From Awareness to Transformation: The Future Trajectory of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Nigerian Construction Industry

From Awareness to Transformation: The Future Trajectory of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Nigerian Construction Industry | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Awareness to Transformation: The Future Trajectory of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Nigerian Construction Industry Bello Mahmud Zailani, Haruna Musa Moda, Yahaya Makarfi Ibrahim, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7781086/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract As the construction industry moves toward optimizing processes, adopting BIM requires changes to current operational workflows. While previous research mainly focused on industry awareness and the technical aspects of BIM adoption, it is argued that BIM represents not just technological change but also shifts in management processes. Therefore, this study adopts a socio-technical perspective on digitizing business processes and the adoption of BIM in AEC organizations. A systematic research approach was used, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods. Descriptive and inferential statistical tools, such as ANOVA and one-sample T-tests, were used to analyze the quantitative data. Additionally, the PRISMA methodology for Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was employed to identify changes in organizational processes from construction environments worldwide, which were then compared with those observed in Nigeria. Content analysis was performed to synthesize common themes and generate insights from the reviewed studies. The findings show persistent low levels of BIM adoption in Nigeria, with most AEC organizations only reaching Level 1 BIM maturity. It was also observed that BIM adoption leads to significant organizational changes, although the extent and nature of these changes differ across various aspects of organizational functioning. The ANOVA results suggest that reaching higher BIM maturity levels in Nigeria will ultimately improve design accuracy, enhance understanding of project interfaces, and increase responsiveness to inquiries and requests, thereby leading to smoother workflows and better project outcomes. Originality Building Information Modelling Organisational Practices AEC Organisations Nigeria BIM adoption Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1.0 Background At the dawn of the 20th century, the rise of research and technology began to challenge how construction professionals managed project-related information, leading to a shift in practices that significantly altered traditional construction methods (Hossain et al., 2019). In the context of Building Information Modeling (BIM), the literature consistently highlights its benefits for improving project outcomes (Ayman et al., 2020 ; Jin et al., 2019 ; Lu et al., 2020 ; Shafiq et al., 2021). However, adopting BIM in Architectural, Construction, and Engineering (AEC) firms has been associated with challenges and change dynamics that influence organizational work practices. Olatunji ( 2011 ) reported that firms have experienced significant changes to their business models, project delivery methods, and organizational structures. Furthermore, Olatunji ( 2011 ) emphasized the importance for firms in the construction industry to understand the nature of BIM-induced changes and to develop effective strategies to manage them. Additionally, Shehzad et al. ( 2022 ), through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), identified and categorized various factors affecting the BIM adoption process, noting that these factors vary based on regional differences and BIM maturity levels. Ultimately, Crotty ( 2013 ) argued that to realize the full potential of BIM in the construction industry, stakeholders must recognize and properly prepare the foundation to overcome several challenges that can emerge during the delivery process within social-cultural and technological domains. For example, Abbasnejad et al. ( 2020 ) confirm that construction organizations need staff with specific relevant skills and competencies to meet the demands of BIM implementation. This indicates that some adjustments should be made to the recruitment policies of construction-related organizations. Additionally, stakeholders may need to go through a brief adjustment period in their management processes and project teamwork practices, depending on the dynamics of BIM implementation. El Hajj et al. ( 2023 ) evaluated the barriers to BIM adoption in Middle Eastern and North African developing countries, acknowledging the increasing overlap between design and construction roles resulting from integrated project delivery practices utilizing BIM. In the context of Nigeria’s construction industry, Zailani et al. ( 2021 ) reported changes in organizational practices resulting from BIM adoption in AEC organizations, including shifts in employee roles, work schedules, and the establishment of IT departments. In this regard, it is clear that the development and adoption of BIM within organizations act as a change factor that drives significant shifts in organizational processes and practices, alongside external environmental influences. As the level of BIM adoption in Nigeria has been reported to be relatively low compared to other countries (Hamma-Adama, 2020 ), this study aimed to achieve two objectives. First, the study complements the findings of the quantitative study by Zailani et al. ( 2021 ) on changes in organisational practices due to BIM adoption by broadening its scope and improving its methodological approach. Noting the limitations in the research design adopted and the scope of the study by Zailani et al. ( 2021 ), the current study adopts a more robust methodology. It expands the scope of the study to support the broad viability of the findings. The second objective focused on contextualising the findings of the quantitative study within a broader spectrum of BIM adoption through a comparative analysis of various organisational changes reported due to BIM adoption at varying maturity levels in diverse construction environments across the globe. This is important, as Liao and Teo (2018) emphasized the need to articulate changes in organizational processes towards successful BIM adoption in organizations, while Shehzad et al. ( 2022 ) noted that the variability of these changes could differ based on external factors in the built environment. Building on this, the principal point of argument for this study is that understanding the changes in organisational practices in the early stages of BIM adoption could allow for adequate alignment for practical integration into traditional work processes. The novelty of this research lies in its systematic approach, which combines both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand how BIM adoption influences organizational practices in AEC organizations. By synthesizing insights from studies across different continents, the research makes a unique contribution to the existing knowledge on BIM adoption, highlighting the dynamics of change at various levels of BIM maturity. While most of the literature primarily focuses on technical issues related to BIM, this study adopts a socio-technical perspective to demonstrate how the adoption of BIM drives the digitalization of work processes in AEC organizations. 2.0 Literature Review 2.1 Building Information Modelling (BIM) According to Yan and Damian ( 2008 ), the development and management of construction designs and related information prior to the new century have been primarily limited to the use of traditional tools, such as paper, ink, and a simple abacus. This has significantly impacted the performance of projects, as professionals are limited to information within their respective professional boundaries. Relatedly, Hwang et al. ( 2021 ) argued that the fragmented nature of the construction industry has significantly hindered effective information management and communication, resulting in inefficiency and reduced productivity. Nonetheless, the process of design in the global construction industry underwent a significant change over the century, evolving from the use of 2D paper-based drawings to 2D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and 3D digital models on computer screens, setting the stage for modeling building-related information (Begić & Galić, 2021 ). The digitalization of the built environment, driven by various technological developments, has become a recent global trend. Studies have reported the significant role that Information Technology (IT) plays in the effective management of building-related information in construction (Saad et al., 2023 ), enabling integration and collaboration among highly disintegrated professionals through object-based building information modeling (Marcellino et al., 2023 ). Over the years, there have been varying definitions of BIM, primarily based on level of understanding and professional standpoint. East and Smith ( 2016 ) defined the basic premise of BIM as the systematic relationship and collaboration among project participants at varying phases of the project life cycle, which enables the efficient interaction of project information within the BIM platform across all project participants. Bryde et al. ( 2013 ) view BIM as a construction approach that supports the instant provision of reliable and integrated project design scope, schedule, and cost information. According to Howell and Batchelor (2015), BIM serves as a consistently logical unilateral source of building information. This differs significantly from traditional CAD systems, which use 2-dimensional CAD objects, as BIM objects are models of actual building components that are comprehensible to computer programs (Colombo et al., 2007 ). Overall, it can be asserted that BIM presents an automated approach to managing projects, aiming to transform the global construction industry, which goes beyond being merely a new technology, as often asserted. Overall, BIM is an IT-enabled approach that involves creating and maintaining unified building data within a centralized repository throughout every phase of a project's lifecycle. This method supports design visualization, iterative design processes, automated reliability analysis of models, report generation, and building performance forecasts (Eastman et al., 2011 ). Many freely available or open-source BIM tools have been developed through numerous research projects, demonstrating their potential for a wide range of applications in the construction industry. As identified by Rodrigues et al. ( 2022 ), the key areas for BIM adoption include facility management, maintenance, energy analysis, sustainability, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), scheduling, budgeting, quality control, and occupational risk prevention, enabling dynamic and virtual analysis. By integrating various facility life cycle data into a 3D digital model, it becomes possible to create multi-dimensional (nD) models. For example, adding scheduling information allows for the creation of a 4D model for construction sequencing, while including cost data results in a 5D model. Further upgrades lead to 6D, 7D, and 8D models by incorporating facility management, sustainability, and health and safety data into the 3D model. 2.1.1 BIM Maturity and Adoption Levels BIM maturity is often defined as the extent to which organizations have integrated BIM tools and techniques into their work processes to achieve optimal collaboration and efficiency (Succar & Kassem, 2015 ). BIM maturity levels are typically categorized into four levels (Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3). However, recent scholarly discussions have debated the inclusion of a fifth maturity level that focuses on enhancing social outcomes and well-being in infrastructure development. Each higher level builds upon the developments and improvements of the previous level. Table I summarizes this categorization. It has been observed that adopting new working models and technologies, such as BIM, through change management processes is primarily linked to organizational change dynamics (Alankarage et al., 2023 ; Alankarage et al., 2023 a). As organizations evolve, they continually adapt their work practices in response to various change agents (Waddell et al., 2019 ). Therefore, organizations must remain flexible to adapt to the shifting dynamics in their external environments (Waddell et al., 2019 ). Table I: BIM Maturity Levels BIM Maturity Level BIM Related Activities Level 0 Two-dimensional computer-aided design (CAD), using basic design tools. Level 1 Standalone object-based modeling of designs using CAD in 2D and 3D formats without collaboration or integration. Level 2 Model-based parametric designs that enable collaboration in a controlled three-dimensional virtual environment. Level 3 Advanced level integration and collaboration using a connected network channel enabled by web services. Level 4 Reflects the nD, which encompasses issues of sustainability in design and construction, towards ensuring the derivation of social benefits and general well-being. Adapted from (Zieliński & Wójtowicz, 2019) Indeed, culture plays a central role in managing organizational evolution through various levels of BIM maturity, as changes in business operations or circumstances often lead to the development of new behavior patterns that become intertwined with existing beliefs and assumptions. Hofstede ( 1998 ) viewed culture as a socially transmitted pattern of behavior within an organization that gives it a unique identity. Therefore, organizational culture can be seen as related to the distinct way that businesses operate, which largely influences their overall success or failure. However, Schein ( 1985 ) argued that culture is the most difficult organizational element to change and that understanding its transformation is very challenging. Similarly, Mintzberg ( 1980 ) contended that organizations typically adopt a stable clustering of their elements as they pursue continuous synergy in internal processes. However, Willcoxson and Millett ( 2000 ) argued that cultures are history-based and tend to evolve as organizations develop behavioral patterns that enable effective operation in dynamic business environments. To do this, organizations must effectively manage change processes to maximize output. Additionally, as numerous internal and external factors shape the modern workplace (Boyle et al., 2007 ; Gold & Shuman, 2009 ), organizations inevitably must adopt structural changes as they adapt to evolving practices, progressing through the different phases of BIM maturity (Truant & Broccardo, 2020 ). The Literature is unanimous that the adoption of BIM has a significant influence on the productivity and efficiency of construction organisations worldwide (Eastman et al., 2011 ). Succar and Kassem ( 2015 ) asserted that the insistent inefficiencies often encountered in managing construction projects are deemed to be solved by BIM. In this regard, there has been a surge in the adoption of BIM across global industries at varying maturity levels. This is a manifestation of the several efforts by construction stakeholders to establish strategies for BIM implementation in their construction projects. For instance, the US has been observed to be a leader in the adoption of BIM, with government-instituted initiatives aimed at promoting broad adoption (Yuan & Yang, 2019 ). Similarly, there have been accounts of high-level BIM adoption in developed countries around the globe, such as the UK (Arayici et al., 2011 ; Arayici & Aouad, 2010 ; Eadie et al., 2013 ), Australia (Aibinu & Venkatesh, 2013 ), Singapore, and Hong Kong (Hadzaman et al., 2015), among others. Nonetheless, Gu and London ( 2010 ) argued that BIM maturity varies significantly among different socio-economic dynamics of countries. Previous studies have asserted that the slow and low level of BIM adoption is prevalent among developing countries (Umar, 2022 ), with most countries being wedged at Level 0 and Level 1 (Olawumi & Chan, 2019 ). Nanajkar and Gao ( 2014 ) reported that apparent barriers, such as cost and interoperability, have limited the adoption of BIM in India. Similarly, Hosseini et al. ( 2015 ) reported that the Iranian construction industry is slow in adopting BIM, with low levels of maturity, compared to other countries in the Middle East. Additionally, despite technological advances and economic growth in China, Cao et al. ( 2017 ) noted that several factors and barriers still hinder adoption. A common finding in these studies is that BIM adoption requires a significant investment to accommodate both technological and organizational changes. Organisations in developing economies often deem the process as being non-profitable due to the sensitive nature of their business environments. Van Tam et al. (Van Tam et al., 2021 ) highlighted that “perceived usefulness and benefits of BIM to the organisation” are among the top-ranked factors considered in BIM adoption in Vietnam. Regardless, Gamil and Rahman ( 2019 ) argued that the benefits of BIM adoption far outweigh its disadvantages; thus, there is a need to develop strategies that enable overcoming its barriers. Furthermore, Onungwa and Uduma-Olugu ( 2017 ) reported that BIM adoption has the potential to improve collaboration, work efficiency, and communication in Nigeria, as seen at BIM maturity levels 2 and 3. However, Babatunde et al. ( 2019 ) noted that adoption is still lagging in the country, particularly at Levels 0 and 1 (Olawumi & Chan, 2019 ), mainly due to a lack of an enabling environment that provides adequate power infrastructure, as well as legislative and regulatory policies, among others. This, however, is not far-fetched from what is found in most developing economies, especially in Africa. Saka and Chan ( 2020 ) noted that the adoption and implementation of BIM among AEC organisations in African Countries, Such as Nigeria, Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa, is relatively low compared to their counterparts in other regions, despite having high levels of BIM awareness. However, such awareness of BIM is limited to understanding BIM as a tool (BIM maturity levels 0 & 1) as opposed to being a fully integrated and collaborative process (BIM maturity level 4). This can be inferred from the study by Ibem et al. ( 2018 ) on awareness and the level of BIM adoption among architectural firms in Lagos, Nigeria. Although the respondents in the study reported having a high level of BIM awareness, their reported level of BIM adoption is limited to the use of Computer software packages to develop 2D architectural drawings, 3D visualizations, architectural modeling, and scheduling. Relatedly, Hamma-Adama et al. ( 2018 ), through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the Nigerian construction industry, observed that there is a limited understanding of the concept of BIM in Nigeria, as most stakeholders are only aware of its tools, with only a few utilising such tools in their organisations for basic CAD designs or standalone object-based modelling. 2.2 BIM Adoption and Change in Organisational Practices The introduction of many information technology (IT) based solutions tailored to the construction industry has led to different organisations readjusting their work practices and core business strategies to enable them to accommodate the new systems of work. The literature on information systems highlights the different changes in work practices induced by implementing the systems in many organisations (Lissillour & Wang, 2021 ; Purnomo et al., 2021 ). These changes rely upon the compatibility of the innovative systems with the existing industry and legal structures operated by the organisations. For instance, when examining the planning and scheduling of construction projects, Styhre and Josephson ( 2006 ) noted that these activities were traditionally performed by a specialist, using manual methods that often require a significant amount of time and attention to detail. However, Tallgren et al. (2020) highlighted the improvements achieved in project planning and scheduling using IT-based solutions. On this premise, Parker and Grote ( 2022 ) argued that the adoption of technology within different facets of an organisation’s work processes and practices does present a significant impact on the redefinition of work practices. BIM adoption, as inferred from Saka and Chan ( 2020 ), refers to an organisation's decision to adopt or reject the integration of BIM innovation into its traditional practices, depending on its inherent capability and adaptability. Building on the definition of “organisational routine” (Appiah & Sarpong, 2015 ), such organisational practices could be defined as structured routine activities carried out by organisations that enable them to achieve their objectives and remain competitive. According to Babatunde et al. ( 2020 ), the decision to integrate BIM into organisational practices is often driven by a variety of internal and external factors. Despite the apparent potential of BIM, the effective adoption of BIM in AEC organisations has been hindered by challenges related to the displacement of well-established traditional working processes (Hong et al., 2019 ; Succar & Kassem, 2015 ). In addition, researchers have also explored alternative theoretical perspectives that not only examine the factors influencing the adoption of BIM but also analyse its subsequent effects. Arayici et al. ( 2011 ) emphasised the importance of adopting a socio-technical perspective towards BIM implementation, recognising its significance in terms of both technological aspects and the involvement of people and processes. Similarly, Gurevich and Sacks ( 2020 ), adopting a triangular research approach, developed a BIM adoption impact map that underscores the social consequences and outcomes associated with BIM implementation. Sackey et al. ( 2014 ) contended that understanding technological implementation and its impacts necessitates consideration of the specific organisational context. Overall, Sebastian (2011) affirms that achieving meaningful collaboration across professional boundaries through BIM adoption requires certain transformations in organisational and general industry practices. These include changing the roles of many project stakeholders, new contractual arrangements, varying collaborative processes, and a change in the mindset of project stakeholders from both the demand and supply sides of the construction business process. According to Burt and Purver ( 2014 ), BIM adoption also brings about changes to procurement, contract management, team organization, and technological infrastructure, amongst others. Xu et al. ( 2014 ) also asserted that BIM adoption in organisations helps to introduce new thinking for construction industry professionals. Overall, the efficient integration of BIM in AEC organisations has been observed to prompt the need to change almost all aspects of the business process, which requires a thorough understanding prior to the implementation and transformation (Eastman et al., 2011 ). It is argued that the adoption of BIM does not only mean technological change but also changes in management processes (Gu & London, 2010 ; Luo et al., 2016). It is therefore important that careful attention is paid to the nature and impacts of these changes that innovations make to organisational practices by stakeholders in the implementation process. 