A framework for the acceptance of 3D printing technology in construction

Svetlana Besklubova ^1*, Nikola Spicek ², Ray Y. Zhong ¹, Ekaterina Kravchenko ³, Miroslaw J. Skibniewski ^4,5,6

¹ Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

² International Doctoral Study in Project Management, Alma Mater Europaea, Slovenska Ulica 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia

³ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong

⁴ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

⁵ Institute for Theoretical and Applied Informatics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Gliwice 44-100, Poland

⁶ Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung City 413310, Taiwan

REFERENCES

1. Abbad, M.M., Morris, D., De Na hlik, C. 2009. Looking under the bonnet: Factors affecting student adoption of e-learning systems in Jordan. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(2).
   
   
2. Aghimien, D., Aigbavboa, C., Aghimien, L., Thwala, W.D., Ndlovu, L. 2020. Making a case for 3D printing for housing delivery in South Africa. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 13(4), 565–581.
   
   
3. Al-Ammary, J.H., Al-Sherooqi, A.K., Al-Sherooqi, H.K. 2014. The acceptance of social networking as a learning tools at University of Bahrain. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(2), 208.
   
   
4. Al-Gahtani, S.S. 2016. Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 12(1), 27–50.
   
   
5. Al Rashid, A., Khan, S.A., Al-Ghamdi, S.G., Koc, M. 2020. Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications, markets, and opportunities for the built environment. Automation in Construction, 118, 103268.
   
   
6. Alamri, M.M., Almaiah, M.A., Al-Rahmi, W.M. 2020. The role of compatibility and task-technology fit (TTF): On social networking applications (SNAs) usage as sustainability in higher education. IEEE Access, 8, 161668–161681.
   
   
7. Ali, G.G., Khalef, R., El-adaway, I.H., Eid, M., Kahle, T., Funke, C., Vaupel, M., Nault, A. 2021. Joint venture agreements for construction and professional services: Comparative contractual analysis and guidelines. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(4), 04021039.
   
   
8. Ali, M.H., Issayev, G., Shehab, E., Sarfraz, S. 2022. A critical review of 3D printing and digital manufacturing in construction engineering. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 28, 1312–1324.
   
   
9. Ali, O., Osmanaj, V. 2020. The role of government regulations in the adoption of cloud computing: A case study of local government. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, 105396.
   
   
10. Ali, O., Shrestha, A., Ghasemaghaei, M., Beydoun, G. 2022. Assessment of complexity in cloud computing adoption: a case study of local governments in Australia. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(2), 595–617.
    
    
11. Ali, O., Shrestha, A., Osmanaj, V., Muhammed, S. 2020. Cloud computing technology adoption: an evaluation of key factors in local governments. Information Technology and People, 34(2), 666–703.
    
    
12. Ali, O., Soar, J., Yong, J., McClymont, H., Angus, D. 2015. Collaborative cloud computing adoption in Australian regional municipal government: An exploratory study. 2015 IEEE 19th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 540–548.
    
    
13. Almahamid, S.M., Almurbati, N., Al-Alawi, A.I., Al Fataih, M. 2022. What determines 3D printing adoption in the GCC region? Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 14(5), 912–940.
    
    
14. Alquist. 2022. America has a housing shortage. Alquist 3D aims to solve it. Accessed 15 August 2022 from https://www.alquist3d.com/
    
    
15. ApisCor. 2017. ApisCor presentation. Accessed 15 February 2021 from https://www.apis-cor.com/
    
    
16. Awang, Z. 2012. Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Penerbit Press, ISBN 9673634181.
    
    
17. Aziz, A.S.A., Wahid, N.A. 2020. Do new technology characteristics influence intention to adopt for manufacturing companies in Malaysia? First ASEAN Business, Environment, and Technology Symposium (ABEATS 2019), 30–35.
    
    
18. Bankvall, L., Bygballe, L.E., Dubois, A., Jahre, M. 2010. Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 385–393.
    
    
19. Barnett, E., Gosselin, C. 2015. Large-scale 3D printing with a cable-suspended robot. Additive Manufacturing, 7, 27–44.
    
