (i.e. heavy industrial, institutional and commercial, engineering), and residential buildings. Further, the study utilised key informants’ data collection approach (Alam, Ali and Jani, 2011) to classify the respondents in the organisation who were knowledgeable and/or involved in BDA projects. Respondents self-qualified them self as adopter or non-adopter, along with categorising selves on big data characteristics (volume, velocity, variety, veracity and value) proposed by Gandomi and Haider (2015). Follow-up communication were made with the respondents with the purpose of improving the response rate. Finally, a total of 386 responses were received, out of which 21 responses were unusable; thus, there were 365 valid responses. A response rate of 18.5% can be compared with other similar preceding research studies (Martins, Oliveira and Popovič, 2014). From construction service firms 57.3% (208 firms), while from construction firms 42.7% (157 firms) valid responses were received (Table 4). The sample distribution of the late and early respondent groups was compared using the K-S (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) test for testing the nonresponse bias. As the sample distribution of the respondents’ groups differed statistically, it indicated the absence of response bias. Also, no significant common method bias (using Harman’s one-factor test) was identified. Table 5 summarises the standard deviation and mean of all the constructs from the sub and full samples. RESULTS An analysis of the full sample was done to appreciate the critical factors of BDA adoption. Furthermore, in order to examine the determinants variation across different sectors, both construction and construction service firms were analysed using specific sub-sample data. Table 4 Sample Characteristics (N= 365) Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202071 Table 5 Standard deviation and mean of sub-samples and full samples MEASUREMENT MODEL This study utilized structural equation modelling method to empirically test the theoretical model. More specifically, Partial least square (PLS) was employed as a tool for measurement and structural analysis as it overcome the limitation of Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) analysis and several researchers in business, management and information systems field has recognized as an effective analytical method for measuring construct reliability and validity and model testing (Hair, et al., 2012). The reliability of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) (Table 6). The results suggested that scales were reliable (Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics, 2009). The full sample measurement model of both sectors demonstrated convergent validity (loadings higher than 0.7) (Table 6). Moreover, the discriminant validity was measured using Fornell-Larcker criteria (Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics, 2009) and cross-loadings (Lowry and Gaskin, 2014). Both measures indicated that constructs fulfilled the requirements for the full sample along with the sector-specific samples (Table 7). Table 6 Reliability indicators for sub-samples and full samples Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202072 Table 7 Correlations and AVEs. STRUCTURAL MODEL Table 7 illustrates the correlation and average variance extracted (AVE). With the suggested VIF threshold value of 5 (Marcoulides and Chin, 2013); the outcome indicated no apprehensions of multicollinearity. The hypotheses were analysed by examining some standardised paths (Table 8 and Figure 2). The path significance level between dependent and independent variables were assessed by bootstrapping method (500 re-samples). For the full sample, an inspection of R2 as a descriptive measure showed that technology, organisation and environment factors explained 62.8% of the perceived strategic value of BDA. Furthermore, the hypothesis of the perceived strategic value of BDA as a predictor for BDA adoption is confirmed (p<0.01). The hypotheses for big data quality (H2) (p<0.01), complexity (H3) (p < 0.01), top management support (H6) (p<0.01), technology readiness (H5) (p<0.01), firm size (H7) (p<0.10) and competitive pressure (H8) (p<0.01) were also confirmed. Regulatory support (H9) and Compatibility (H3) were not statistically significant. Holistically speaking, the research model explained 42.8% of BDA adoption. The results suggest that the proposed model is significant in explanation of BDA adoption by AEC organisations. Analysis of sector-specific sub-samples demonstrated that technology, organisation and environment factors, are able to explain 57.4% and 64.6% of the perceived strategic value of BDA for the construction and construction services sectors, respectively. Interestingly, for both (construction and construction services sectors), the hypothesis (H1) of the perceived strategic value of BDA as a predictor of BDA adoption is confirmed (p<0.01). For construction firms’, hypotheses strategic value of BDA (H1) (p<0.01), big data quality (H2) (p<0.05), complexity (H3) (p < 0.05), firm size (H7) (p<0.01) and competitive pressure (H8) (p<0.01) are confirmed. While, compatibility (H3), technology readiness (H5), top management support (H6) and regulatory support (H9) are not statistically significant. The research mode explains 39.7% of BDA adoption among construction firms. For the construction service firms’ sub-sample, perceived strategic value of BDA (H1) (p<0.01), complexity (H3) (p<0.0.05), big data quality (H2) (p<0.01), top management support (H6) (p<0.01), technology readiness (H5) (p<0.01), and competitive pressure (H8) (p<0.01) are confirmed. Compatibility (H3), firm size (H7) and regulatory support (H9) are not statistically significant. The research model explains 46% of BDA adoption in construction service firms. Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202073 Table 8 Model results Figure 2 Model testing for Full sample Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202074 ALTERNATIVE MODEL The proposed research model integrates PSVAM with the TOE framework. The core logic of the proposed framework has been based on the recommendation of Martins, Oliveira and Popovič (2014) who encouraged integrating the TOE framework with other theories/models to increase its predictive power. However, it is essential to investigate the appropriateness of the proposed model with alternative models, to assess the extent to which each contextual factor predicts and explains the intention to adopt BDA. Table 9 summarises the comparison of alternative models. Table 9 Sub-samples and full samples explanatory power First, this study examined the TOE framework as a direct antecedent to the intention to adopt BDA (Table 9). Wang, et al. (2016) argued that these variables, when used as direct antecedents, could be weak predictors of adoption intention. Out of eight direct antecedents to BDA adoption intention, only three have been found to be significant, wherein even the path coefficients are low (6 of 8 are < 0.1). Moreover, the explanatory power for BDA adoption intention is only 36.4% for the full sample. Further, this study tested a model where perceived strategic value of BDA along with TOE actors are incorporated as BDA adoption intention’s direct antecedents (Table 9). In aggregate, nine direct factors marginally increase the explanatory power for BDA adoption intention from 36.4% to 37.8%. As compared to the proposed research model, the alternative model provides less explanatory power. Additionally, it limits the understanding of the role of technology, organisation and environment variables in shaping perceived strategic value of BDA, and its adoption intention. Consistent with the underlying theory, this study shows empirical evidence of integrating TOE framework with PSVAM to increase its predictive power. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The outcomes of our analysis also indicated that the inhibitors and facilitators of BDA adoption intention were different in construction service firm’s vis a vis construction firms. For perceived strategic value of BDA, the results yielded a positive impact on BDA adoption. It is coherent with the preceding investigation of Sutanonpaiboon and Pearson (2006). Perceived strategic value of BDA is similarly important for firms, both in construction service and construction firms. Grandon and Pearson (2004) in similar lines, found a strategic value of BDA, which was significant among construction service firms. Out of the eight perceived strategic value variable of BDA, big data quality, top management support, technology readiness, competitive pressure and firm size are confirmed as being the significant drivers to describe the perceived strategic value of BDA. Ahmed, et al. (2017) found that data quality acts as a hindrance to BDA adoption in the construction industry. It is indeed a challenge to structure data, while attaining both uniformity & consistency. This observation inferred from Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202075 the results concurs with previous studies that have found big data quality (Verma, 2018), technology readiness (Dubey, et al., 2017), top management support (Martins, Oliveira and Popovič, 2014), firm size (Sun, et al., 2018) and competitive pressure (Alshamaila, Papagiannidis and Li, 2013). Complexity was found to be an important inhibitor to explicate the perceived strategic value of BDA. This result concurred with the work of Low, Chen and Wu (2011) and Wang, et al. (2016). Interestingly, Ismail, Bandi and Maaz, (2018) in the construction context, argued that layered and complex data sources negatively impact data utilisation, which the industry needs to fathom in order establish newer frontlines for the construction sector. Project focused, active, uneven characteristic of the sector results into difficulty in data integration and analytics during the course of a project amongst varied stakeholders (Cerovsek, 2011). As there are counter arguments to this proposition (Low, Chen and Wu, 2011), a more definite conclusion does require additional research. In contrary, compatibility was not found to be significant for BDA perceived strategic value in construction firms as well as construction service firms. Integration of BDA does not seem to be an issue for firms, which are aware of the strategic benefits of BDA. The compatibility across sectors was found non-significant. It may be due to the characteristic of applications. For example, the distinct domination of flexible internal software