3.0 Research Methodology 3.1 Research Approach To achieve the study's aim, a systematic research approach was adopted, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide deeper insights into the changes observed in organisational practices due to BIM adoption among AEC organisations. The first objective of the study, which aimed to improve the sample size used in the previous study (Zailani et al., 2021 ), was achieved through a quantitative approach, utilizing a combination of purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The second objective of the study, which focused on contextualizing the findings from the first objective within a broader spectrum of BIM adoption levels in other construction environments globally, was achieved using a qualitative approach. A systematic literature review was conducted, as done in previous similar studies (Umar, 2022 ; Xiao & Watson, 2019 ), which served as the basis for the comparative analysis between changes in organisational practices observed in Nigeria and those changes observed in other construction environments. The purposive sampling technique involved a pilot survey conducted online using Google Forms to identify AEC organisations that adopt BIM in their respective operations. The link to the survey was shared among construction professionals working in diverse AEC firms across the country through social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The snowballing sampling technique was further adopted to augment the purposive sampling technique by leveraging existing connections and networks within the target population. As noted by Parker et al. ( 2019 ), this is an effective strategy to broaden the reach of a quantitative survey, building a sampling momentum from the initial sample to capture an increasing chain of participants. 3.2 Data Collection Due to the lack of a standardized database providing data on the number of BIM-enabled AEC firms in Nigeria, the n-omega method for determining the minimum sample size for a non-finite population (Louangrath, 2014 ) was used to derive the sample size for the quantitative study. The population included BIM-enabled AEC organisations in three major cities in the country, namely Lagos, Kaduna, and Abuja, with the latter being the country’s capital city. The choice of these cities was primarily driven by their recognition of high socio-economic status, which is attributed mainly to cutting-edge infrastructural developments. Obia ( 2016 ) conducted a case study analysis focusing on the emerging Nigerian megacities, underscoring the significant construction activities taking place in these cities and emphasizing their pivotal role in shaping Nigeria's overall development landscape. A structured questionnaire was used to elicit relevant data from a designated senior executive from each of the sampled organisations, as done in previous studies (Akintola et al., 2019 ). It is posited that these individuals are in a position to have reliable knowledge of changes in organisational practices resulting from BIM adoption in their respective organisations. The questionnaire inquired about the demographic nature of the respondents and the background of their respective organisations regarding BIM in the first section. The subsequent section inquired about the magnitude of change to organisational practices resulting from the adoption of BIM tools and techniques. In contrast, the last section examined the impact of BIM adoption on the performance of work processes. The measurement items for organisational changes were derived from the work of Alankarage et al. (2021), which were further structured to fit the context of this study. Cronbach’s test for reliability was conducted to establish the statistical reliability of the measurement instrument (Cronbach, 1951 ). The measurement items were further validated by a team of experts from both the industry and academia. For the literature review, the PRISMA approach to systematic reviews (Moher et al., 2009 ) was adopted. The keywords “BIM Adoption” and “BIM Organisational Change” were used in the Scopus search engine, with the “Journal publication only” search filter to narrow down the search. Other similar sources, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online (AJOL), were also used to identify additional articles. The time frame for the search was set between 1990 and 2022. This was done in due consideration of the evolution of BIM as a research construct within the built environment literature. Evidence shows that BIM emerged early in the late 1980s (Wierzbicki et al., 2011 ), breaking away from conventional 3D CAD, which lacked parametric features. Thereafter, the sourced articles were screened by the authors to ascertain their relevance for the current study, using the title and abstract. Specifically, the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria used in the selection of articles are presented in Table II. Table II: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria SN Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria 1 Articles published between 1990 and 2022 Articles published before 1990 and after 2022 2 Peer-reviewed articles from Scopus-indexed journals Articles published in non-Scopus-indexed journals and conference proceedings. 3 Articles focused on changes in organisational practices due to BIM adoption. Articles not specifically on changes in organisational practices due to BIM adoption. 3.3 Data Analysis For the quantitative aspect of the study, descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the demographic data of the respondents, providing insights into their characteristics. Additionally, to assess the magnitude of changes observed in organisational practices, inferential statistical methods, including the Arithmetic mean and the one-sample T-Test, were utilized, with a significance threshold set at a t-value of 3 and a confidence level of 95%. Additionally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the significant variance between the performance levels of organisations, categorizing them based on their respective levels of BIM maturity. Additionally, the content analysis technique was applied to gain deeper insights into the qualitative aspects of the research. This method involved systematically examining and interpreting textual data to identify common themes and derive insights from studies conducted in other construction environments relevant to the context of the current study. Through this approach, patterns, trends, and key findings were synthesized, enriching the understanding of the research topic and providing valuable contextual insights. 4.0 Results and Discussion 4.1 Quantitative Study A total of 57 organizations were purposively sampled for the study, which were predominantly located across three major cities in the country, namely Lagos, Kaduna, and Abuja. The sample size satisfied the conditions of the n-omega minimum sample size calculation with a 95% confidence level, resulting in a minimum required sample size of n = 34 for the study. Also, the snowballing sampling technique yielded 11 more BIM-enabled AEC organisations, bringing the total sample size to 68 AEC organisations. The results of the Cronbach’s test for reliability, conducted on the research instrument, showed a positive alpha value (α = 0.741), which established the statistical reliability of the measurement instrument. Table III presents the demographic nature of the organisations and their respective levels of BIM maturity. Based on the individual responses, 71% of the organisations were private, while 29% were public. A larger percentage of organisations (52.9%) have 0–5 years of BIM experience, while 35.3% have had BIM experience ranging from 6 to 10 years. Whereas, experience between the ranges of 11–15 years and above 15 years represents only 5.9% and 5.9%, respectively. With regards to the size of the organisations, the majority (35.3%) had a resource pool of 5–19 employees, while organisations having 20–199 employees and over 200 represented (20%) of the responses respectively. Only 5.9% of the organisations have a resource pool of 1–4 employees. Relatedly, examining the expertise of employees regarding BIM within respective organisations, the majority of organisations (58.8%) reported that only about 25% of their employees possess relevant expertise in the utilization of BIM tools and techniques. The second majority (29.4%) were organisations with 26–50% of their employees having BIM expertise, while organisations with expertise ranging from 51–75% and 76–100% represent (5.9%) and (4%) respectively. Table III: Background of Organisations Type of Organisation Frequency Percent (%) Public 20 29.4 Private 48 70.6 Total 68 100 Organisation BIM Experience Frequency Percent (%) 0–5 years 36 52.9 6–10 years 24 35.3 11–15 years 4 5.9 Above 15 years 4 5.9 Total 68 100 Size of Organisation Frequency Percent (%) 1–4 Employees 4 5.9 5–19 employees 24 35.3 20–199 employees 20 29.4 More than 200 employees 20 29.4 Total 68 100 Employees in an Organisation with BIM Expertise Frequency Percent (%) 0–25% 40 58.8 26–50% 20 29.4 51–75% 4 5.9 76–100% 4 5.9 Total 68 100 Table IV presents the results of the magnitude of changes in organisational practices resulting from BIM adoption. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure respondents’ level of agreement with the provided measurement items. Respondents were allowed to rate their level of agreement on a scale of 1–5, where “1 = totally disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = very much agree, 5 = totally agree”. In this regard, “Organisation became more open to knowledge sharing and collaboration” and also “organisation became more receptive to innovation and change” were ranked first and second among the various changes that occurred in respective organisations, with mean scores of 3.65 and 3.47, respectively. Subsequently, the “change in method of communication” had a mean score of 3.41, “management commitment to digitize all work processes” had a mean score of 3.29, and “management commitment to provide training and workshops on BIM” had a mean score of 3.24, ranked third, fourth, and fifth, respectively. Whereas “changes in organisational structure” had a mean score of 3.18, while “having less routine work program” had a mean of 3.06. The least reported changes in organisational dynamics were “Having flexible work schedules for employees” with a mean score of 2.94, “Spending fewer hours in the office for employees'' with a mean of 2.88, and lastly an increase in labour turnover with a mean score of 2.12. Table IV: Changes in Organisational Practices Organisational Practices Mean Standard Deviation T statistics Mean Difference Sig. (2-tailed) 1 The organisation became more open to knowledge sharing and collaboration 3.65 0.48 11.08 0.65 0.00* 2 The organisation became more receptive to innovation and change. 3.47 0.78 4.96 0.47 0.00* 3 There was a change in the method of communication 3.41 0.85 3.99 0.41 0.00* 4 Management was committed to digitalising all work processes 3.29 0.83 2.92 0.29 0.01* 5 Management was committed to providing training and workshops on BIM 3.24 0.65 2.99 0.24 0.00* 6 The IT infrastructure was upgraded to accommodate digitalisation. 3.24 0.81 2.39 0.24 0.02* 7 There were changes in the organisational structure 3.18 0.93 1.57 0.18 0.12 8 The organisation adopted a less routine work program 3.06 0.94 0.51 0.06 0.61 9 Management provided flexible work schedules for employees 2.94 1.01 -0.48 -0.06 0.63 10 Employees spent fewer hours in the office. 2.88 1.03 -0.94 -0.12 0.35 11 There was an increase in Labour turnover 2.12 0.76 -9.53 -0.88 0.00* *P < 0.05, 95% confidence level, t value = 3.00 The results of the one-sample t-test provide further insights into the statistical significance of changes reported within organizations, relative to a specified t-value of 3. The analysis revealed that the mean scores for all reported changes were significantly different from the t-value (p < 0.05), indicating that these changes were statistically significant. However, there were two exceptions: "changes in organizational structure" and "having less routine work program" exhibited mean scores that were not statistically different from the t-value (p = 0.12 and p = 0.61, respectively). This suggests that while changes in organizational structure and routine work programs were reported, they did not reach statistical significance relative to the specified t-value. Additionally, although the mean scores for "having a flexible work schedule" and "spending fewer hours in the office by employees" were both below the t-value, their respective mean scores were not statistically different from the t-value (p = 0.63 and p = 0.35, respectively). This implies that while organizations reported these changes, they did not reach statistical significance when compared to the specified t-value. In contrast, the mean score for "increase in turnover" was found to be statistically different from the t-value, indicating that this change was statistically significant and differed significantly from the specified t-value. Overall, these results suggest that while BIM adoption leads to significant changes within organisations, the extent and nature of these changes can vary across different aspects of organisational functioning. For instance, the lack of statistical significance for "changes in organizational structure" and "having less routine work program" may indicate that these aspects were not significantly influenced by BIM adoption or that the changes reported were not substantial enough to reach statistical significance. This could suggest that factors beyond BIM implementation may influence organizational restructuring and adjustments to work programs. Similarly, the results regarding "having a flexible work schedule" and "spending fewer hours in the office by employees" highlight interesting findings. Despite having mean scores below the specified t-value, these changes were not statistically significant compared to the t-value. This suggests that while organisations may have observed these changes, they did not significantly deviate from the expected norm represented by the t-value. This could imply that the observed changes in work schedules and office hours may be influenced by factors other than BIM adoption, such as broader shifts in workplace culture or policies. In addition, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also conducted to test for significant variance between the performance levels of organisations based on their respective levels of BIM maturity. Table V shows that “improvement in accuracy and precision of design”, “better understanding of project interfaces”, and “quicker response to queries and requests” significantly varied (p < 0.05) across various levels of BIM maturity. Whereas, “accessibility to project documents and information” and “improvement in cost and time performances” did not vary across levels of BIM maturity in organisations (p = 0.39;0.11 respectively). Table V: Variance of Performance Based on Maturity Levels ANOVA Sum of Squares Mean Square F Sig. Improved Accuracy and precision of Design. 5.059 2.529 82 0.00* A better understanding of project interfaces. 3.378 1.689 12 0.00* Quicker response to queries and requests. 1.613 0.807 3.5 0.04* Access to project documents and information. 0.672 0.336 1 0.39 Improvement in cost and time performances. 0.807 0.403 2.3 0.11 *P < 0.05, 95% confidence level. Performance indicators with significant variance observed across different levels of BIM maturity suggest that as organisations advance in their BIM adoption and maturity, they experience notable improvements in these areas. This suggests that higher levels of BIM maturity may be associated with enhanced design accuracy, improved project interface comprehension, and increased responsiveness to inquiries and requests, potentially leading to smoother project workflows and better project outcomes. Conversely, the lack of significant variance in "accessibility to project documents and information" and "improvement in cost and time performances" across levels of BIM maturity suggests that BIM maturity may not have a significant impact on these particular aspects of organisational performance. While BIM adoption may facilitate better access to project information and documents, the results indicate that this improvement may not necessarily vary significantly with different levels of BIM maturity. Similarly, the finding regarding cost and time performance suggests that although BIM adoption may offer benefits in these areas, these improvements may not vary significantly as organisations progress through levels of BIM maturity. 4 .2 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis A total of 1,335 articles were found using the search keywords “BIM Adoption” and “BIM Organisational Change” on the Scopus database. Similarly, 1,893 articles were identified using the exact keywords in other databases, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online (AJOL), as done in previous studies that employed the PRISMA approach to literature review (Umar, 2020). However, considering the inclusion criteria specified in this study and the removal of duplicate articles found in multiple databases, the total number of articles considered was reduced to 812. Subsequently, the articles were screened by the authors to identify only those studies relevant to the present study. This effort resulted in the elimination of 776 articles, as they were deemed to be studies on the broader context of BIM adoption, such as factors, drivers, barriers, and status or level of adoption, as distinguished by Olawumi et al. ( 2017 ). Furthermore, the remaining 36 items were assessed for their inclusion in the meta-analysis. Of these, 11 articles were considered to have specifically focused on changes in organisational practices in AEC organisations, as shown in Fig. 1 . Figure 2 shows that studies published in Scopus-indexed journals that are focused on understanding BIM adoption and associated changes in organisational practices in AEC firms have been limited over the years. Although the earliest identified study dates back to 2014, it has been observed that the number of such publications has risen in recent years. Only single publications were recorded in 2014, 2015, and 2018, while no related publications were made in 2016 and 2017. Three publications were recorded in 2020, two in 2019 and 2021, with one publication in 2022 to date. Additionally, the studies identified exhibited a broad scope of BIM adoption, encompassing various construction environments across four continents, as depicted in Table VI. Study P3 focused on construction environments in the UK and Israel, whereas Studies P1 and P2 originated from Sweden. Study 5 was cantered solely on the UK, while Study P10 delved into BIM adoption in Poland, and Study P11 focused on the construction environment in Italy, thereby totalling six studies from Europe. In Africa, three studies addressed BIM adoption in the construction sector, with representation from Ghana and South Africa, respectively. Study 8 from Peru stood as the solitary study from South America, while Study P9 from Canada was the sole related study from North America. This diversity in geographic representation underscores the global interest and relevance of BIM adoption across different regions, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of its implications within diverse cultural and contextual settings. Table VI: Background of Studies Study Codes Country BIM adoption Level P1 Sweden Level 1 P2 Sweden Level 2 P3 UK and Israel Levels 2 & 3 P4 South Africa Level 1 & 2 P5 UK Level 2 P6 Ghana Level 0 & 1 P7 South Africa Level 2 P8 Peru Level 2 P9 Canada Level 2 P10 Poland Level 1,2&3 P11 Italy Level 0,1&2 3.1.1 Key changes in organisational practices observed due to BIM Adoption Despite the diverse construction environments and varying levels of BIM adoption across the studies outlined in Table VI, a notable consistency is observed in the changes to organizational practices. Table VII underscores the consistency of changes in organisational practices observed across these studies. For instance, the most prevalent change observed, identified in seven studies, was the "change in information sharing and communication approach." Following closely, changes such as "change in work schedule," "change in workload," and "change in work methods and tools" were observed in each of the six studies. Similarly, changes like "Change in policy or guiding document," "Changing or improving technological infrastructure," and "Engaging BIM specialists, actors, champions, etc." were noted across five studies. Additionally, "Instituting BIM tutoring and education programs & workshops" and "Change in role description and work structures" were reported in four studies. On the other hand, "Establishing a BIM committee or Department" and "Change in contract template and specifications" were observed across three studies each. Notably, "Change in workers’ salary and remuneration" and "Change in staffing policy" were less frequently observed, identified in only two studies each. Table VII: Consistency of Observations (Samuelson & Björk, 2014 ) (Lindblad & Vass, 2015 ) (Gurevich & Sacks, 2020 ) (A. Akintola et al., 2019 ) (Zomer et al., 2020 ) (Addy et al., 2018 ) (Akintola et al., 2021) (Murguia et al., 2021 ) (Ben Mahmoud et al., 2022 ) (Jasiński, 2020 ) (Karampour, 2019) Total Change in work schedule × × × × × × 6 Change in workload × × × × × × 6 Change in information sharing & communication approach × × × × × × × 7 Change in work methods and tools × × × × × × 6 Change in Policy or guiding document × × × × × 5 Establishing a BIM committee or Department × × × 3 Engaging BIM specialists, actors, champions, etc. × × × × × 5 Change in contract template and specifications × × × 3 Change in role description and work structures × × × × 4 Change in worker’s salary and remuneration × × 2 Instituting BIM tutoring and education programs & workshops × × × × 4 Changing or improving technological infrastructure × × × × × 5 Change in staffing policy × × 2 The Consistent patterns observed in organizational dynamics across various construction environments and BIM adoption levels provide insight into the overarching impact of BIM implementation on organizational practices. Specifically, the widespread adoption of changes in information-sharing and communication approaches underscores the pivotal role of effective communication in BIM-enabled projects. This highlights a fundamental shift toward more collaborative and transparent workflow within organizations that are embracing BIM technologies. Additionally, the prevalence of changes related to work schedules, workloads, and work methods suggests a broader transformation in project management methodologies and operational processes. These changes reflect efforts to optimise efficiency, productivity, and adaptability in response to the dynamic nature of BIM-driven project environments. Furthermore, initiatives such as instituting BIM education programs, establishing dedicated BIM committees or departments, and enhancing technological infrastructure signify a strategic commitment to fostering BIM competency and institutionalising BIM practices within organisations. Such proactive measures indicate a recognition of the long-term benefits and competitive advantages associated with BIM adoption, driving AEC organisations towards a more integrated and innovative approach to project delivery. 