    
20. Barnhoorn, J.S., Haasnoot, E., Bocanegra, B.R., Van Steenbergen, H. 2015. QRTEngine: An easy solution for running online reaction time experiments using Qualtrics. Behavior research methods, 47(4), 918–929.
    
    
21. Başgöze, P. 2015. Integration of Technology Readiness TR in to the Technology Acceptance Model TAM for M Shoppıng. International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology, 2(3).
    
    
22. Bauer, W., Schlund, S., Marrenbach, D., Ganschar, O. 2014. Industrie 4.0–Volkswirtschaftliches Potenzial für Deutschland. Berlin/Stuttgart.
    
    
23. Baumers, M., Dickens, P., Tuck, C., Hague, R. 2016. The cost of additive manufacturing: machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 193–201.
    
    
24. Bedarf, P., Dutto, A., Zanini, M., Dillenburger, B. 2021. Foam 3D printing for construction: A review of applications, materials, and processes. Automation in Construction, 130, 103861.
    
    
25. Bekr, G.A. 2014. Study of the causes and magnitude of wastage of materials on construction sites in Jordan. Journal of Construction Engineering, 2014, 1–6.
    
    
26. Berman, B. 2012. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business horizons, 55(2), 155-162.
    
    
27. Besklubova, S., Skibniewski, M.J., Zhang, X. 2021. Factors affecting 3D printing technology adaptation in construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 147(5), 04021026.
    
    
28. Besklubova, S., Tan, B.Q., Zhong, R.Y., Spicek, N. 2023. Logistic cost analysis for 3D printing construction projects using a multi-stage network-based approach. Automation in Construction, 151, 104863.
    
    
29. Besklubova, S., Zhang, X. 2019. Improving construction productivity by integrating the lean concept and the Clancey heuristic model. Sustainability, 11(17), 4535.
    
    
30. Best, S.J., Krueger, B.S., Ladewig, J. 2008. The effect of risk perceptions on online political participatory decisions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(1), 5–17.
    
    
31. Bos, F., Wolfs, R., Ahmed, Z., Salet, T. 2016. Additive manufacturing of concrete in construction: potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 11(3), 209–225.
    
    
32. Bragagnolo, S.N., Vaschetti, J.C., Magnago, F. 2020. Multi-Level Optimization Model for Electrical Energy Demand with User-Supplier Interaction. 2020 IEEE PES Transmission & Distribution Conference and Exhibition-Latin America (T&D LA), Chicago, USA, 1–6.
    
    
33. Byrne, B.M. 2016. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition. Routledge, ISBN 9781138797031.
    
    
34. Chaudhuri, A., Rogers, H., Soberg, P., Pawar, K. S. 2019. The role of service providers in 3D printing adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(6), 1189–1205.
    
    
35. Chen, Z. 2016. Research on the impact of 3D printing on the international supply chain. Advances in materials science and engineering, 2016, 4173873.
    
    
36. Chianrabutra, S., Mellor, B., Yang, S. 2014. A dry powder material delivery device for multiple material additive manufacturing. 2014 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Texas, USA.
    
    
37. Chicot, J., Matt, M. 2018. Public procurement of innovation: a review of rationales, designs, and contributions to grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 480–492.
    
    
38. Chidamber, S.R., Kon, H.B. 1994. A research retrospective of innovation inception and success: the technology–push, demand–pull question. International Journal of Technology Management, 9(1), 94-112.
    
    
39. COBOD. 2020. BOD2, Specifications. Accessed 29 March 2022 from https://cobod.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BOD2-Specifications-1.pdf
    
    
40. Dainty, A., Moore, D., Murray, M. 2007. Communication in construction: Theory and practice. Routledge, ISBN 0203358643.
    
    
41. Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319–340.
    
    
42. Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley,
    F., Ford, S. J., Garmulewicz, A., Knowles, S., Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Reed-Tsochas, F. 2017. Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 75–84.
    