architectures that can improve the integration and synchronisation of BDA (Zhang, et al., 2017). Nassar (2007) stated that lack of standardisation within the construction industry, does negatively impact the collection and storage of data, hindering the compatibility aspect thereby. This study found empirical evidence that technology readiness is significant in describing the strategic value of BDA. In line with this, Ismail, Bandi and Maaz, (2018) proposed that one of the primary challenges that the construction companies face while adopting big data, is their readiness. Ahmed, et al., (2017) in their seminal work assessed the readiness of AEC firms for adopting big data; their findings revealed that only 33% of participants were supposedly ready for adopting BDA, whereas 67% responded that the industry at large was still not ready. Firms with a stable workforce, technical competence and necessary skills are the perfect fit for BDA adoption and integration (Ramdani, Kawalek and Lorenzo, 2009). However, the outcomes of this investigation indicate that technology readiness is not necessarily significant in construction firms. Plausible explanation could be, as compared to non-IT centric construction manufacturing businesses, BDA investment lead to substantial improvements in a firm’s productivity of IT centric businesses (Lee and Kim, 2006; Müller, Fay and vom Brocke, 2018). From the organisational context, top management support was found to be significant in explaining the perceived strategic value of BDA. Support from extant research reveals that top management can indeed be a stimulus to influence the perception of the strategic benefits of BDA, by demonstrating support in developing appropriate policies, engaging in the process and committing to other organisational and financial resources (Ramdani, Kawalek and Lorenzo, 2009). Construction firms could view BDA services as sustained risk and high costs (Dutta and Bose, 2015). Additionally, one needs to consider the operational challenges too, like inability to source the right talent to work on new technology that can interpret AEC, vis a vis the cost of the technology itself, which act as an inhibitor of BDA usage in AEC (Ahmed, et al., 2017). Firm size was found to be a facilitator for the strategic value of BDA in construction firms; but they were not found to be significant in construction service firms. Larger construction firms may explain BDA’s importance in the construction industry, as they can Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202076 bear the investment risks of innovation, and have more resources to support the cost incurred (Wang, Wang and Yang, 2010). On the other hand, for construction service firms, the non- significance of firm size may be supported by the IT-based operations and its work-style preference that predominate among organisations in such sector (Wang, Wang and Yang, 2010). The results indicated that, out of two variables in the environmental context (i.e., regulatory pressure and competitive pressure), only competitive pressure was found as a significant determinant of BDA adoption. For competitive pressure to be a predictor of BDA adoption, the finding of this study concurs with extant literature, suggesting thereby that it tends to push firms across industries to adopt BDA more quickly (Sun, et al., 2018). Labrinidis and Jagadish, (2012) argued that competitive pressure acts as an enabler to big data adoption in the construction industry. BDA aids construction companies to understand the reasons for decline in performance; it facilitates managing construction projects by identifying diverse characteristics of customers, markets, costs, partners, and operations (Huang, Lu and Chen, 2017; Edirisinghe, 2018). Regulatory support was found to be non-significant to perceived strategic value of BDA. However, the insignificant relation between regulatory support and perceived strategic value of BDA does not necessarily indicate that organisations disregard prevailing regulations and standards (Sun, et al., 2018). The possible reason could be that existing policies have not been intently embraced in order to protect and encourage the use of BDA, so that it subsequently encourages organisation level decision–makers to make and stick to their decisions (Zhu, et al., 2004). MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS For effective adoption of BDA solutions, business managers are required to have realistic expectations of the quality of big data along with its integration challenges. Managers steering BDA adoption projects are required to organise a team of experts, whose skillsets encompass the traditional analytics platforms and environment. In terms of the organisational context, it is important to note that top management support is a necessary support and a facilitator of the perceived strategic value of BDA. Firm size is also a facilitator of the perceived strategic value of BDA, but only to construction firms. Larger firms are inclined to invest more enthusiastically in BDA-based solutions, and therefore are more aware of both the benefits and risks associated with the innovation. From environmental perspective, the study recommends that competitive pressure is a significant driver of perceived strategic value of BDA; however, regulatory support is not a significant driver of BDA’s strategic value. Thus, fluctuations in government regulations are not significant in adoption of BDA in both construction and construction services firms. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS This study has been restricted to India, which implies that the findings reflect the situation only within similar economies. Industry-specific models may be formulated in future research, rather than a comprehensive model, which could possibly look to combine the strategic value and characteristics of innovation. Moreover, this study extends opportunities for further investigation and alteration of the variables/constructs to explain further BDA adoption, and adoption intention in firms. Finally, for extended viability, the proposed research model can be applied to other economies in order to explore an exciting path forward. Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202077 REFERENCES Ahmed, V., Tezel, A., Aziz, Z. and Sibley, M., 2017. The future of big data in facilities management: opportunities and challenges, Facilities, 35(13/14), pp.725-45. 10.1108/F-06-2016-0064 Alam, S.S., Ali, M.Y. and Jani, M.F.M., 2011. An empirical study of factors affecting electronic commerce adoption among SMEs in Malaysia. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 12(2), pp.375-99. 10.3846/16111699.2011.576749. Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S. and Li, F., 2013. Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England: A multi-perspective framework. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26 (3), pp.250-75. 10.1108/17410391311325225. Brislin, R.W., 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 (3), pp.185-216. 10.1177/135910457000100301. Cerovsek, T., 2011. A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’(BIM): A multi-standpoint framework for technological development. Advanced engineering informatics, 25(2), pp.224-44. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003. Chaurasia, S.S. and Frieda R.A., 2017. From big data to big impact: Analytics for teaching and learning in higher education. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(7-8), pp.321-28. 10.1108/ICT-10-2016- 0069. Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S. and Swink, M., 2015. How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(4), pp.4-39. 10.1080/07421222.2015.1138364. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Samar Ali, S., 2015. Exploring the relationship between leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: A framework for green supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, pp.120-32. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.001 Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Luo, Z., Wamba, S. F. and Roubaud, D., 2017. Can big data and predictive analytics improve social and environmental sustainability? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144 (7), pp.534-45. 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.020. Dutta, D. and Bose, I., 2015. Managing a big data project: The case of ramco cements limited. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, pp.293-306. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.032. Edirisinghe, R., 2018. Digital skin of the construction site: Smart sensor technologies towards the future smart construction site. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(2), pp.184-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0066. Gandomi, A. and Haider, M., 2015. Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), pp.137-44. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007. Gangwar, H., Date, H. and Ramaswamy, R., 2015. Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1), pp.107-30. 10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065. Grandon, E.E. and Pearson, J.M., 2004. Electronic commerce adoption: An empirical study of small and medium US businesses. Information and Management, 42(1), pp.197-216. 10.1016/j.im.2003.12.010. Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S., 2017. Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 70, pp.308-17. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004. Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202078 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-06-2016-0064 http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.576749 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410391311325225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ICT-10-2016-0069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ICT-10-2016-0069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1138364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.032 https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004 Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. and Ringle, C., 2012. The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Past Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications. Long Range Planning, 45, pp.320-40. 10.1016/j. lrp.2012.09.008. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, pp.277-319. 10.1108/S1474- 7979(2009)0000020014 . Huang, Q., Lu, C. and Chen, K., 2017. Smart building applications and information system hardware co- design. In: Hui-Huang Hsu, Chuan-Yu Chang and Ching-Hsien Hsu, eds. Big data analytics for sensor- network collected intelligence.  Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press Publishing. pp.225-40. 10.1016/ B978-0-12-809393-1.00011-8. Ismail, S.A., Bandi, S., and Maaz, Z.N., 2018. An Appraisal into the Potential Application of Big Data in the Construction Industry. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 5(2), pp.145- 54. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v5.n2.274. Kim, S.H., Jang, S.Y. and Yang, K.H., 2017. Analysis of the determinants of software-as-a-service adoption in small businesses: Risks, benefits, and organizational and environmental factors. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(2), pp.303-25. 10.1111/jsbm.12304. Kwon, O., Lee, N. and Shin, B., 2014. Data quality management, data usage experience and acquisition intention of big data analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), pp.387-94. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.02.002. Labrinidis, A. and Jagadish, H.V., 2012. Challenges and opportunities with big data. In: Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 5(12), pp.2032-33.  https://doi.org/10.14778/2367502.2367572. Lee, S. and Kim, S.H., 2006. A Lag Effect of IT Investment on Firm Performance. Information Resources Management Journal, 19(1), pp.43-69. 10.4018/irmj.2006010103. Low, C., Chen, Y. and Wu, M., 2011. Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111(7), pp.1006-23. doi:10.1108/02635571111161262. Lowry, P.B. and Gaskin, J., 2014. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), pp.123-46. 10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452. Marcoulides, G.A. and Chin, W.W., 2013. You write, but others read: Common methodological misunderstandings in PLS and related methods. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, 56, pp.31-64. 10.1007/978-1-4614-8283-3_2. Martins, C., Oliveira, T. and Popovič, A., 2014. Understanding the internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), pp.1-13. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.002. Math, R., 2018. Big data analytics: Recent and emerging application in services industry.  In: Aggarwal V., Bhatnagar V., Mishra D., eds. Big Data Analytics. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Singapore: Springer, pp.211-219. 10.1007/978-981-10-6620-7_21. McKinsey Global Institute, 2010. India’s urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth. [online] Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-awakening- in-india. Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809393-1.00011-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809393-1.00011-8 https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v5.n2.274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.02.002 https://doi.org/10.14778/2367502.2367572 http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2006010103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635571111161262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8283-3_2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6620-7_21 http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-awakening-in-india http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-awakening-in-india Müller, O., Fay, M. and vom Brocke, J., 2018. The Effect of Big Data and Analytics on Firm Performance: An Econometric Analysis Considering Industry Characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(2), pp.488-509. 10.1080/07421222.2018.1451955. Nassar, K., 2007. Application of data-mining to state transportation agencies projects databases. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 12(8), pp.139-49. Raguseo, E., 2018. Big data technologies: An empirical investigation on their adoption, benefits and risks for companies. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), pp.187-95. 10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2017.07.008. Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P. and Lorenzo, O., 2009. Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22, pp.10-24. 10.1108/17410390910922796. Saffu, K., Walker, J.H. and Mazurek, M., 2012. Perceived strategic value and e-commerce adoption among SMEs in slovakia. Journal of Internet Commerce, 11(1), pp.1-23. 10.1080/15332861.2012.650986. Shin, D., 2016. Demystifying big data: Anatomy of big data developmental process. Telecommunications Policy, 40(9), pp.837-54. 10.1016/j.telpol.2015.03.007. Sun, S., Cegielski, C.G., Jia, L. and Hall, D.J., 2018. Understanding the factors affecting the organizational adoption of big data. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(3), pp.93-203. 10.1080/08874417.2016.1222891. Sutanonpaiboon, J. and Pearson, A.M., 2006. E-commerce adoption: Perceptions of managers/owners of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. Journal of Internet Commerce, 5(3), pp.53-82. 10.1300/J179v05n03_03. Sarnovsky, M., Bednar, P. and Smatana, M., 2018. Big Data Processing and Analytics Platform Architecture for Process Industry Factories. Big Data and Cognitive Computing. 2(1), pp.2-15. 10.3390/ bdcc2010003. Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M., 1990. The processes of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Urbany, J.E., Bearden, W.O., Kaicker, A. and Borrero, M.S., 1997. Transaction utility effects when quality is uncertain. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), pp.45-55. 10.1007/BF02894508. Van den Broek, T. and van Veenstra, A.F., 2018. Governance of big data collaborations: How to balance regulatory compliance and disruptive innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, pp.330-38. 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.040. Verma, S., 2018. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of the Big Data Research in the IS Discipline: A Citation/Co-Citation Analysis. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 31(1), pp.21-52. 10.4018/IRMJ.2018010102. Verma, S. and Bhattacharyya, S.S., 2017. Perceived strategic value-based adoption of Big Data Analytics in emerging economy: A qualitative approach for Indian firms. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(3), pp.354-82.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-10-2015-0099. Verma, S. and Chaurasia, S., 2019. Understanding the Determinants of Big Data Analytics Adoption. Information Resources Management Journal, 32(3), pp.1-26. 10.4018/IRMJ.2019070101. Wamba, F.S., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G. and Gnanzou, D., 2015. How ‘big data’ can make big impact: Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, pp.234-46. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031. Chaurasia and Verma Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202080 https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1451955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410390910922796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2012.650986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.03.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1222891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J179v05n03_03 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bdcc2010003 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bdcc2010003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02894508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.040 http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2018010102 https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-10-2015-0099 http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2019070101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031 Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T. and Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 176, pp.98-110. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.014. Wang, H., Xu, Z., Fujita, H. and Liu, S., 2016. Towards felicitous decision making: An overview on challenges and trends of big data. Information Sciences, 367-368, pp.747-65. 10.1016/j.ins.2016.07.007. Wang, Y., Wang, Y. and Yang, Y., 2010. Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(5), pp.803-15. 10.1016/j. techfore.2010.03.006. Wang, Y., Kung, L. and Byrd, T.A., 2018. Big data analytics: Understanding its capabilities and potential benefits for healthcare organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, pp.3-13. 10.1016/j. techfore.2015.12.019. Wang, Y., Kung, L., Wang, W.Y.C. and Cegielski, C.G., 2018. An integrated big data analytics-enabled transformation model: Application to health care. Information and Management, 55(1), pp.64-79. 10.1016/j.im.2017.04.001. White, M., 2012. Digital workplaces: Vision and reality. Business Information Review, 29(4), pp.205-14. 10.1177/0266382112470412. Whyte, J., Stasis, A. and Lindkvist, C., 2016. Managing change in the delivery of complex projects: Configuration management, asset information and ‘big data’. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), pp.339-51. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006. Wu, J., Li, H., Liu, L. and Zheng, H., 2017. Adoption of big data and analytics in mobile healthcare market: An economic perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 22, pp.24-41. 10.1016/j. elerap.2017.02.002. Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y. and Wang, Y., 2015. Understanding SaaS adoption from the perspective of organizational users: A tripod readiness model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, pp.254-64. 10.1016/j. chb.2014.12.022. Zhang, Y., Ren, S., Liu, Y., Sakao, T. and Huisingh, D., 2017. A framework for big data driven product lifecycle management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 159, pp.229-40. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.172. Zhu, K., Kraemer, K.L., Xu, S. and Dedrick, J., 2004. Information technology payoff in E-business environments: An international perspective on value creation of E-business in the financial services industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), pp.17-54. 10.1080/07421222.2004.11045797. Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector: a multi-perspective framework Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 202081 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.07.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.04.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266382112470412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.02.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.02.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2004.11045797