4.3 Discussion of Results Findings from the results of both the systematic literature review and the cross-sectional quantitative study carried out in this study provide a broader perspective on changes in organisational practices, often due to the adoption of technologies such as BIM. Although the structural makeup of the construction industry in Nigeria consists of primarily small and medium scaled private organisations with the public organisations being the largest employer of labor (Odediran et al., 2012 ), data from the quantitative study with more privately owned BIM-enabled organisations shows that the private organisations in Nigeria are more inclined towards adopting innovative approaches to their work processes than their public counterparts. This is not far-fetched, considering reports on the global business environment, where private organisations continuously strive to maintain a competitive advantage through innovative efforts (Fagerberg et al., 2005 ). Nonetheless, recent studies have contended that the surge of interest among public organisations in driving the adoption of BIM is aimed at improving their performance (Gurevich & Sacks, 2020 ; Lindblad & Vass, 2015 ). However, it could be seen that despite the apparent opportunities derived from adopting technological innovations such as BIM, AEC organisations in Nigeria are limited in their adoption due to low levels of awareness and a lack of requisite resources. The results show that only a fraction has had BIM experience of 10 years and above, with most organisations having barely 25% of their employees having BIM expertise. This finding is consistent with those from the survey carried out by Abubakar et al. ( 2014 ), which highlighted the low level of BIM awareness among AEC professionals in Nigeria and the resistance of organisations to adopt the concept in its early years. Almost a decade has passed, and there has been minimal improvement in the levels of awareness and adoption, although recent studies have reported an increasing level of interest among AEC firms in the country in realizing the benefits it presents (Babatunde et al., 2020 ; Olanrewaju et al., 2021 ). Overall, the limitations presented in this study, amongst others, significantly impede BIM-enabled organisations from fully exploiting the benefits presented by BIM (Chan et al., 2019 ). It is not surprising to see that most organisations in this study have only the capacity to be involved in object-based modelling (Level 1), with very few engaged in Model-based collaboration (Level 2) and network-based solutions (Level 3). It is evident from the systematic literature review and quantitative results that adopting BIM typically leads to changes in organisational practices, regardless of the level of adoption. Although most studies focus on the technical changes resulting from BIM adoption, it has been argued that BIM encompasses not only technological changes but also changes in management processes (Gu & London, 2010 ; He et al., 2017 ). This study highlights the most consistent changes in organisational practices that have occurred after the adoption of BIM in respective organisations. Organisations were reported to be more open to collaboration and receptive to progressive changes through continuous knowledge sharing and innovation, accompanied by complementary changes in communication methods. Both the quantitative and review data ranked such changes amongst the most visible across different levels of adoption. Addy et al. ( 2018 ) noted that AEC organisations in Ghana, having adoption levels similar to those in Nigeria, established a new approach to communication and information sharing to support BIM adoption. Similarly, such changes were observed in construction environments in the UK and Israel, where adoption levels were at 2 and 3 (Gurevich & Sacks, 2020 ). According to Onungwa et al. (2017), such changes in communication and information sharing approaches are fundamental to BIM optimization as organisations strive towards absolute process integration. Furthermore, organisations were observed to change work routines, employee workload, and the utilisation of new working methods and tools. This is often accompanied by efforts to digitalize all work processes, enabling the smooth adoption of BIM. However, such changes could be seen as gradual across organisations as they evolve through adoption levels, as predicted by Zailani et al. ( 2021 ). At early adoption levels such as 0, organisations often limit their efforts to the utilization of basic BIM tools for design and modelling (Ibem, 2018; Addy et al., 2020), with slight improvements at level 1 (Akintola et al., 2019 ; Jasiński, 2020 ; Samuelson & Björk, 2014 ). While recognizing the need to adapt to technological development, these changes were more pronounced in organizations adopting BIM at more advanced levels (Ben Mahmoud et al., 2022 ; Gurevich & Sacks, 2020 ; Murguia et al., 2021 ; Zomer et al., 2020 ). This effort was often accompanied by the organisation's commitment to providing training and workshops on BIM tools and techniques to its employees, while also upgrading the technological infrastructure within the organisation (Akintola et al., 2019 ; Murguia et al., 2021 ; Ben Mahmoud et al., 2022 ; Jasinski, 2020). However, such improvements in technological infrastructure, as well as changes to the organisation's structure by defining new role descriptions and engaging BIM specialists, were reported to be minimal among AEC organisations in Nigeria. While it might be assumed that the organisation realised the far-reaching economic value there is in training their in-house resource for long-term benefits as opposed to recruiting new resources (Ferguson & Berger, 1985), efforts towards instituting BIM tutoring and education programs and workshops were only observed in more advanced BIM-enabled organisations (Gurevich & Sacks, 2020 ; Zomer et al., 2020 ; Murguia et al., 2021 ; Jasinski, 2020). Lastly, while the results of the ANOVA in this study show that the adoption of BIM at varying maturity levels has a significantly different impact on organisational performance, Gureyich and Sacks (2020) observed that BIM adoption does not necessarily translate into improved performance. Additionally, Akintola et al. (2021) noted that not all observed changes are directly attributed to the impact of BIM adoption. They argued that changes in performance and organisational practices sequel to BIM adoption are “induced mainly by the agency of an inseparable combination of delegated, conditional and need-based stimuli. Overall, Gu and London ( 2010 ) argued that change varies significantly among different socio-economic dynamics within organisations. Therefore, considering the nature of most social science research, such as this one, which involves varying perceptions in studying the ontology of a phenomenon, it is essential to contextualize findings to avoid generic and ambiguous interpretations. 5.0 Conclusion Indeed, organisations are bound to change as they continuously strive to attain optimum adoption of BIM towards improved operational performance. However, the degree of such changes differs across the varying levels of BIM adoption in organisations. This study provides contextual insights into the changes in organisational practices experienced by AEC firms in the Nigerian Construction Industry. The study revealed persistent low levels of BIM adoption in the country, with the majority of the organisations only attaining Level 1 of BIM maturity. Nonetheless, it has been reported that organisations that have adopted BIM at varying levels in the country are making the necessary changes to accommodate the integration of BIM processes in their organisations. Such organisations are reported to be more open to knowledge sharing and receptive to innovation through knowledge sharing and change in methods of communication. However, it can be asserted that organisations are more focused on implementing changes that present them with more immediate economic value, as they strive for survival in the highly fragmented and dogmatic construction environment. Unlike what is achieved in advanced BIM-enabled construction organisations worldwide, minimal efforts have been made to provide employees with the necessary BIM education and training to support its adoption among Nigerian AEC firms. Therefore, it is concluded that while Nigerian AEC organisations strive to become innovative through the adoption of technological tools such as BIM, their understanding of associated changes to their business processes and infrastructure requirements is key to the successful adoption of the technology. Overall, the future trajectory of BIM adoption in the Nigerian construction industry is likely to be influenced by several factors. Firstly, as awareness of BIM's benefits continues to grow and technological advancements make BIM tools more accessible and user-friendly, an increase in adoption rates across both private and public organisations could be expected. This may be supported by government initiatives to promote BIM implementation and provide resources for training and capacity-building programs. Additionally, as organisations become more familiar with BIM and its potential to drive efficiency, collaboration, and cost savings throughout the construction lifecycle, there could be a shift towards more advanced levels of BIM adoption, including model-based collaboration and network-based solutions. Furthermore, the integration of BIM with other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the Internet of Things (IoT), is likely to enhance its capabilities further and drive its adoption. This integration could enable real-time data exchange, predictive analytics, and automation, revolutionizing project planning, design, construction, and maintenance processes. However, challenges such as the high initial investment costs, resistance to change, and the need for skilled BIM professionals may continue to slow down the pace of adoption in the Country, thus prompting cogent solutions. 5.1 Implication of the Study Upon examining the changes in organisational practices by region and BIM maturity level, commonalities and variations in the impact of BIM adoption across different geographic contexts and stages of implementation become apparent. Across regions, common changes such as shifts in communication methods, workload management, and engagement of BIM specialists reflect the universal challenges and opportunities associated with integrating BIM into organizational workflows. However, variations in the pace and depth of adoption, as well as specific contextual factors, result in nuanced differences in the types of changes observed. For example, in Europe and North America, where BIM adoption is more advanced, strategic changes such as restructuring roles and establishing dedicated BIM departments are more prevalent. In contrast, in regions like Africa and South America, which are at earlier stages of adoption, changes are more focused on basic process improvements and capacity-building initiatives. This unique perspective provided by the study has practical implications for both AEC organisations and policymakers at large. For organisations, this study provides an understanding of the change dynamics at different levels of BIM maturity, which can help them navigate the complexities of these changes and maximize the benefits of BIM implementation. AEC organisations stand to benefit from the findings of this study, alongside similar studies in the future, as they provide empirical evidence on the opportunities derived from BIM adoption globally and equip them with an understanding of the requisite socio-organisational dynamics that support such adoption. On the other hand, Policymakers can use this understanding to develop supportive policies and initiatives that address the specific needs of different regions and maturity levels, facilitating smoother and more successful BIM adoption processes. 5.2 Limitations and Further Research Although this study sets the precedent in understanding the socio-organisational practices of BIM adoption in Nigeria, it is limited by its demographic context and the choice of research methods and techniques. While longitudinal case studies utilizing a mixed research approach have been the most preferred and consistent technique adopted by similar studies, the uneven nature of BIM adoption in Nigeria and the volatility of the business landscape impede such efforts. In this regard, there is a need for further studies in the Nigerian context, adopting a different research approach to provide a deeper understanding of the changes observed as organisations continue to evolve. It is believed that understanding the changes in early adoption stages would allow for adequate accommodation for improved and future adoptions. It is further recommended that mandates by government agencies and professional associations aimed at promoting the use of BIM in AEC organisations and construction projects be established, with a view to improving the BIM maturity level across the construction industry. In this regard, organisations would strive to be more resilient in adopting innovative technological approaches to improve their performance and that of the industry. Declarations Author Contributions: Conceptualization, BM Zailani and YM Ibrahim; methodology, BM Zailni, M Abubakar and HM Moda; software, BM Zailani and HM Moda; validation, YM Ibrahim, and M Abubakar. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, BM Zailani and HM Moda.; investigation, BM Zailnai and M Abubakar.; resources, YM Ibrahim and HM Moda.; data curation, BM Zailani.; writing—original draft preparation, BM Zailani.; writing—review and editing, HM Moda, M Abubakar and YM Ibrahim.; visualization, BM Zailani, M Abubakar and HM Moda.; supervision, HM Moda.; project administration, YM Ibrahim.; funding acquisition, HM Moda. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding statement: No funding was received for this study. Ethics Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data for this study is available upon request. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Abbasnejad, B., Nepal, M. P., Ahankoob, A., Nasirian, A., & Drogemuller, R. (2020). Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption and implementation enablers in AEC firms: a systematic literature review. Architectural Engineering and Design Management , 0 (0), 1–23. Abubakar, M., Ibrahim, Y. M., Kado, D., & Bala, K. (2014). Contractors perception of the factors affecting building information modelling (BIM) adoption in the Nigerian construction industry. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering - Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering , 167–178. Addy, M., Adinyira, E., & Ayarkwa, J. (2018). Antecedents of building information modelling adoption among quantity surveyors in Ghana. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , 16 (2), 313–326. Aibinu, A., & Venkatesh, S. (2013). Status of BIM Adoption and the BIM Experience of Cost Consultants in Australia. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice , 140 (3), 04013021. Akintola, A., Venkatachalam, S., & Root, D. (2019). Understanding BIM’s impact on professional work practices using activity theory. Construction Management and Economics , 38 (5), 447–467. Alankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Edwards, D. J., & Samaraweera, A. (2023). Exploring BIM-triggered organisational and professional culture change: a systematic literature review. Construction Innovation , 23 (1), 229–247. Alankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Samaraweera, A., Rameezdeen, R., & Edwards, D. J. (2023). Organisational BIM maturity models and their applications: a systematic literature review. Architectural Engineering and Design Management , 19 (6), 567–585. Appiah, G., & Sarpong, D. (2015). On the influence of organisational routines on strategic foresight. Foresight , 17 (5), 512–527. Arayici, Y., & Aouad, G. (2010). Building information modelling (BIM) for construction lifecycle management. Construction and Building: Design, Materials, and Techniques . Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2011). BIM adoption and implementation for architectural practices. Structural Survey , 29 (1), 7–25. Ayman, R., Alwan, Z., & McIntyre, L. (2020). BIM for sustainable project delivery: review paper and future development areas. Architectural Science Review , 63 (1), 15–33. Babatunde, S., Ekundayo, D., & Adekunle, A. (2019). Analysis of BIM maturity level among AEC firms in developing countries: a case of Nigeria. 35th Annual ARCOM Conference. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2019. , 225–234. Babatunde, S. O., Ekundayo, D., Adekunle, A. O., & Bello, W. (2020). Comparative analysis of drivers to BIM adoption among AEC firms in developing countries: A case of Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , 18 (6), 1425–1447. Begić, H., & Galić, M. (2021). A Systematic Review of Construction 4.0 in the Context of the BIM 4.0 Premise. Buildings 2021, Vol. 11, Page 337 , 11 (8), 337. Ben Mahmoud, B., Lehoux, N., Blanchet, P., & Cloutier, C. (2022). Barriers, Strategies, and Best Practices for BIM Adoption in Quebec Prefabrication Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Buildings , 12 (4), 390. Boyle, M., Koritsas, S., Coles, J., & Stanley, J. (2007). A pilot study of workplace violence towards paramedics. Emergency Medicine Journal , 760–763. Bryde, D., Broquetas, M., & Volm, J. (2013). The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management , 31 (7), 971–980. Burt, J., & Purver, K. (2014). Building information modelling for small-scale residential projects. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law , 167 (3), 134–140. Cao, D., Li, H., Wang, G., & Huang, T. (2017). Identifying and contextualising the motivations for BIM implementation in construction projects: An empirical study in China. International Journal of Project Management , 35 (4), 658–669. Chan, D., Olawumi, T., & Ho, A. (2019). Perceived benefits of and barriers to Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation in construction: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Building Engineering , 25 . Colombo, G., Mosca, A., & Sartori, F. (2007). Towards the design of intelligent CAD systems: An ontological approach. Advanced Engineering Informatics , 21 (2), 153–168. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika , 16 (3), 297–334. Crotty, R. (2013). The impact of building information modelling: transforming construction . Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C., & McNiff, S. (2013). BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Automation in Construction , 36 , 145–151. East, B., & Smith, D. (2016). The United States National Building Information Modeling Standard: The First Decade. 33rd CIB W78 Information Technology for Construction Conference . Eastman, C., Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors . Joh. El Hajj, C., Martínez Montes, G., & Jawad, D. (2023). An overview of BIM adoption barriers in the Middle East and North Africa developing countries. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , 30 (2), 889–913. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., & Nelson, R. (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation . Gamil, Y., & Rahman, I. A. R. (2019). Awareness and challenges of building information modelling (BIM) implementation in the Yemen construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , 17 (5), 1077–1084. Gold, L., & Shuman, D. (2009). Evaluating mental health disability in the workplace . Gu, N., & London, K. (2010). Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Constrution . Gurevich, U., & Sacks, R. (2020). Longitudinal Study of BIM Adoption by Public Construction Clients. Journal of Management in Engineering , 36 (4), 05020008. Hamma-adama, M. (2020). Framework for Macro Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption In Nigeria. Robert Gordon University. Hamma-Adama, M., Kouider, T., & Salman, H. (2018). State of building information modelling (BIM) adoption in Nigeria. Open Science Journal . He, Q., Wang, G., Luo, L., Shi, Q., Xie, J., & Meng, X. (2017). Mapping the managerial areas of Building Information Modeling (BIM) using scientometric analysis. International Journal of Project Management , 35 (4), 670–685. Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies , 19 (3), 477–492. Hong, Y., Hammad, A. W. A., Sepasgozar, S., & Akbarnezhad, A. (2019). BIM adoption model for small and medium construction organisations in Australia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , 26 (2), 154–183. Hossain, M., ISEC, A. N.-P. of the, & 2019, undefined. (2019). Towards digitizing the construction industry: State of the art of construction 4.0. Researchgate.NetPaperpileMA Hossain, A NadeemProceedings of the ISEC, 2019•researchgate.NetSign In . Hosseini, M., Azari, E., Tivendale, L., & Chileshe, N. (2015). Barriers to adoption of building information modeling (BIM) in Iran: Preliminary results. He 6th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM2015) . Howell, I., & Batcheler, B. (2015). Building information modeling two years later—huge potential, some success and several limitations. The Laiserin Letter , 22 (4), 3521–3528. Hwang, B.