    
43. Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K. 2012. Structural equation model for investigating factors affecting delay in Indian construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 30(10), 869–884.
    
    
44. Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Sage, ISBN 0761915745.
    Duncan, O.D. 1966. Path analysis: Sociological examples. American journal of Sociology, 72(1), 1–16.
    
    
45. Durdyev, S., Ismail, S., Kandymov, N. 2018. Structural equation model of the factors affecting construction labor productivity. Journal of construction engineering and management, 144(4), 04018007.
    
    
46. Eastwood, C.R., Renwick, A. 2020. Innovation uncertainty impacts the adoption of smarter farming approaches. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 24.
    
    
47. El-Sayegh, S., Romdhane, L., Manjikian, S. 2020. A critical review of 3D printing in construction: Benefits, challenges, and risks. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 20(2), 1–25.
    
    
48. Gargiulo, J., Eastwood, C., Garcia, S., Lyons, N. 2018. Dairy farmers with larger herd sizes adopt more precision dairy technologies. Journal of dairy science, 101(6), 5466–5473.
    
    
49. Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E., Yeow, J. 2014. Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, 1–12.
    
    
50. Ghaffar, S.H., Corker, J., Fan, M. 2018. Additive manufacturing technology and its implementation in construction as an eco-innovative solution. Automation in Construction, 93, 1–11.
    
    
51. Gibb, A., Isack, F. 2003. Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client expectations and drivers. Building research & information, 31(2), 146–160.
    
    
52. Gosselin, C., Duballet, R., Roux, P., Gaudillière, N., Dirrenberger, J., Morel, P. 2016. Large-scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete–a new processing route for architects and builders. Materials & Design, 100, 102–109.
    
    
53. Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., Hinder, S., Procter, R., Shaw, S. 2018. Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes: Empirical application of the NASSS framework. BMC medicine, 16(1), 1–15.
    
    
54. Grenyer, A., Dinmohammadi, F., Erkoyuncu, J.A., Zhao, Y., Roy, R. 2019. Current practice and challenges towards handling uncertainty for effective outcomes in maintenance. Procedia CIRP, 86, 282–287.
    
    
55. Gunduz, M., Birgonul, M.T., Ozdemir, M. 2017. Fuzzy structural equation model to assess construction site safety performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(4), 04016112.
    
    
56. Gustavsson, T.K., Samuelson, O., Wikforss, Ö. 2012. Organizing it in construction: Present state and future challenges in Sweden. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 17(33), 520–534.
    
    
57. Hague, R., Mansour, S., Saleh, N. 2004. Material and design considerations for rapid manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research, 42(22), 4691–4708.
    
    
58. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
    
    
59. Harrison, M.I., Koppel, R., Bar-Lev, S. 2007. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(5), 542–549.
    
    
60. Hoeffler, S. 2003. Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406–420.
    
    
61. Hoffmann, M., Żarkiewicz, K., Zieliński, A., Skibicki, S., Marchewka, Ł. 2021. Foundation piles—A new feature for concrete 3D printers. Materials, 14(10), 2545.
    
    
62. Hofstede, G. 2016. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Collegiate Aviation Review, 34(2), 108.
    
    
63. Hossain, M.A., Zhumabekova, A., Paul, S.C., Kim, J.R. 2020. A review of 3D printing in construction and its impact on the labor market. Sustainability, 12(20), 8492.
    
    
64. Hou, S., Xiao, J., Duan, Z., Ma, G. 2021. Fresh properties of 3D printed mortar with recycled powder. Construction and Building Materials, 309, 125186.
    
    
65. Hsu, C.-L., Lu, H.-P., Hsu, H.-H. 2007. Adoption of the mobile Internet: An empirical study of multimedia message service (MMS). Omega, 35(6), 715–726.
    
    
66. Huffman, W.E. 2020. Human capital and adoption of innovations: policy implications. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(1), 92–99.
    
    
67. Hwang, B.-G., Ngo, J., Teo, J. Z. K. 2022. 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.
    
    
68. Inozemtcev, A., Duong, T.Q. 2020. High-strength lightweight concrete with internal curing for 3D-printing in construction. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Chennai, India, 869(3), 032003.
    
    
69. Jaeger, P.T. 2007. Information policy, information access, and democratic participation: The national and international implications of the Bush administration’s information politics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 840–859.
    
    
70. Jalonen, H. 2012. The uncertainty of innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 1.
    
    
71. Joo, Y.J., Lim, K.Y., Lim, E. 2014. Investigating the structural relationship among perceived innovation attributes, intention to use and actual use of mobile learning in an online university in South Korea. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 427–439.
    
    
72. Kamal, M.M. 2006. IT innovation adoption in the government sector: identifying the critical success factors. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(2), 192–222.
    Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M. 2006. Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 781–804.
    
    
73. Karahoca, A., Karahoca, D., Aksöz, M. 2017. Examining intention to adopt to internet of things in healthcare technology products. Kybernetes, 47(4), 742–770.
    
    
74. Kaufman, L.M. 2009. Data security in the world of cloud computing. IEEE Security & Privacy, 7(4), 61–64.
    
    
75. Kemp, A., Palmer, E., Strelan, P., Thompson, H. 2022. Exploring the specification of educational compatibility of virtual reality within a technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 15–34.
    
    
76. Khajavi, S.H., Partanen, J., Holmström, J. 2014. Additive manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain. Computers in Industry, 65(1), 50–63.
    
    
77. Khoda, B. 2014. Build direction for improved process plan in multi-material additive manufacturing. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, St. Louis, USA, 46353, V004T006A004.
    
    
78. Kim, B.G., Park, S.C., Lee, K.J. 2007. A structural equation modeling of the Internet acceptance in Korea. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(4), 425–432.
    
    
79. Kothman, I., Faber, N. 2016. How 3D printing technology changes the rules of the game: Insights from the construction sector. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(7), 932–943.
    
    
80. Lefievre, V. 2012. Gender differences in acceptance by students of training software for office tools. In 14th Annual International Conference on Education.
    
    
81. Lei, P.W., Wu, Q. 2007. Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33–43.
    
    
82. Levison, E., Oehme, S. 2017. Social acceptance of solar technology: A field study among coffee co-operatives’ members in rural Kenya. Bachelor’s Thesis, Uppsala University.
    
    
83. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V. 2003. Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 657–678.
    
    
84. Liao, L., Teo, E.A.L., Li, L., Zhao, X., Wu, G. 2021. Reducing non-value-adding BIM implementation activities for building projects in Singapore: Leading causes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(3), 05021003.
    
    
85. Lim, J.H., Weng, Y., Pham, Q.-C. 2020. 3D printing of curved concrete surfaces using adaptable membrane formwork. Construction and Building Materials, 232, 117075.
    
    
86. Lin, T.T., Bautista, J.R. 2017. Understanding the relationships between mHealth apps’ characteristics, trialability, and mHealth literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 22(4), 346–354.
    
    
87. Markin, V., Krause, M., Otto, J., Schroefl, C., Mechtcherine, V. 2021. 3D-printing with foam concrete: From material design and testing to application and sustainability. Journal of Building Engineering, 43, 102870.
    
    
88. McCrudden, M.T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., Poliquin, A. 2007. The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 367–388.
    
    
89. McFarland, D.J., Hamilton, D. 2006. Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Computers in human behavior, 22(3), 427–447.
    
    
90. Mechtcherine, V., Michel, A., Liebscher, M., Schmeier, T. 2020. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing with carbon reinforced concrete: Concept and feasibility study. Materials, 13(11), 2568.
    
    
91. Mechtcherine, V., Nerella, V.N., Will, F., Näther, M., Otto, J., Krause, M. 2019. Large-scale digital concrete construction–CONPrint3D concept for on-site, monolithic 3D-printing. Automation in Construction, 107, 102933.
    
    
92. Mellor, S., Hao, L., Zhang, D. 2014. Additive manufacturing: A framework for implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 149, 194–201.
    