-G., Ngo, J., & Teo, J. Z. K. (2021). Challenges and Strategies for the Adoption of Smart Technologies in the Construction Industry: The Case of Singapore. Journal of Management in Engineering , 38 (1), 05021014. Ibem, E. O., Uwakonye, U. O., Akpoiroro, G. O., Somtochukwu, M., & Oke, C. A. (2018). Building information modeling (BIM) adoption in architectural firms in Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology , 9 (9), 902–915. Jasiński, A. (2020). Impact of BIM implementation on architectural practice. Architectural Engineering and Design Management , 17 (5–6), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1854651 Jin, R., Zhong, B., Ma, L., Hashemi, A., & Ding, L. (2019). Integrating BIM with building performance analysis in project life-cycle. Automation in Construction , 106 . Kokkonen, A., & Alin, P. (2016). Practitioners deconstructing and reconstructing practices when responding to the implementation of BIM. Construction Management and Economics , 34 (7–8), 578–591. Liao, L., & Ai Lin Teo, E. (2018). Organizational Change Perspective on People Management in BIM Implementation in Building Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering , 34 (3). Lindblad, H., & Vass, S. (2015). BIM Implementation and Organisational Change: A Case Study of a Large Swedish Public Client. Procedia Economics and Finance , 21 (15), 178–184. Lissillour, R., & Wang, J. (2021). Organizational subculture, constructive deviance and technology adoption: post-implementation of an Enterprise Information System in China. Recherches En Sciences de Gestion , 145 (4), 153–181. Louangrath, P. (2014). Sample size determination for non-finite population. Southeast-Asian Journal of Science , 3 (2), 141–152. Lu, Q., Xie, X., Heaton, J., Parlikad, A. K., & Schooling, J. (2020). From BIM towards digital twin: Strategy and future development for smart asset management. Studies in Computational Intelligence , 853 , 392–404. Marcellino, M., Castelblanco, G., & De Marco, A. D. (2023). Building information modeling for construction project management: A literature review. AIP Conference Proceedings , 2928 (1). Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design. Management Science , 26 (3), 322–341. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D’Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine , 151 (4), 264–269. Murguia, D., Demian, P., & Soetanto, R. (2021). Systemic BIM Adoption: A Multilevel Perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , 147 (4), 04021014. Nanajkar, A., & Gao, Z. (2014). BIM Implementation Practices at India’s AEC Firms. ICCREM 2014: Smart Construction and Management in the Context of New Technology - Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management , 134–139. Obia, A. E. (2016). Emerging Nigerian megacities and sustainable development: Case study of Lagos and Abuja. Journal of Sustainable Development , 9 (2). Odediran, S., Adeyinka, B., Opatunji, O., & Morakinyo, K. (2012). Business structure of indigenous firms in the Nigerian construction industry. International Journal of Business Research and Management , 3 , 255. Olanrewaju, O., Babarinde, S., Chileshe, N., & Sandanayake, M. (2021). Drivers for implementation of building information modeling (BIM) within the Nigerian construction industry. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction . Olatunji, O. A. (2011). Modelling organizations’ structural adjustment to BIM adoption: a pilot study on estimating organizations. Journal of Information Technology in Construction , 16 , 653–668. Olawumi, T. O., & Chan, D. W. M. (2019). An empirical survey of the perceived benefits of executing BIM and sustainability practices in the built environment. Construction Innovation , 19 (3), 321–342. Olawumi, T. O., Chan, D. W. M., & Wong, J. K. W. (2017). Evolution in the intellectual structure of BIM research: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management , 23 (8), 1060–1081. Onungwa, I., & Uduma-Olugu, N. (2017). Building information modelling and collaboration in the Nigerian construction industry. Journal of Construction Business and Management , 2 , 1–10. Parker, C., Scott, S. ., & Geddes, A. (2019). Snowball sampling. SAGE Research Methods Foundations . Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. Applied Psychology , 71 (4), 1171–1204. Purnomo, H., Fitrah, F. R., Maulana, R., & Pratadina, M. M. (2021). Implementation of Information System in Indonesian Traditional Beverage Businesses. International Journal of Informatics, Information System and Computer Engineering (INJIISCOM) , 2 (1), 15–24. Rodrigues, F., Alves, A. D., & Matos, R. (2022). Construction Management Supported by BIM and a Business Intelligence Tool. Energies 2022, Vol. 15, Page 3412 , 15 (9), 3412. Saad, A., Ajayi, S. O., & Alaka, H. A. (2023). Trends in BIM-based plugins development for construction activities: a systematic review. International Journal of Construction Management , 23 (16), Sackey, E., Tuuli, M., & Dainty, A. (2014). Sociotechnical Systems Approach to BIM Implementation in a Multidisciplinary Construction Context. Journal of Management in Engineering , 31 (1), Saka, A. B., & Chan, D. W. M. (2020). Adoption and implementation of building information modelling (BIM) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): a review and conceptualization. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , 28 (7), 1829–1862. Samuelson, O., & Björk, B. C. (2014). A longitudinal study of the adoption of IT technology in the Swedish building sector. Automation in Construction , 37 , 182–190. Schein, V. (1985). Organizational realities: The politics of change. Training and Development Journal . https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-16073-001 Sebastian, R. (2011). Changing roles of the clients, architects and contractors through BIM. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , 18 (2), 176–187. Shafiq, T. M., Afzal, M., Aljassmi, H., Assistant, R., Professor, A., Al Jassmi, H., & Professor, A. (2021). Improving construction safety with virtual-design construction technologies-a review. Researchgate.NetPaperpileM Afzal, MT Shafiq, H Al JassmiJournal of Information Technology in Construction, 2021•researchgate.NetSign In , 26 , 319–340. Shehzad, F., Muhammad, H., Ibrahim, R. B., Yusof, A. F., Khaidzir, K. A. M., Shawkat, S., & Ahmad, S. (2022). Recent developments of BIM adoption based on categorization, identification and factors: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Construction Management , 22 (15), 3001–3013. Styhre, A., & Josephson, P. E. (2006). Revisiting site manager work: stuck in the middle? Construction Management and Economics , 24 (5), 521–528. Succar, B., & Kassem, M. (2015). Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures. Automation in Construction . Truant, E., & Broccardo, L. (2020). Innovation strategy and organisational structure: Insights from an Italian family firm. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , 24 (2–3), 172–188. Umar, T. (2022). Challenges of BIM implementation in GCC construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , 29 (3), 1139–1168. Van Tam, N., Ngoc Diep, T., Quoc Toan, N., Le Dinh Quy, N., & Le, N. (2021). Factors affecting adoption of building information modeling in construction projects: A case of Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management , 8 (1). Waddell, D., Creed, A., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2019). Organisational change: Development and transformation . Wierzbicki, M., De Silva, C. W., & Krug, D. H. (2011). BIM–history and trends. 11th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality. Bauhaus-Universität . Willcoxson, L., & Millett, B. (2000). The management of organisational culture. Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour , 3 (2), 91–99. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education Research , 39 (1), 93–112. Xu, X., Ding, L., Luo, H., & Ma, L. (2014). From Building Information Modeling to City Information Modeling . Yan, H., & Damian, P. (2008). Benefits and barriers of building information modelling. 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering & International Conference on Information Technology in Construction , 16–18. Yuan, H., & Yang, Y. (2019). BIM Adoption under Government Subsidy: Technology Diffusion Perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Zailani, B. M., Abubakar, M., Ibrahim, Y. M., Bala, K., & Abdallah, M. (2021). Integrating Building Information Modelling (BIM) Tools and Techniques in AEC Organisations: Effect on Culture and Structure. Construction Business and Project Management Conference . Zomer, T., Neely, A., Sacks, R., & Parlikad, A. (2020). Exploring the influence of socio-historical constructs on BIM implementation: an activity theory perspective. Construction Management and Economics , 0 (0), 1–20. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7781086","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":526515707,"identity":"ad3f6312-daf5-4df6-8896-2a68786a3e15","order_by":0,"name":"Bello Mahmud Zailani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ahmadu Bello University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bello","middleName":"Mahmud","lastName":"Zailani","suffix":""},{"id":526515709,"identity":"56f6604f-9f81-4027-949f-0bce042164fc","order_by":1,"name":"Haruna Musa Moda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Doha for Science \u0026 Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haruna","middleName":"Musa","lastName":"Moda","suffix":""},{"id":526515710,"identity":"9b856d1a-893f-41c6-95ca-c95aec4e531e","order_by":2,"name":"Yahaya Makarfi Ibrahim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ahmadu Bello University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yahaya","middleName":"Makarfi","lastName":"Ibrahim","suffix":""},{"id":526515711,"identity":"c49fae4a-a143-44ce-8bbe-c59d45fead1f","order_by":3,"name":"Mu'awiya Abubakar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ahmadu Bello University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mu'awiya","middleName":"","lastName":"Abubakar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-04 16:38:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7781086/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7781086/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93398252,"identity":"62d05776-8dca-482b-8632-0ba114246acd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 12:06:57","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":147567,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"FromAwarenesstoTransformation.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/b68a612596900aa26adc7611.docx"},{"id":93399481,"identity":"ee5eef60-31a6-4ed8-9933-0c892d167ee5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 12:14:57","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6096,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"13fdfd3ce3824c829882dad7e5e5aaeb.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/a51c526d758bdf99d90809ad.json"},{"id":93397977,"identity":"98e18d1c-bf4f-42e6-8d25-aad10ee7e454","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:58:57","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":195828,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"13fdfd3ce3824c829882dad7e5e5aaeb1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/4c9eaa8993c3408d6451efe9.xml"},{"id":93397969,"identity":"41b9e20d-2681-4227-97d5-cb747e0c6777","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:58:57","extension":"eps","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71571,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage1.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/5cfaf32aff6f4281926b57dd.eps"},{"id":93397971,"identity":"cf0a677b-536d-430e-9a1b-cd047df072bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:58:57","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34015,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/8d399cfe94741bf67a1b2899.jpeg"},{"id":93397972,"identity":"0893eaf4-a074-498c-9e66-45527bc0d3d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:58:57","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10090,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/25a43e1eb80b0eb278a21820.png"},{"id":93398253,"identity":"1e81c303-43e2-499a-987a-2fccfba98a85","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 12:06:57","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":35816,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/334e288bdbfeeeb238fde15f.png"},{"id":93399482,"identity":"7c6f9df2-d41d-4fe5-95cd-51784c6442c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 12:14:57","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6440,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/eea1ab9cc398a46c724464ab.png"},{"id":93398255,"identity":"f592b392-5409-4833-ac41-62ede44fd4ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 12:06:57","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":196400,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"13fdfd3ce3824c829882dad7e5e5aaeb1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/f6113e328808ed70525f30e6.xml"},{"id":93397975,"identity":"876a60c1-7d86-4be4-9578-957f61bdff21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:58:57","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":202052,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/8a794e3a2ad259ce2e4b9354.html"},{"id":93398250,"identity":"b0373302-3785-42c1-a6a7-e18aea706171","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 12:06:57","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34015,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePRISMA Flow Chart\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/7cbc1966aad9570bfdc93e9b.jpeg"},{"id":93397966,"identity":"7234bd6d-406f-4a3d-bc37-d401040a3a31","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:58:57","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":10090,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrend of Publications (2014-2022)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/03f12943ce40836227ad262d.png"},{"id":103404069,"identity":"45fe4996-3725-4aa9-a202-a2b6f81608e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-25 09:45:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1473693,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7781086/v1/1a0cd8c8-0c07-4a25-a16f-6b47dcc9f301.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Awareness to Transformation: The Future Trajectory of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Nigerian Construction Industry","fulltext":[{"header":"1.0 Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eAt the dawn of the 20th century, the rise of research and technology began to challenge how construction professionals managed project-related information, leading to a shift in practices that significantly altered traditional construction methods (Hossain et al., 2019). In the context of Building Information Modeling (BIM), the literature consistently highlights its benefits for improving project outcomes (Ayman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Jin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Shafiq et al., 2021). However, adopting BIM in Architectural, Construction, and Engineering (AEC) firms has been associated with challenges and change dynamics that influence organizational work practices. Olatunji (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) reported that firms have experienced significant changes to their business models, project delivery methods, and organizational structures. Furthermore, Olatunji (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized the importance for firms in the construction industry to understand the nature of BIM-induced changes and to develop effective strategies to manage them. Additionally, Shehzad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), identified and categorized various factors affecting the BIM adoption process, noting that these factors vary based on regional differences and BIM maturity levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUltimately, Crotty (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) argued that to realize the full potential of BIM in the construction industry, stakeholders must recognize and properly prepare the foundation to overcome several challenges that can emerge during the delivery process within social-cultural and technological domains. For example, Abbasnejad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) confirm that construction organizations need staff with specific relevant skills and competencies to meet the demands of BIM implementation. This indicates that some adjustments should be made to the recruitment policies of construction-related organizations. Additionally, stakeholders may need to go through a brief adjustment period in their management processes and project teamwork practices, depending on the dynamics of BIM implementation. El Hajj et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) evaluated the barriers to BIM adoption in Middle Eastern and North African developing countries, acknowledging the increasing overlap between design and construction roles resulting from integrated project delivery practices utilizing BIM. In the context of Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s construction industry, Zailani et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) reported changes in organizational practices resulting from BIM adoption in AEC organizations, including shifts in employee roles, work schedules, and the establishment of IT departments. In this regard, it is clear that the development and adoption of BIM within organizations act as a change factor that drives significant shifts in organizational processes and practices, alongside external environmental influences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs the level of BIM adoption in Nigeria has been reported to be relatively low compared to other countries (Hamma-Adama, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), this study aimed to achieve two objectives. First, the study complements the findings of the quantitative study by Zailani et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) on changes in organisational practices due to BIM adoption by broadening its scope and improving its methodological approach. Noting the limitations in the research design adopted and the scope of the study by Zailani et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the current study adopts a more robust methodology. It expands the scope of the study to support the broad viability of the findings. The second objective focused on contextualising the findings of the quantitative study within a broader spectrum of BIM adoption through a comparative analysis of various organisational changes reported due to BIM adoption at varying maturity levels in diverse construction environments across the globe. This is important, as Liao and Teo (2018) emphasized the need to articulate changes in organizational processes towards successful BIM adoption in organizations, while Shehzad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) noted that the variability of these changes could differ based on external factors in the built environment. Building on this, the principal point of argument for this study is that understanding the changes in organisational practices in the early stages of BIM adoption could allow for adequate alignment for practical integration into traditional work processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe novelty of this research lies in its systematic approach, which combines both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand how BIM adoption influences organizational practices in AEC organizations. By synthesizing insights from studies across different continents, the research makes a unique contribution to the existing knowledge on BIM adoption, highlighting the dynamics of change at various levels of BIM maturity. While most of the literature primarily focuses on technical issues related to BIM, this study adopts a socio-technical perspective to demonstrate how the adoption of BIM drives the digitalization of work processes in AEC organizations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2.0 Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Building Information Modelling (BIM)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to Yan and Damian (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), the development and management of construction designs and related information prior to the new century have been primarily limited to the use of traditional tools, such as paper, ink, and a simple abacus. This has significantly impacted the performance of projects, as professionals are limited to information within their respective professional boundaries. Relatedly, Hwang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) argued that the fragmented nature of the construction industry has significantly hindered effective information management and communication, resulting in inefficiency and reduced productivity. Nonetheless, the process of design in the global construction industry underwent a significant change over the century, evolving from the use of 2D paper-based drawings to 2D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and 3D digital models on computer screens, setting the stage for modeling building-related information (Begić \u0026amp; Galić, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The digitalization of the built environment, driven by various technological developments, has become a recent global trend. Studies have reported the significant role that Information Technology (IT) plays in the effective management of building-related information in construction (Saad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), enabling integration and collaboration among highly disintegrated professionals through object-based building information modeling (Marcellino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver the years, there have been varying definitions of BIM, primarily based on level of understanding and professional standpoint. East and Smith (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) defined the basic premise of BIM as the systematic relationship and collaboration among project participants at varying phases of the project life cycle, which enables the efficient interaction of project information within the BIM platform across all project