    
93. Monyei, C., Adewumi, A. 2018. Integration of demand side and supply side energy management resources for optimal scheduling of demand response loads–South Africa in focus. Electric Power Systems Research, 158, 92–104.
    
    
94. Mun, Y.Y., Jackson, J.D., Park, J.S., Probst, J.C. 2006. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view. Information & Management, 43(3), 350–363.
    
    
95. Munir, Q., Kärki, T. 2021. Cost analysis of various factors for geopolymer 3D printing of construction products in factories and on construction sites. Recycling, 6(3), 60.
    
    
96. Nguyen, H.Q., Carrieri-Kohlman, V., Rankin, S.H., Slaughter, R., Stulbarg, M. S. 2004. Supporting cardiac recovery through eHealth technology. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(3), 200–208.
    
    
97. Ofori, G. 2000. Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3-4), 195–206.
    
    
98. Ozdemir, D. 2021. Germany's first 3D-printed residential building is near completion. Accessed 29 March 2022 from https://interestingengineering.com/germanys-first-3d-printed-residential-building-is-near-completion
    
    
99. Pan, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., Song, Y. 2021. 3D printing in construction: state of the art and applications. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 115(5), 1329–1348.
    
    
100. Parasuraman, A. 2000. Technology readiness index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.
     
     
101. Park, S.Y., Nam, M.W., Cha, S.B. 2012. University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.
     
     
102. Park, Y., Son, H., Kim, C. 2012. Investigating the determinants of construction professionals' acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Automation in Construction, 22, 377–386.
     
     
103. Perrot, A., Rangeard, D., Pierre, A. 2016. Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Materials and Structures, 49(4), 1213–1220.
     
     
104. Prause, M. 2019. Challenges of industry 4.0 technology adoption for SMEs: The case of Japan. Sustainability, 11(20), 5807.
     
     
105. Rehman, A.U., Sglavo, V.M. 2020. 3D printing of geopolymer-based concrete for building applications. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 26(10), 1783–1788.
     
     
106. Rezaei, R., Safa, L., Ganjkhanloo, M.M. 2020. Understanding farmers’ ecological conservation behavior regarding the use of integrated pest management-an application of the technology acceptance model. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00941.
     
     
107. Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. Free Press, ISBN 9780203887011, 432–448.
     
     
108. SalaryExpert. 2022a. Architect Average Salary in Germany 2022. Accessed 29 March 2022 from http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=81&loctype=1&job=86&jobtype=3
     
     
109. SalaryExpert. 2022b. R&D Engineer. Accessed 15 February 2022 from https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/randd-engineer/germany
     
     
110. Serendix. 2022. Serendix sphere. Accessed 15 August 2022 from https://cloudsao.com/SERENDIX-SPHERE
     
     
111. Son, H., Park, Y., Kim, C., Chou, J.-S. 2012. Toward an understanding of construction professionals' acceptance of mobile computing devices in South Korea: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Automation in Construction, 28, 82–90.
     
     
112. Souza, M.T., Ferreira, I.M., de Moraes, E.G., Senff, L., de Oliveira, A.P.N. 2020. 3D printed concrete for large-scale buildings: An overview of rheology, printing parameters, chemical admixtures, reinforcements, and economic and environmental prospects. Journal of Building Engineering, 32, 101833.
     
     
113. Spicek, N., Besklubova, S., Skibniewski, M.J. 2023. Benchmarking critical success factors in construction projects utilizing 3D printing technology. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 20(4), 2022296.
     
     
114. Steffen, L. 2022. Madagascar’s New 3D-Printed School Tackles Education Shortfall. Acceces 30 October 2023 from https://www.intelligentliving.co/madagascars-new-3d-printed-school-tackles-education-shortfall/
     
     
115. Sugandini, D., Purwoko, P., Pambudi, A., Resmi, S., Reniati, R., Muafi, M., Adhyka Kusumawati, R. 2018. The role of uncertainty, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness towards the technology adoption. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(4), 660–669.
     
     
116. Thunberg, M., Rudberg, M., Gustavsson, T.K. 2017. Categorising on-site problems: A supply chain management perspective on construction projects. Construction Innovation, 17(1), 90–111.
     