participants. Bryde et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) view BIM as a construction approach that supports the instant provision of reliable and integrated project design scope, schedule, and cost information. According to Howell and Batchelor (2015), BIM serves as a consistently logical unilateral source of building information. This differs significantly from traditional CAD systems, which use 2-dimensional CAD objects, as BIM objects are models of actual building components that are comprehensible to computer programs (Colombo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, it can be asserted that BIM presents an automated approach to managing projects, aiming to transform the global construction industry, which goes beyond being merely a new technology, as often asserted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, BIM is an IT-enabled approach that involves creating and maintaining unified building data within a centralized repository throughout every phase of a project's lifecycle. This method supports design visualization, iterative design processes, automated reliability analysis of models, report generation, and building performance forecasts (Eastman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Many freely available or open-source BIM tools have been developed through numerous research projects, demonstrating their potential for a wide range of applications in the construction industry. As identified by Rodrigues et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the key areas for BIM adoption include facility management, maintenance, energy analysis, sustainability, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), scheduling, budgeting, quality control, and occupational risk prevention, enabling dynamic and virtual analysis. By integrating various facility life cycle data into a 3D digital model, it becomes possible to create multi-dimensional (nD) models. For example, adding scheduling information allows for the creation of a 4D model for construction sequencing, while including cost data results in a 5D model. Further upgrades lead to 6D, 7D, and 8D models by incorporating facility management, sustainability, and health and safety data into the 3D model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 BIM Maturity and Adoption Levels\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBIM maturity is often defined as the extent to which organizations have integrated BIM tools and techniques into their work processes to achieve optimal collaboration and efficiency (Succar \u0026amp; Kassem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). BIM maturity levels are typically categorized into four levels (Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3). However, recent scholarly discussions have debated the inclusion of a fifth maturity level that focuses on enhancing social outcomes and well-being in infrastructure development. Each higher level builds upon the developments and improvements of the previous level. Table I summarizes this categorization. It has been observed that adopting new working models and technologies, such as BIM, through change management processes is primarily linked to organizational change dynamics (Alankarage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Alankarage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003ea). As organizations evolve, they continually adapt their work practices in response to various change agents (Waddell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, organizations must remain flexible to adapt to the shifting dynamics in their external environments (Waddell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable I: BIM Maturity Levels\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBIM Maturity Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBIM Related Activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo-dimensional computer-aided design (CAD), using basic design tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandalone object-based modeling of designs using CAD in 2D and 3D formats without collaboration or integration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel-based parametric designs that enable collaboration in a controlled three-dimensional virtual environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdvanced level integration and collaboration using a connected network channel enabled by web services.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflects the nD, which encompasses issues of sustainability in design and construction, towards ensuring the derivation of social benefits and general well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdapted from (Zieliński \u0026amp; W\u0026oacute;jtowicz, 2019)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndeed, culture plays a central role in managing organizational evolution through various levels of BIM maturity, as changes in business operations or circumstances often lead to the development of new behavior patterns that become intertwined with existing beliefs and assumptions. Hofstede (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) viewed culture as a socially transmitted pattern of behavior within an organization that gives it a unique identity. Therefore, organizational culture can be seen as related to the distinct way that businesses operate, which largely influences their overall success or failure. However, Schein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) argued that culture is the most difficult organizational element to change and that understanding its transformation is very challenging. Similarly, Mintzberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) contended that organizations typically adopt a stable clustering of their elements as they pursue continuous synergy in internal processes. However, Willcoxson and Millett (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) argued that cultures are history-based and tend to evolve as organizations develop behavioral patterns that enable effective operation in dynamic business environments. To do this, organizations must effectively manage change processes to maximize output. Additionally, as numerous internal and external factors shape the modern workplace (Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Gold \u0026amp; Shuman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), organizations inevitably must adopt structural changes as they adapt to evolving practices, progressing through the different phases of BIM maturity (Truant \u0026amp; Broccardo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Literature is unanimous that the adoption of BIM has a significant influence on the productivity and efficiency of construction organisations worldwide (Eastman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Succar and Kassem (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) asserted that the insistent inefficiencies often encountered in managing construction projects are deemed to be solved by BIM. In this regard, there has been a surge in the adoption of BIM across global industries at varying maturity levels. This is a manifestation of the several efforts by construction stakeholders to establish strategies for BIM implementation in their construction projects. For instance, the US has been observed to be a leader in the adoption of BIM, with government-instituted initiatives aimed at promoting broad adoption (Yuan \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, there have been accounts of high-level BIM adoption in developed countries around the globe, such as the UK (Arayici et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Arayici \u0026amp; Aouad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Eadie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Australia (Aibinu \u0026amp; Venkatesh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Singapore, and Hong Kong (Hadzaman et al., 2015), among others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, Gu and London (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) argued that BIM maturity varies significantly among different socio-economic dynamics of countries. Previous studies have asserted that the slow and low level of BIM adoption is prevalent among developing countries (Umar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), with most countries being wedged at Level 0 and Level 1 (Olawumi \u0026amp; Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Nanajkar and Gao (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) reported that apparent barriers, such as cost and interoperability, have limited the adoption of BIM in India. Similarly, Hosseini et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) reported that the Iranian construction industry is slow in adopting BIM, with low levels of maturity, compared to other countries in the Middle East. Additionally, despite technological advances and economic growth in China, Cao et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) noted that several factors and barriers still hinder adoption. A common finding in these studies is that BIM adoption requires a significant investment to accommodate both technological and organizational changes. Organisations in developing economies often deem the process as being non-profitable due to the sensitive nature of their business environments. Van Tam et al. (Van Tam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted that \u0026ldquo;perceived usefulness and benefits of BIM to the organisation\u0026rdquo; are among the top-ranked factors considered in BIM adoption in Vietnam. Regardless, Gamil and Rahman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) argued that the benefits of BIM adoption far outweigh its disadvantages; thus, there is a need to develop strategies that enable overcoming its barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, Onungwa and Uduma-Olugu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) reported that BIM adoption has the potential to improve collaboration, work efficiency, and communication in Nigeria, as seen at BIM maturity levels 2 and 3. However, Babatunde et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) noted that adoption is still lagging in the country, particularly at Levels 0 and 1 (Olawumi \u0026amp; Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), mainly due to a lack of an enabling environment that provides adequate power infrastructure, as well as legislative and regulatory policies, among others. This, however, is not far-fetched from what is found in most developing economies, especially in Africa. Saka and Chan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) noted that the adoption and implementation of BIM among AEC organisations in African Countries, Such as Nigeria, Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa, is relatively low compared to their counterparts in other regions, despite having high levels of BIM awareness. However, such awareness of BIM is limited to understanding BIM as a tool (BIM maturity levels 0 \u0026amp; 1) as opposed to being a fully integrated and collaborative process (BIM maturity level 4). This can be inferred from the study by Ibem et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) on awareness and the level of BIM adoption among architectural firms in Lagos, Nigeria. Although the respondents in the study reported having a high level of BIM awareness, their reported level of BIM adoption is limited to the use of Computer software packages to develop 2D architectural drawings, 3D visualizations, architectural modeling, and scheduling. Relatedly, Hamma-Adama et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the Nigerian construction industry, observed that there is a limited understanding of the concept of BIM in Nigeria, as most stakeholders are only aware of its tools, with only a few utilising such tools in their organisations for basic CAD designs or standalone object-based modelling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 BIM Adoption and Change in Organisational Practices\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe introduction of many information technology (IT) based solutions tailored to the construction industry has led to different organisations readjusting their work practices and core business strategies to enable them to accommodate the new systems of work. The literature on information systems highlights the different changes in work practices induced by implementing the systems in many organisations (Lissillour \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Purnomo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These changes rely upon the compatibility of the innovative systems with the existing industry and legal structures operated by the organisations. For instance, when examining the planning and scheduling of construction projects, Styhre and Josephson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) noted that these activities were traditionally performed by a specialist, using manual methods that often require a significant amount of time and attention to detail. However, Tallgren et al. (2020) highlighted the improvements achieved in project planning and scheduling using IT-based solutions. On this premise, Parker and Grote (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) argued that the adoption of technology within different facets of an organisation\u0026rsquo;s work processes and practices does present a significant impact on the redefinition of work practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBIM adoption, as inferred from Saka and Chan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), refers to an organisation's decision to adopt or reject the integration of BIM innovation into its traditional practices, depending on its inherent capability and adaptability. Building on the definition of \u0026ldquo;organisational routine\u0026rdquo; (Appiah \u0026amp; Sarpong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), such organisational practices could be defined as structured routine activities carried out by organisations that enable them to achieve their objectives and remain competitive. According to Babatunde et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the decision to integrate BIM into organisational practices is often driven by a variety of internal and external factors. Despite the apparent potential of BIM, the effective adoption of BIM in AEC organisations has been hindered by challenges related to the displacement of well-established traditional working processes (Hong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Succar \u0026amp; Kassem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, researchers have also explored alternative theoretical perspectives that not only examine the factors influencing the adoption of BIM but also analyse its subsequent effects. Arayici et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) emphasised the importance of adopting a socio-technical perspective towards BIM implementation, recognising its significance in terms of both technological aspects and the involvement of people and processes. Similarly, Gurevich and Sacks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), adopting a triangular research approach, developed a BIM adoption impact map that underscores the social consequences and outcomes associated with BIM implementation. Sackey et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) contended that understanding technological implementation and its impacts necessitates consideration of the specific organisational context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, Sebastian (2011) affirms that achieving meaningful collaboration across professional boundaries through BIM adoption requires certain transformations in organisational and general industry practices. These include changing the roles of many project stakeholders, new contractual arrangements, varying collaborative processes, and a change in the mindset of project stakeholders from both the demand and supply sides of the construction business process. According to Burt and Purver (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), BIM adoption also brings about changes to procurement, contract management, team organization, and technological infrastructure, amongst others. Xu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) also asserted that BIM adoption in organisations helps to introduce new thinking for construction industry professionals. Overall, the efficient integration of BIM in AEC organisations has been observed to prompt the need to change almost all aspects of the business process, which requires a thorough understanding prior to the implementation and transformation (Eastman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). It is argued that the adoption of BIM does not only mean technological change but also changes in management processes (Gu \u0026amp; London, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Luo et al., 2016). It is therefore important that careful attention is paid to the nature and impacts of these changes that innovations make to organisational practices by stakeholders in the implementation process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3.0 Research Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Approach\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo achieve the study's aim, a systematic research approach was adopted, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide deeper insights into the changes observed in organisational practices due to BIM adoption among AEC organisations. The first objective of the study, which aimed to improve the sample size used in the previous study (Zailani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), was achieved through a quantitative approach, utilizing a combination of purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The second objective of the study, which focused on contextualizing the findings from the first objective within a broader spectrum of BIM adoption levels in other construction environments globally, was achieved using a qualitative approach. A systematic literature review was conducted, as done in previous similar studies (Umar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Xiao \u0026amp; Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), which served as the basis for the comparative analysis between changes in organisational practices observed in Nigeria and those changes observed in other construction environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe purposive sampling technique involved a pilot survey conducted online using Google Forms to identify AEC organisations that adopt BIM in their respective operations. The link to the survey was shared among construction professionals working in diverse AEC firms across the country through social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The snowballing sampling technique was further adopted to augment the purposive sampling technique by leveraging existing connections and networks within the target population. As noted by Parker et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), this is an effective strategy to broaden the reach of a quantitative survey, building a sampling momentum from the initial sample to capture an increasing chain of participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to the lack of a standardized database providing data on the number of BIM-enabled AEC firms in Nigeria, the n-omega method for determining the minimum sample size for a non-finite population (Louangrath, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) was used to derive the sample size for the quantitative study. The population included BIM-enabled AEC organisations in three major cities in the country, namely Lagos, Kaduna, and Abuja, with the latter being the country\u0026rsquo;s capital city. The choice of these cities was primarily driven by their recognition of high socio-economic status, which is attributed mainly to cutting-edge infrastructural developments. Obia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a case study analysis focusing on the emerging Nigerian megacities, underscoring the significant construction activities taking place in these cities and emphasizing their pivotal role in shaping Nigeria's overall development landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA structured questionnaire was used to elicit relevant data from a designated senior executive from each of the sampled organisations, as done in previous studies (Akintola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It is posited that these individuals are in a position to have reliable knowledge of changes in organisational practices resulting from BIM adoption in their respective organisations. The questionnaire inquired about the demographic nature of the respondents and the background of their respective organisations regarding BIM in the first section. The subsequent section inquired about the magnitude of change to organisational practices resulting from the adoption of BIM tools and techniques. In contrast, the last section examined the impact of BIM adoption on the performance of work processes. The measurement items for organisational changes were derived from the work of Alankarage et al. (2021), which were further structured to fit the context of this study. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s test for reliability was conducted to establish the statistical reliability of the measurement instrument (Cronbach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e). The measurement items were further validated by a team of experts from both the industry and academia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the literature review, the PRISMA approach to systematic reviews (Moher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted. The keywords \u0026ldquo;BIM Adoption\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;BIM Organisational Change\u0026rdquo; were used in the Scopus search engine, with the \u0026ldquo;Journal publication only\u0026rdquo; search filter to narrow down the search. Other similar sources, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online (AJOL), were also used to identify additional articles. The time frame for the search was set between 1990 and 2022. This was done in due consideration of the evolution of BIM as a research construct within the built environment literature. Evidence shows that BIM emerged early in the late 1980s (Wierzbicki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), breaking away from conventional 3D CAD, which lacked parametric features. Thereafter, the sourced articles were screened by the authors to ascertain their relevance for the current study, using the title and abstract. Specifically, the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria used in the selection of articles are presented in Table II.