     
117. Tornatzky, L.G., Klein, K.J. 1982. Innovation characteristics innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45.
     
     
118. Tsai, C.-A., Yeh, C.-C. 2019. Understanding the decision rules for 3D printing adoption. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(9), 1104–1117.
     
     
119. Ugochukwu, A.I., Phillips, P.W. 2018. Technology adoption by agricultural producers: A review of the literature. From agriscience to agribusiness, 361-377.
     
     
120. Ukobitz, D.V., Faullant, R. 2022. The relative impact of isomorphic pressures on the adoption of radical technology: Evidence from 3D printing. Technovation, 113, 102418.
     
     
121. Vantyghem, G., De Corte, W., Shakour, E., Amir, O. 2020. 3D printing of a post-tensioned concrete girder designed by topology optimization. Automation in Construction, 112, 103084.
     
     
122. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H. 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
     
     
123. Wang, L., Ma, G., Liu, T., Buswell, R., Li, Z. 2021. Interlayer reinforcement of 3D printed concrete by the in-process deposition of U-nails. Cement and Concrete Research, 148, 106535.
     
     
124. Weger, D., Gehlen, C., Korte, W., Meyer-Brötz, F., Scheydt, J., Stengel, T. 2022. Building rethought–3D concrete printing in building practice. Construction Robotics, 5(3-4), 203–210.
     
     
125. Won, D., Hwang, B.-G., Binte Mohd Samion, N.K. 2022. Cloud computing adoption in the construction industry of Singapore: Drivers, challenges, and strategies. Journal of Management in Engineering, 38(2), 05021017.
     
     
126. Won, D., Hwang, B.-G., Chi, S., Kor, J.-L. 2022. Adoption of three-dimensional printing technology in public housing in Singapore: Drivers, challenges, and strategies. Journal of Management in Engineering, 38(4), 05022010.
     
     
127. Wright, K.B. 2005. Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), JCMC1034.
     
     
128. Wu, P., Zhao, X., Baller, J.H., Wang, X. 2018. Developing a conceptual framework to improve the implementation of 3D printing technology in the construction industry. Architectural science review, 61(3), 133–142.
     
     
129. Xia, M., Nematollahi, B., Sanjayan, J. 2019. Printability, accuracy and strength of geopolymer made using powder-based 3D printing for construction applications. Automation in Construction, 101, 179–189.
     
     
130. Xia, M., Sanjayan, J. 2016. Method of formulating geopolymer for 3D printing for construction applications. Materials & Design, 110, 382–390.
     
     
131. Xiong, B., Skitmore, M., Xia, B. 2015. A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research. Automation in Construction, 49, 59–70.
     
     
132. Yeh, C.-C., Chen, Y.-F. 2018. Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 209–216.
     
     
133. Yin, R. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     
134. Zahoor, H., Chan, A.P., Utama, W.P., Gao, R., Memon, S.A. 2017. Determinants of safety climate for building projects: SEM-based cross-validation study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(6) 05017005.
     
     
135. Zhang, J., Khoshnevis, B. 2013. Optimal machine operation planning for construction by contour crafting. Automation in Construction, 29, 50–67.
     
     
136. Zhang, T., Yang, Y., Ni, J., Xie, D. 2019. Adoption behavior of cleaner production techniques to control agricultural non-point source pollution: A case study in the three gorges reservoir area. Journal of Cleaner Production, 223, 897–906.
     
     
137. Zhao, M., Yang, J., Shu, C., Liu, J. 2021. Sustainability orientation, the adoption of 3D printing technologies, and new product performance: A cross-institutional study of American and Indian firms. Technovation, 101, 102197.
     
     
138. Zolkepli, I.A., Kamarulzaman, Y. 2015. Social media adoption: The role of media needs and innovation characteristics. Computers in human behavior, 43, 189–209.
     
     
139. Zubair, M.U., Zhang, X. 2020. Hybrid performance-measurement model of elevators. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 34(2), 04020013.