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable II: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclusion Criteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion Criteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles published between 1990 and 2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles published before 1990 and after 2022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer-reviewed articles from Scopus-indexed journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles published in non-Scopus-indexed journals and conference proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles focused on changes in organisational practices due to BIM adoption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles not specifically on changes in organisational practices due to BIM adoption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the quantitative aspect of the study, descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the demographic data of the respondents, providing insights into their characteristics. Additionally, to assess the magnitude of changes observed in organisational practices, inferential statistical methods, including the Arithmetic mean and the one-sample T-Test, were utilized, with a significance threshold set at a t-value of 3 and a confidence level of 95%. Additionally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the significant variance between the performance levels of organisations, categorizing them based on their respective levels of BIM maturity. Additionally, the content analysis technique was applied to gain deeper insights into the qualitative aspects of the research. This method involved systematically examining and interpreting textual data to identify common themes and derive insights from studies conducted in other construction environments relevant to the context of the current study. Through this approach, patterns, trends, and key findings were synthesized, enriching the understanding of the research topic and providing valuable contextual insights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4.0 Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Quantitative Study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 57 organizations were purposively sampled for the study, which were predominantly located across three major cities in the country, namely Lagos, Kaduna, and Abuja. The sample size satisfied the conditions of \u003cem\u003ethe n-omega minimum sample size calculation with a 95% confidence level, resulting in a minimum required sample size of n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34\u003c/em\u003e for the study. Also, the snowballing sampling technique yielded 11 more BIM-enabled AEC organisations, bringing the total sample size to 68 AEC organisations. The results of the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s test for reliability, conducted on the research instrument, showed a positive alpha value (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.741), which established the statistical reliability of the measurement instrument.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable III presents the demographic nature of the organisations and their respective levels of BIM maturity. Based on the individual responses, 71% of the organisations were private, while 29% were public. A larger percentage of organisations (52.9%) have 0\u0026ndash;5 years of BIM experience, while 35.3% have had BIM experience ranging from 6 to 10 years. Whereas, experience between the ranges of 11\u0026ndash;15 years and above 15 years represents only 5.9% and 5.9%, respectively. With regards to the size of the organisations, the majority (35.3%) had a resource pool of 5\u0026ndash;19 employees, while organisations having 20\u0026ndash;199 employees and over 200 represented (20%) of the responses respectively. Only 5.9% of the organisations have a resource pool of 1\u0026ndash;4 employees. Relatedly, examining the expertise of employees regarding BIM within respective organisations, the majority of organisations (58.8%) reported that only about 25% of their employees possess relevant expertise in the utilization of BIM tools and techniques. The second majority (29.4%) were organisations with 26\u0026ndash;50% of their employees having BIM expertise, while organisations with expertise ranging from 51\u0026ndash;75% and 76\u0026ndash;100% represent (5.9%) and (4%) respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable III: Background of Organisations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabc\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of Organisation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercent (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOrganisation BIM Experience\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFrequency\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePercent (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbove 15 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSize of Organisation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFrequency\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePercent (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;4 Employees\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;19 employees\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;199 employees\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore than 200 employees\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEmployees in an Organisation with BIM Expertise\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFrequency\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePercent (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;25%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;75%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76\u0026ndash;100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable IV presents the results of the magnitude of changes in organisational practices resulting from BIM adoption. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure respondents\u0026rsquo; level of agreement with the provided measurement items. Respondents were allowed to rate their level of agreement on a scale of 1\u0026ndash;5, where \u0026ldquo;1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;totally disagree, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;somewhat disagree, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree, 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very much agree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;totally agree\u0026rdquo;. In this regard, \u0026ldquo;Organisation became more open to knowledge sharing and collaboration\u0026rdquo; and also \u0026ldquo;organisation became more receptive to innovation and change\u0026rdquo; were ranked first and second among the various changes that occurred in respective organisations, with mean scores of 3.65 and 3.47, respectively. Subsequently, the \u0026ldquo;change in method of communication\u0026rdquo; had a mean score of 3.41, \u0026ldquo;management commitment to digitize all work processes\u0026rdquo; had a mean score of 3.29, and \u0026ldquo;management commitment to provide training and workshops on BIM\u0026rdquo; had a mean score of 3.24, ranked third, fourth, and fifth, respectively. Whereas \u0026ldquo;changes in organisational structure\u0026rdquo; had a mean score of 3.18, while \u0026ldquo;having less routine work program\u0026rdquo; had a mean of 3.06. The least reported changes in organisational dynamics were \u0026ldquo;Having flexible work schedules for employees\u0026rdquo; with a mean score of 2.94, \u0026ldquo;Spending fewer hours in the office for employees'' with a mean of 2.88, and lastly an increase in labour turnover with a mean score of 2.12.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable IV: Changes in Organisational Practices\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganisational Practices\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eT statistics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe organisation became more open to knowledge sharing and collaboration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe organisation became more receptive to innovation and change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was a change in the method of communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement was committed to digitalising all work processes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.01*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement was committed to providing training and workshops on BIM\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe IT infrastructure was upgraded to accommodate digitalisation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.02*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere were changes in the organisational structure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe organisation adopted a less routine work program\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement provided flexible work schedules for employees\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployees spent fewer hours in the office.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was an increase in Labour turnover\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-9.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e*P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, 95% confidence level, t value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the one-sample t-test provide further insights into the statistical significance of changes reported within organizations, relative to a specified t-value of 3. The analysis revealed that the mean scores for all reported changes were significantly different from the t-value (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), indicating that these changes were statistically significant. However, there were two exceptions: \"changes in organizational structure\" and \"having less routine work program\" exhibited mean scores that were not statistically different from the t-value (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12 and p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61, respectively). This suggests that while changes in organizational structure and routine work programs were reported, they did not reach statistical significance relative to the specified t-value. Additionally, although the mean scores for \"having a flexible work schedule\" and \"spending fewer hours in the office by employees\" were both below the t-value, their respective mean scores were not statistically different from the t-value (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63 and p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.35, respectively). This implies that while organizations reported these changes, they did not reach statistical significance when compared to the specified t-value. In contrast, the mean score for \"increase in turnover\" was found to be statistically different from the t-value, indicating that this change was statistically significant and differed significantly from the specified t-value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, these results suggest that while BIM adoption leads to significant changes within organisations, the extent and nature of these changes can vary across different aspects of organisational functioning. For instance, the lack of statistical significance for \"changes in organizational structure\" and \"having less routine work program\" may indicate that these aspects were not significantly influenced by BIM adoption or that the changes reported were not substantial enough to reach statistical significance. This could suggest that factors beyond BIM implementation may influence organizational restructuring and adjustments to work programs. Similarly, the results regarding \"having a flexible work schedule\" and \"spending fewer hours in the office by employees\" highlight interesting findings. Despite having mean scores below the specified t-value, these changes were not statistically significant compared to the t-value. This suggests that while organisations may have observed these changes, they did not significantly deviate from the expected norm represented by the t-value. This could imply that the observed changes in work schedules and office hours may be influenced by factors other than BIM adoption, such as broader shifts in workplace culture or policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also conducted to test for significant variance between the performance levels of organisations based on their respective levels of BIM maturity. Table V shows that \u0026ldquo;improvement in accuracy and precision of design\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;better understanding of project interfaces\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;quicker response to queries and requests\u0026rdquo; significantly varied (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) across various levels of BIM maturity. Whereas, \u0026ldquo;accessibility to project documents and information\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;improvement in cost and time performances\u0026rdquo; did not vary across levels of BIM maturity in organisations (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39;0.11 respectively).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable V: Variance of Performance Based on Maturity Levels\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabe\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eANOVA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImproved Accuracy and precision of Design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.059\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.529\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA better understanding of project interfaces.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.378\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.689\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuicker response to queries and requests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.613\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.807\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.04*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to project documents and information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.672\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.336\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImprovement in cost and time performances.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.807\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.403\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e*P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, 95% confidence level.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerformance indicators with significant variance observed across different levels of BIM maturity suggest that as organisations advance in their BIM adoption and maturity, they experience notable improvements in these areas. This suggests that higher levels of BIM maturity may be associated with enhanced design accuracy, improved project interface comprehension, and increased responsiveness to inquiries and requests, potentially leading to smoother project workflows and better project outcomes. Conversely, the lack of significant variance in \"accessibility to project documents and information\" and \"improvement in cost and time performances\" across levels of BIM maturity suggests that BIM maturity may not have a significant impact on these particular aspects of organisational performance. While BIM adoption may facilitate better access to project information and documents, the results indicate that this improvement may not necessarily vary significantly with different levels of BIM maturity. Similarly, the finding regarding cost and time performance suggests that although BIM adoption may offer benefits in these areas, these improvements may not vary significantly as organisations progress through levels of BIM maturity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4\u003cb\u003e.2 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 1,335 articles were found using the search keywords \u0026ldquo;BIM Adoption\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;BIM Organisational Change\u0026rdquo; on the Scopus database. Similarly, 1,893 articles were identified using the exact keywords in other databases, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online (AJOL), as done in previous studies that employed the PRISMA approach to literature review (Umar, 2020). However, considering the inclusion criteria specified in this study and the removal of duplicate articles found in multiple databases, the total number of articles considered was reduced to 812. Subsequently, the articles were screened by the authors to identify only those studies relevant to the present study. This effort resulted in the elimination of 776 articles, as they were deemed to be studies on the broader context of BIM adoption, such as factors, drivers, barriers, and status or level of adoption, as distinguished by Olawumi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the remaining 36 items were assessed for their inclusion in the meta-analysis. Of these, 11 articles were considered to have specifically focused on changes in organisational practices in AEC organisations, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows that studies published in Scopus-indexed journals that are focused on understanding BIM adoption and associated changes in organisational practices in AEC firms have been limited over the years. Although the earliest identified study dates back to 2014, it has been observed that the number of such publications has risen in recent years. Only single publications were recorded in 2014, 2015, and 2018, while no related publications were made in 2016 and 2017. Three publications were recorded in 2020, two in 2019 and 2021, with one publication in 2022 to date.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the studies identified exhibited a broad scope of BIM adoption, encompassing various construction environments across four continents, as depicted in Table VI. Study P3 focused on construction environments in the UK and Israel, whereas Studies P1 and P2 originated from Sweden. Study 5 was cantered solely on the UK, while Study P10 delved into BIM adoption in Poland, and Study P11 focused on the construction environment in Italy, thereby totalling six studies from Europe. In Africa, three studies addressed BIM adoption in the construction sector, with representation from Ghana and South Africa, respectively. Study 8 from Peru stood as the solitary study from South America, while Study P9 from Canada was the sole related study from North America. This diversity in geographic representation underscores the global interest and relevance of BIM adoption across different regions, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of its implications within diverse cultural and contextual settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable VI: Background of Studies\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabf\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy Codes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBIM adoption Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSweden\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSweden\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUK and Israel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels 2 \u0026amp; 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 1 \u0026amp; 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGhana\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 0 \u0026amp; 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeru\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCanada\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoland\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 1,2\u0026amp;3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItaly\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel 0,1\u0026amp;2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.1 Key changes in organisational practices observed due to BIM Adoption\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the diverse construction environments and varying levels of BIM adoption across the studies outlined in Table VI, a notable consistency is observed in the changes to organizational practices. Table VII underscores the consistency of changes in organisational practices observed across these studies. For instance, the most prevalent change observed, identified in seven studies, was the \"change in information sharing and communication approach.\" Following closely, changes such as \"change in work schedule,\" \"change in workload,\" and \"change in work methods and tools\" were observed in each of the six studies. Similarly, changes like \"Change in policy or guiding document,\" \"Changing or improving technological infrastructure,\" and \"Engaging BIM specialists, actors, champions, etc.\" were noted across five studies. Additionally, \"Instituting BIM tutoring and education programs \u0026amp; workshops\" and \"Change in role description and work structures\" were reported in four studies. On the other hand, \"Establishing a BIM committee or Department\" and \"Change in contract template and specifications\" were observed across three studies each. Notably, \"Change in workers\u0026rsquo; salary and remuneration\" and \"Change in staffing policy\" were less frequently observed, identified in only two studies each.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable VII: Consistency of Observations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabg\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Samuelson \u0026amp; Bj\u0026ouml;rk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Lindblad \u0026amp; Vass, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Gurevich \u0026amp; Sacks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(A. Akintola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Zomer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Akintola et al., 2021)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Murguia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Ben Mahmoud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Jasiński, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Karampour, 2019)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in work schedule\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in workload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in information sharing \u0026amp; communication approach\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in work methods and tools\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in Policy or guiding document\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishing a BIM committee or Department\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEngaging BIM specialists, actors, champions, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in contract template and specifications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in role description and work structures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in worker\u0026rsquo;s salary and remuneration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstituting BIM tutoring and education programs \u0026amp; workshops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChanging or improving technological infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChange in staffing policy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Consistent patterns observed in organizational dynamics across various construction environments and BIM adoption levels provide insight into the overarching impact of BIM implementation on organizational practices. Specifically, the widespread adoption of changes in information-sharing and communication approaches underscores the pivotal role of effective communication in BIM-enabled projects. This highlights a fundamental shift toward more collaborative and transparent workflow within organizations that are embracing BIM technologies. Additionally, the prevalence of changes related to work schedules, workloads, and work methods suggests a broader transformation in project management methodologies and operational processes. These changes reflect efforts to optimise efficiency, productivity, and adaptability in response to the dynamic nature of BIM-driven project environments. Furthermore, initiatives such as instituting BIM education programs, establishing dedicated BIM committees or departments, and enhancing technological infrastructure signify a strategic commitment to fostering BIM competency and institutionalising BIM practices within organisations. Such proactive measures indicate a recognition of the long-term benefits and competitive advantages associated with BIM adoption, driving AEC organisations towards a more integrated and innovative approach to project delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Discussion of Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFindings from the results of both the systematic literature review and the cross-sectional quantitative study carried out in this study provide a broader perspective on changes in organisational practices, often due to the adoption of technologies such as BIM. Although the structural makeup of the construction industry in Nigeria consists of primarily small and medium scaled private organisations with the public organisations being the largest employer of labor (Odediran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), data from the quantitative study with more privately owned BIM-enabled organisations shows that the private organisations in Nigeria are more inclined towards adopting innovative approaches to their work processes than their public counterparts. This is not far-fetched, considering reports on the global business environment, where private organisations continuously strive to maintain a competitive advantage through innovative efforts (Fagerberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, recent studies have contended that the surge of interest among public organisations in driving the adoption of BIM is aimed at improving their performance (Gurevich \u0026amp; Sacks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Lindblad \u0026amp; Vass, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). However, it could be seen that despite the apparent opportunities derived from adopting technological innovations such as BIM, AEC organisations in Nigeria are limited in their adoption due to low levels of awareness and a lack of requisite resources. The results show that only a fraction has had BIM experience of 10 years and above, with most organisations having barely 25% of their employees having BIM expertise. This finding is consistent with those from the survey carried out by Abubakar et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which highlighted the low level of BIM awareness among AEC professionals in Nigeria and the resistance of organisations to adopt the concept in its early years. Almost a decade has passed, and there has been minimal improvement in the levels of awareness and adoption, although recent studies have reported an increasing level of interest among AEC firms in the country in realizing the benefits it presents (Babatunde et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Olanrewaju et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, the limitations presented in this study, amongst others, significantly impede BIM-enabled organisations from fully exploiting the benefits presented by BIM (Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It is not surprising to see that most organisations in this study have only the capacity to be involved in object-based modelling (Level 1), with very few engaged in Model-based collaboration (Level 2) and network-based solutions (Level 3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is evident from the systematic literature review and quantitative results that adopting BIM typically leads to changes in organisational practices, regardless of the level of adoption. Although most studies focus on the technical changes resulting from BIM adoption, it has been argued that BIM encompasses not only technological changes but also changes in management processes (Gu \u0026amp; London, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This study highlights the most consistent changes in organisational practices that have occurred after the adoption of BIM in respective organisations. Organisations were reported to be more open to collaboration and receptive to progressive changes through continuous knowledge sharing and innovation, accompanied by complementary changes in communication methods. Both the quantitative and review data ranked such changes amongst the most visible across different levels of adoption. Addy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) noted that AEC organisations in Ghana, having adoption levels similar to those in Nigeria, established a new approach to communication and information sharing to support BIM adoption. Similarly, such changes were observed in construction environments in the UK and Israel, where adoption levels were at 2 and 3 (Gurevich \u0026amp; Sacks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). According to Onungwa et al. (2017), such changes in communication and information sharing approaches are fundamental to BIM optimization as organisations strive towards absolute process integration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, organisations were observed to change work routines, employee workload, and the utilisation of new working methods and tools. This is often accompanied by efforts to digitalize all work processes, enabling the smooth adoption of BIM. However, such changes could be seen as gradual across organisations as they evolve through adoption levels, as predicted by Zailani et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). At early adoption levels such as 0, organisations often limit their efforts to the utilization of basic BIM tools for design and modelling (Ibem, 2018; Addy et al., 2020), with slight improvements at level 1 (Akintola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Jasiński, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Samuelson \u0026amp; Bj\u0026ouml;rk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). While recognizing the need to adapt to technological development, these changes were more pronounced in organizations adopting BIM at more advanced levels (Ben Mahmoud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Gurevich \u0026amp; Sacks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Murguia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zomer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This effort was often accompanied by the organisation's commitment to providing training and workshops on BIM tools and techniques to its employees, while also upgrading the technological infrastructure within the organisation (Akintola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Murguia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ben Mahmoud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Jasinski, 2020). However, such improvements in technological infrastructure, as well as changes to the organisation's structure by defining new role descriptions and engaging BIM specialists, were reported to be minimal among AEC organisations in Nigeria. While it might be assumed that the organisation realised the far-reaching economic value there is in training their in-house resource for long-term benefits as opposed to recruiting new resources (Ferguson \u0026amp; Berger, 1985), efforts towards instituting BIM tutoring and education programs and workshops were only observed in more advanced BIM-enabled organisations (Gurevich \u0026amp; Sacks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Zomer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Murguia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jasinski, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLastly, while the results of the ANOVA in this study show that the adoption of BIM at varying maturity levels has a significantly different impact on organisational performance, Gureyich and Sacks (2020) observed that BIM adoption does not necessarily translate into improved performance. Additionally, Akintola et al. (2021) noted that not all observed changes are directly attributed to the impact of BIM adoption. They argued that changes in performance and organisational practices sequel to BIM adoption are \u0026ldquo;induced mainly by the agency of an inseparable combination of delegated, conditional and need-based stimuli. Overall, Gu and London (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) argued that change varies significantly among different socio-economic dynamics within organisations. Therefore, considering the nature of most social science research, such as this one, which involves varying perceptions in studying the ontology of a phenomenon, it is essential to contextualize findings to avoid generic and ambiguous interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5.0 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndeed, organisations are bound to change as they continuously strive to attain optimum adoption of BIM towards improved operational performance. However, the degree of such changes differs across the varying levels of BIM adoption in organisations. This study provides contextual insights into the changes in organisational practices experienced by AEC firms in the Nigerian Construction Industry. The study revealed persistent low levels of BIM adoption in the country, with the majority of the organisations only attaining Level 1 of BIM maturity. Nonetheless, it has been reported that organisations that have adopted BIM at varying levels in the country are making the necessary changes to accommodate the integration of BIM processes in their organisations. Such organisations are reported to be more open to knowledge sharing and receptive to innovation through knowledge sharing and change in methods of communication. However, it can be asserted that organisations are more focused on implementing changes that present them with more immediate economic value, as they strive for survival in the highly fragmented and dogmatic construction environment. Unlike what is achieved in advanced BIM-enabled construction organisations worldwide, minimal efforts have been made to provide employees with the necessary BIM education and training to support its adoption among Nigerian AEC firms. Therefore, it is concluded that while Nigerian AEC organisations strive to become innovative through the adoption of technological tools such as BIM, their understanding of associated changes to their business processes and infrastructure requirements is key to the successful adoption of the technology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, the future trajectory of BIM adoption in the Nigerian construction industry is likely to be influenced by several factors. Firstly, as awareness of BIM's benefits continues to grow and technological advancements make BIM tools more accessible and user-friendly, an increase in adoption rates across both private and public organisations could be expected. This may be supported by government initiatives to promote BIM implementation and provide resources for training and capacity-building programs. Additionally, as organisations become more familiar with BIM and its potential to drive efficiency, collaboration, and cost savings throughout the construction lifecycle, there could be a shift towards more advanced levels of BIM adoption, including model-based collaboration and network-based solutions. Furthermore, the integration of BIM with other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the Internet of Things (IoT), is likely to enhance its capabilities further and drive its adoption. This integration could enable real-time data exchange, predictive analytics, and automation, revolutionizing project planning, design, construction, and maintenance processes. However, challenges such as the high initial investment costs, resistance to change, and the need for skilled BIM professionals may continue to slow down the pace of adoption in the Country, thus prompting cogent solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Implication of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUpon examining the changes in organisational practices by region and BIM maturity level, commonalities and variations in the impact of BIM adoption across different geographic contexts and stages of implementation become apparent. Across regions, common changes such as shifts in communication methods, workload management, and engagement of BIM specialists reflect the universal challenges and opportunities associated with integrating BIM into organizational workflows. However, variations in the pace and depth of adoption, as well as specific contextual factors, result in nuanced differences in the types of changes observed. For example, in Europe and North America, where BIM adoption is more advanced, strategic changes such as restructuring roles and establishing dedicated BIM departments are more prevalent. In contrast, in regions like Africa and South America, which are at earlier stages of adoption, changes are more focused on basic process improvements and capacity-building initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis unique perspective provided by the study has practical implications for both AEC organisations and policymakers at large. For organisations, this study provides an understanding of the change dynamics at different levels of BIM maturity, which can help them navigate the complexities of these changes and maximize the benefits of BIM implementation. AEC organisations stand to benefit from the findings of this study, alongside similar studies in the future, as they provide empirical evidence on the opportunities derived from BIM adoption globally and equip them with an understanding of the requisite socio-organisational dynamics that support such adoption. On the other hand, Policymakers can use this understanding to develop supportive policies and initiatives that address the specific needs of different regions and maturity levels, facilitating smoother and more successful BIM adoption processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Limitations and Further Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study sets the precedent in understanding the socio-organisational practices of BIM adoption in Nigeria, it is limited by its demographic context and the choice of research methods and techniques. While longitudinal case studies utilizing a mixed research approach have been the most preferred and consistent technique adopted by similar studies, the uneven nature of BIM adoption in Nigeria and the volatility of the business landscape impede such efforts. In this regard, there is a need for further studies in the Nigerian context, adopting a different research approach to provide a deeper understanding of the changes observed as organisations continue to evolve. It is believed that understanding the changes in early adoption stages would allow for adequate accommodation for improved and future adoptions. It is further recommended that mandates by government agencies and professional associations aimed at promoting the use of BIM in AEC organisations and construction projects be established, with a view to improving the BIM maturity level across the construction industry. In this regard, organisations would strive to be more resilient in adopting innovative technological approaches to improve their performance and that of the industry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e Conceptualization, BM Zailani and YM Ibrahim; methodology, BM Zailni, M Abubakar and HM Moda; software, BM Zailani and HM Moda; validation, YM Ibrahim, and M Abubakar. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, BM Zailani and HM Moda.; investigation, BM Zailnai and M Abubakar.; resources, YM Ibrahim and HM Moda.; data curation, BM Zailani.; writing\u0026mdash;original draft preparation, BM Zailani.; writing\u0026mdash;review and editing, HM Moda, M Abubakar and YM Ibrahim.; visualization, BM Zailani, M Abubakar and HM Moda.; supervision, HM Moda.; project administration, YM Ibrahim.; funding acquisition, HM Moda. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding statement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNo funding was received for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e Data for this study is available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbasnejad, B., Nepal, M. P., Ahankoob, A., Nasirian, A., \u0026amp; Drogemuller, R. (2020). Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption and implementation enablers in AEC firms: a systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Engineering and Design Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e0\u003c/em\u003e(0), 1\u0026ndash;23. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbubakar, M., Ibrahim, Y. M., Kado, D., \u0026amp; Bala, K. (2014). Contractors perception of the factors affecting building information modelling (BIM) adoption in the Nigerian construction industry. \u003cem\u003eComputing in Civil and Building Engineering - Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, 167\u0026ndash;178. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAddy, M., Adinyira, E., \u0026amp; Ayarkwa, J. (2018). Antecedents of building information modelling adoption among quantity surveyors in Ghana. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering, Design and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 313\u0026ndash;326. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAibinu, A., \u0026amp; Venkatesh, S. (2013). Status of BIM Adoption and the BIM Experience of Cost Consultants in Australia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e140\u003c/em\u003e(3), 04013021. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkintola, A., Venkatachalam, S., \u0026amp; Root, D. (2019). Understanding BIM\u0026rsquo;s impact on professional work practices using activity theory. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Management and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(5), 447\u0026ndash;467. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Edwards, D. J., \u0026amp; Samaraweera, A. (2023). Exploring BIM-triggered organisational and professional culture change: a systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 229\u0026ndash;247. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Samaraweera, A., Rameezdeen, R., \u0026amp; Edwards, D. J. (2023). Organisational BIM maturity models and their applications: a systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Engineering and Design Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(6), 567\u0026ndash;585. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAppiah, G., \u0026amp; Sarpong, D. (2015). On the influence of organisational routines on strategic foresight. \u003cem\u003eForesight\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(5), 512\u0026ndash;527. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArayici, Y., \u0026amp; Aouad, G. (2010). Building information modelling (BIM) for construction lifecycle management. \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building: Design, Materials, and Techniques\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, K. (2011). BIM adoption and implementation for architectural practices. \u003cem\u003eStructural Survey\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7\u0026ndash;25. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAyman, R., Alwan, Z., \u0026amp; McIntyre, L. (2020). BIM for sustainable project delivery: review paper and future development areas. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Science Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;33. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBabatunde, S., Ekundayo, D., \u0026amp; Adekunle, A. (2019). Analysis of BIM maturity level among AEC firms in developing countries: a case of Nigeria. \u003cem\u003e35th Annual ARCOM Conference. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2019.\u003c/em\u003e, 225\u0026ndash;234. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBabatunde, S. O., Ekundayo, D., Adekunle, A. O., \u0026amp; Bello, W. (2020). Comparative analysis of drivers to BIM adoption among AEC firms in developing countries: A case of Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering, Design and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1425\u0026ndash;1447. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBegić, H., \u0026amp; Galić, M. (2021). A Systematic Review of Construction 4.0 in the Context of the BIM 4.0 Premise. \u003cem\u003eBuildings 2021, Vol. 11, Page 337\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(8), 337. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBen Mahmoud, B., Lehoux, N., Blanchet, P., \u0026amp; Cloutier, C. (2022). Barriers, Strategies, and Best Practices for BIM Adoption in Quebec Prefabrication Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 390. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyle, M., Koritsas, S., Coles, J., \u0026amp; Stanley, J. (2007). A pilot study of workplace violence towards paramedics. \u003cem\u003eEmergency Medicine Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 760\u0026ndash;763. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBryde, D., Broquetas, M., \u0026amp; Volm, J. (2013). The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Project Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(7), 971\u0026ndash;980. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurt, J., \u0026amp; Purver, K. (2014). Building information modelling for small-scale residential projects. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e167\u003c/em\u003e(3), 134\u0026ndash;140. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCao, D., Li, H., Wang, G., \u0026amp; Huang, T. (2017). Identifying and contextualising the motivations for BIM implementation in construction projects: An empirical study in China. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Project Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 658\u0026ndash;669. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, D., Olawumi, T., \u0026amp; Ho, A. (2019). Perceived benefits of and barriers to Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation in construction: The case of Hong Kong. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Building Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColombo, G., Mosca, A., \u0026amp; Sartori, F. (2007). Towards the design of intelligent CAD systems: An ontological approach. \u003cem\u003eAdvanced Engineering Informatics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 153\u0026ndash;168. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 297\u0026ndash;334. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrotty, R. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe impact of building information modelling: transforming construction\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C., \u0026amp; McNiff, S. (2013). BIM implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 145\u0026ndash;151. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEast, B., \u0026amp; Smith, D. (2016). The United States National Building Information Modeling Standard: The First Decade. \u003cem\u003e33rd CIB W78 Information Technology for Construction Conference\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEastman, C., Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., \u0026amp; Liston, K. (2011). \u003cem\u003eBIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors\u003c/em\u003e. Joh. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEl Hajj, C., Mart\u0026iacute;nez Montes, G., \u0026amp; Jawad, D. (2023). An overview of BIM adoption barriers in the Middle East and North Africa developing countries. \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 889\u0026ndash;913. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFagerberg, J., Mowery, D., \u0026amp; Nelson, R. (2005). \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford handbook of innovation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGamil, Y., \u0026amp; Rahman, I. A. R. (2019). Awareness and challenges of building information modelling (BIM) implementation in the Yemen construction industry. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering, Design and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1077\u0026ndash;1084. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGold, L., \u0026amp; Shuman, D. (2009). \u003cem\u003eEvaluating mental health disability in the workplace\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGu, N., \u0026amp; London, K. (2010). Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Constrution\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGurevich, U., \u0026amp; Sacks, R. (2020). Longitudinal Study of BIM Adoption by Public Construction Clients. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 05020008. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamma-adama, M. (2020). \u003cem\u003eFramework for Macro Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption In Nigeria.\u003c/em\u003e Robert Gordon University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamma-Adama, M., Kouider, T., \u0026amp; Salman, H. (2018). State of building information modelling (BIM) adoption in Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eOpen Science Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, Q., Wang, G., Luo, L., Shi, Q., Xie, J., \u0026amp; Meng, X. (2017). Mapping the managerial areas of Building Information Modeling (BIM) using scientometric analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Project Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 670\u0026ndash;685. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 477\u0026ndash;492. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHong, Y., Hammad, A. W. A., Sepasgozar, S., \u0026amp; Akbarnezhad, A. (2019). BIM adoption model for small and medium construction organisations in Australia. \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(2), 154\u0026ndash;183. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHossain, M., ISEC, A. N.-P. of the, \u0026amp; 2019, undefined. (2019). Towards digitizing the construction industry: State of the art of construction 4.0. \u003cem\u003eResearchgate.NetPaperpileMA Hossain, A NadeemProceedings of the ISEC, 2019\u0026bull;researchgate.NetSign In\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHosseini, M., Azari, E., Tivendale, L., \u0026amp; Chileshe, N. (2015). Barriers to adoption of building information modeling (BIM) in Iran: Preliminary results. \u003cem\u003eHe 6th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM2015)\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHowell, I., \u0026amp; Batcheler, B. (2015). Building information modeling two years later\u0026mdash;huge potential, some success and several limitations. \u003cem\u003eThe Laiserin Letter\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 3521\u0026ndash;3528.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHwang, B.-G., Ngo, J., \u0026amp; Teo, J. Z. K. (2021). Challenges and Strategies for the Adoption of Smart Technologies in the Construction Industry: The Case of Singapore. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 05021014. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIbem, E. O., Uwakonye, U. O., Akpoiroro, G. O., Somtochukwu, M., \u0026amp; Oke, C. A. (2018). Building information modeling (BIM) adoption in architectural firms in Lagos, Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(9), 902\u0026ndash;915.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJasiński, A. (2020). Impact of BIM implementation on architectural practice. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Engineering and Design Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(5\u0026ndash;6), 447\u0026ndash;457. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1854651\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, R., Zhong, B., Ma, L., Hashemi, A., \u0026amp; Ding, L. (2019). Integrating BIM with building performance analysis in project life-cycle. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e106\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKokkonen, A., \u0026amp; Alin, P. (2016). Practitioners deconstructing and reconstructing practices when responding to the implementation of BIM. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Management and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(7\u0026ndash;8), 578\u0026ndash;591. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiao, L., \u0026amp; Ai Lin Teo, E. (2018). Organizational Change Perspective on People Management in BIM Implementation in Building Projects. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindblad, H., \u0026amp; Vass, S. (2015). BIM Implementation and Organisational Change: A Case Study of a Large Swedish Public Client. \u003cem\u003eProcedia Economics and Finance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(15), 178\u0026ndash;184. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissillour, R., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2021). Organizational subculture, constructive deviance and technology adoption: post-implementation of an Enterprise Information System in China. \u003cem\u003eRecherches En Sciences de Gestion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e145\u003c/em\u003e(4), 153\u0026ndash;181. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLouangrath, P. (2014). Sample size determination for non-finite population. \u003cem\u003eSoutheast-Asian Journal of Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 141\u0026ndash;152. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, Q., Xie, X., Heaton, J., Parlikad, A. K., \u0026amp; Schooling, J. (2020). From BIM towards digital twin: Strategy and future development for smart asset management. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Computational Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e853\u003c/em\u003e, 392\u0026ndash;404. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarcellino, M., Castelblanco, G., \u0026amp; De Marco, A. D. (2023). Building information modeling for construction project management: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eAIP Conference Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2928\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5\u0026rsquo;s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 322\u0026ndash;341. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D\u0026rsquo;Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., \u0026hellip; Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Internal Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e151\u003c/em\u003e(4), 264\u0026ndash;269. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurguia, D., Demian, P., \u0026amp; Soetanto, R. (2021). Systemic BIM Adoption: A Multilevel Perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Construction Engineering and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e147\u003c/em\u003e(4), 04021014. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNanajkar, A., \u0026amp; Gao, Z. (2014). BIM Implementation Practices at India\u0026rsquo;s AEC Firms. \u003cem\u003eICCREM 2014: Smart Construction and Management in the Context of New Technology - Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management\u003c/em\u003e, 134\u0026ndash;139. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObia, A. E. (2016). Emerging Nigerian megacities and sustainable development: Case study of Lagos and Abuja. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdediran, S., Adeyinka, B., Opatunji, O., \u0026amp; Morakinyo, K. (2012). Business structure of indigenous firms in the Nigerian construction industry. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Business Research and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 255. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlanrewaju, O., Babarinde, S., Chileshe, N., \u0026amp; Sandanayake, M. (2021). Drivers for implementation of building information modeling (BIM) within the Nigerian construction industry. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Financial Management of Property and Construction\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlatunji, O. A. (2011). Modelling organizations\u0026rsquo; structural adjustment to BIM adoption: a pilot study on estimating organizations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information Technology in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 653\u0026ndash;668. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlawumi, T. O., \u0026amp; Chan, D. W. M. (2019). An empirical survey of the perceived benefits of executing BIM and sustainability practices in the built environment. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 321\u0026ndash;342. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlawumi, T. O., Chan, D. W. M., \u0026amp; Wong, J. K. W. (2017). Evolution in the intellectual structure of BIM research: a bibliometric analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Civil Engineering and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1060\u0026ndash;1081. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOnungwa, I., \u0026amp; Uduma-Olugu, N. (2017). Building information modelling and collaboration in the Nigerian construction industry. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Construction Business and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;10. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParker, C., Scott, S. ., \u0026amp; Geddes, A. (2019). Snowball sampling. \u003cem\u003eSAGE Research Methods Foundations\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParker, S. K., \u0026amp; Grote, G. (2022). Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1171\u0026ndash;1204. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurnomo, H., Fitrah, F. R., Maulana, R., \u0026amp; Pratadina, M. M. (2021). Implementation of Information System in Indonesian Traditional Beverage Businesses. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Informatics, Information System and Computer Engineering (INJIISCOM)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;24. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodrigues, F., Alves, A. D., \u0026amp; Matos, R. (2022). Construction Management Supported by BIM and a Business Intelligence Tool. \u003cem\u003eEnergies 2022, Vol. 15, Page 3412\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(9), 3412. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaad, A., Ajayi, S. O., \u0026amp; Alaka, H. A. (2023). Trends in BIM-based plugins development for construction activities: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Construction Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(16), \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSackey, E., Tuuli, M., \u0026amp; Dainty, A. (2014). Sociotechnical Systems Approach to BIM Implementation in a Multidisciplinary Construction Context. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaka, A. B., \u0026amp; Chan, D. W. M. (2020). Adoption and implementation of building information modelling (BIM) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): a review and conceptualization. \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1829\u0026ndash;1862. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamuelson, O., \u0026amp; Bj\u0026ouml;rk, B. C. (2014). A longitudinal study of the adoption of IT technology in the Swedish building sector. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e, 182\u0026ndash;190. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchein, V. (1985). Organizational realities: The politics of change. \u003cem\u003eTraining and Development Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-16073-001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSebastian, R. (2011). Changing roles of the clients, architects and contractors through BIM. \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 176\u0026ndash;187. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShafiq, T. M., Afzal, M., Aljassmi, H., Assistant, R., Professor, A., Al Jassmi, H., \u0026amp; Professor, A. (2021). Improving construction safety with virtual-design construction technologies-a review. \u003cem\u003eResearchgate.NetPaperpileM Afzal, MT Shafiq, H Al JassmiJournal of Information Technology in Construction, 2021\u0026bull;researchgate.NetSign In\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e, 319\u0026ndash;340. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShehzad, F., Muhammad, H., Ibrahim, R. B., Yusof, A. F., Khaidzir, K. A. M., Shawkat, S., \u0026amp; Ahmad, S. (2022). Recent developments of BIM adoption based on categorization, identification and factors: a systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Construction Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(15), 3001\u0026ndash;3013. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStyhre, A., \u0026amp; Josephson, P. E. (2006). Revisiting site manager work: stuck in the middle? \u003cem\u003eConstruction Management and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(5), 521\u0026ndash;528. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuccar, B., \u0026amp; Kassem, M. (2015). Macro-BIM adoption: Conceptual structures. \u003cem\u003eAutomation in Construction\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTruant, E., \u0026amp; Broccardo, L. (2020). Innovation strategy and organisational structure: Insights from an Italian family firm. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2\u0026ndash;3), 172\u0026ndash;188. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUmar, T. (2022). Challenges of BIM implementation in GCC construction industry. \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1139\u0026ndash;1168. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Tam, N., Ngoc Diep, T., Quoc Toan, N., Le Dinh Quy, N., \u0026amp; Le, N. (2021). Factors affecting adoption of building information modeling in construction projects: A case of Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eCogent Business \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaddell, D., Creed, A., Cummings, T., \u0026amp; Worley, C. (2019). \u003cem\u003eOrganisational change: Development and transformation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWierzbicki, M., De Silva, C. W., \u0026amp; Krug, D. H. (2011). BIM\u0026ndash;history and trends. \u003cem\u003e11th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality. Bauhaus-Universit\u0026auml;t\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillcoxson, L., \u0026amp; Millett, B. (2000). The management of organisational culture. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Management \u0026amp; Organisational Behaviour\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 91\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiao, Y., \u0026amp; Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Planning Education Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93\u0026ndash;112. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, X., Ding, L., Luo, H., \u0026amp; Ma, L. (2014). \u003cem\u003eFrom Building Information Modeling to City Information Modeling\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYan, H., \u0026amp; Damian, P. (2008). Benefits and barriers of building information modelling. \u003cem\u003e12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering \u0026amp; International Conference on Information Technology in Construction\u003c/em\u003e, 16\u0026ndash;18. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuan, H., \u0026amp; Yang, Y. (2019). BIM Adoption under Government Subsidy: Technology Diffusion Perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Construction Engineering and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZailani, B. M., Abubakar, M., Ibrahim, Y. M., Bala, K., \u0026amp; Abdallah, M. (2021). Integrating Building Information Modelling (BIM) Tools and Techniques in AEC Organisations: Effect on Culture and Structure. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Business and Project Management Conference\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZomer, T., Neely, A., Sacks, R., \u0026amp; Parlikad, A. (2020). Exploring the influence of socio-historical constructs on BIM implementation: an activity theory perspective. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Management and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e0\u003c/em\u003e(0), 1\u0026ndash;20. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Building Information Modelling, Organisational Practices, AEC Organisations, Nigeria, BIM adoption","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7781086/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7781086/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAs the construction industry moves toward optimizing processes, adopting BIM requires changes to current operational workflows. While previous research mainly focused on industry awareness and the technical aspects of BIM adoption, it is argued that BIM represents not just technological change but also shifts in management processes. Therefore, this study adopts a socio-technical perspective on digitizing business processes and the adoption of BIM in AEC organizations. A systematic research approach was used, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods. Descriptive and inferential statistical tools, such as ANOVA and one-sample T-tests, were used to analyze the quantitative data. Additionally, the PRISMA methodology for Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was employed to identify changes in organizational processes from construction environments worldwide, which were then compared with those observed in Nigeria. Content analysis was performed to synthesize common themes and generate insights from the reviewed studies. The findings show persistent low levels of BIM adoption in Nigeria, with most AEC organizations only reaching Level 1 BIM maturity. It was also observed that BIM adoption leads to significant organizational changes, although the extent and nature of these changes differ across various aspects of organizational functioning. The ANOVA results suggest that reaching higher BIM maturity levels in Nigeria will ultimately improve design accuracy, enhance understanding of project interfaces, and increase responsiveness to inquiries and requests, thereby leading to smoother workflows and better project outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Awareness to Transformation: The Future Trajectory of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Nigerian Construction Industry","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-13 11:58:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7781086/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7ab6c13f-1d7d-482f-af91-e5853962986c","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-25T09:43:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-13 11:58:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7781086","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7781086","identity":"rs-7781086","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}