With the advent of the global digital era, the new generation of information technology represented by blockchain has gradually matured and penetrated into various industries, triggering a new round of technological innovation and industrial revolution. In construction projects, it is difficult for individual participants in the construction supply chain to make decisions about whether to adopt blockchain technology. It involves a complex decision-making process, the need to coordinate various players, the large capital investments involved, and the AD hoc nature of the construction supply chain. The characteristics and advantages of blockchain technology are a natural match for the construction industry's pain points, helping to solve many of the thorthoric problems that have long plagued the construction industry, such as poor information sharing, lack of trust among stakeholders, complex supply chain processes, payment delays, and lack of accountability. This study proposes a blockchain technology adoption decision model that can predict the success rate of each construction supply chain (CSC) participant after adopting blockchain technology, thereby helping them make decisions about whether or not to adopt blockchain. First, based on the TOE framework, the decision factors that affect blockchain adoption are summarized. Then, the decision model is established by Likert scale and DEMATEL method. Finally, an example is given to apply the model. This study can help CSC participants make informed decisions about whether to adopt blockchain technology. This study also further expands the construction industry as an important field of IS research.
Article
Application decision model of blockchain technology in construction supply chain
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4133660/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
Construction supply chain management
Blockchain
Decision-making model
TOE framework
Adoption
Innovation facilitates cost reduction and faster schedule planning, as well as quality and safety improvements, among others (Gambatese and Hallowell 2011).Rapid advances in information technology have prompted many firms to go after new technologies (Agarwal and Tiwana 2015).In recent years, most industries have increased their investments in IT research (Nnaji, Gambatese et al. 2020).Compared to other industries, construction industry is considered to be an industry that lacks technological change (Goodrum, Zhai et al. 2009), which may be one of the reasons for the low productivity in this industry (Choudhry 2015).A report by the McKinsey Global Institute also highlights the low productivity across the construction supply chain(CSC).CSC is a temporary supply chain. After the construction project is completed, the partnership of each participant then ends. This leads to the inability of the CSC participants to form long-term relationships and a low level of trust. One of the solutions to these problems is the application of the latest technologies(Streule, Miserini et al. 2016), such as blockchain, BIM, IoT. Among these technologies, blockchain is one of the fastest growing emerging technologies that enable efficient supply chain processes and ensure transparency with robustness and security (Shemov, Garcia de Soto et al. 2020).
The concept of blockchain originally emerged in Bitcoin (Barnes, Vidiassov et al. 2013).The extremely high volatility of Bitcoin and the complexity of many countries' attitudes towards it have limited its development to some extent, but the advantages of blockchain technology, one of the underlying technologies of Bitcoin, have attracted increasing attention (Xu, Chen et al. 2019).In recent years, blockchain technology has emerged from cryptocurrencies as a novel architecture for transacting, maintaining and sharing data in a decentralized manner (Ziolkowski, Miscione et al. 2020).Blockchain is a distributed digital shared ledger where once a transaction record is imported, previous records can only be modified with the consent of all concerned, which is very secure for business operations. Blockchain technology may change the paradigm of supply chain management and enhance end-to-end supply chain business processes, thus improving supply chain performance(Viriyasitavat, Da Xu et al. 2018, Helo and Shamsuzzoha 2020).Moreover, the tamper-proof nature of blockchain can build a highly trusted network (Kano and Nakajima 2018),thus enhancing trust among supply chain partner firms. More appealingly, blockchain allows automatic execution of smart contracts (Andoni, Robu et al. 2019).A smart contract is an execution procedure that can be automatically executed when trigger conditions are met (Hu, Liu et al. 2021). Smart contracts can therefore streamline supply chain processes.
Despite the many technical advantages of blockchain, the adoption and application of blockchain technology is not easy for many industries, especially for the construction industry (Xu, Chong et al. 2021).The construction industry is still in the initial stage of blockchain adoption (Hunhevicz and Hall 2020),and there are few relevant studies and applications, with most of the current research being qualitative (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).To solve these problems, Xu analyzed the barriers to blockchain adoption in the construction industry context (Xu, Chong et al. 2021).However, the analysis of the barrier factors is only fundamental to the adoption of the technology. As Nnaji et al. point out, most technology adoption research in the construction industry has focused on using adoption or acceptance models to understand the factors that influence technology use, rather than the decision process used to determine whether to adopt a technology (Nnaji, Gambatese et al. 2020).The lack of decision support tools is a major reason why the rate of technology diffusion in the construction industry lags behind other industries (Nnaji, Gambatese et al. 2020).Reliance on empirical decisions is still the dominant approach in the construction management decision-making process (Haymaker, Chau et al. 2013) In summary, the construction industry lacks scientific models or tools for technology adoption decisions.
Therefore,it is critical to develop a decision-making model to support rational technology adoption decisions. The purpose of this study is to develop a decision-making model that can be used to assess the potential of blockchain technology adoption in a CSC scenario. The decision factors are summarized through the TOE framework and an extensive literature review. A blockchain technology adoption decision-making model is then proposed. The results of this study are expected to facilitate and enhance the adoption of blockchain technology in the construction industry, which in turn can contribute to the industry as a whole. In addition, since IS research concerns are mainly focused on manufacturing, banking, and retail(Aubert, Schroeder et al. 2012), this study further expands the construction industry as an important area for IS research. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews the current research related to blockchain technology and technology adoption models in the construction industry. Section 3 proposes an evaluation method for blockchain adoption decisions and identifies decision factors. Section 4 applies the decision-making tool. Section 5 summarizes the theoretical and practical implications of this research. Section 6 presents a summary of the research and future research directions.
Blockchain Technology Features and Classification
Initially, the concept of blockchain emerged in Bitcoin (Barnes, Vidiassov et al. 2013).Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralized bookkeeping system for digital assets, where each block is a page of the ledger and the system automatically generates bitcoins as a reward to incentivize miners to keep the books. As the underlying technology of Bitcoin, the blockchain is essentially a decentralized, de-trusted and reliable database, in which each block is connected to each other in chronological order according to cryptographic principles to form a chain-like structure. Asymmetric encryption algorithm, distributed database, and decentralized consensus mechanism are the core technologies of blockchain(Zheng, Xie et al. 2017).The asymmetric encryption algorithm converts information into hash values to ensure the security of information stored in the block (Zhong, Wu et al. 2020).Each block contains the hash value of this block and the hash value of the previous block. The hash value of a block is unique. If any data in the previous block is tampered with, this will result in a different hash value.Since this hash is referenced in the subsequent blocks, these will also be invalid(Pelt, Jansen et al. 2020). This process demonstrates the difficulty of malicious attacks on the blockchain. Blockchain technology allows storing transaction data in a distributed manner (Werner, Basalla et al. 2020).The same data is stored in the ledger of each participant in the network. In blockchain systems, consensus mechanisms to record and update the data ensure that the data remains synchronized throughout the network(Li, Wang et al. 2018).
Blockchains are divided into the following three categories: public, private and federated chains. Public blockchains are open and transparent, where everyone can participate in the transactions and bookkeeping and get valid confirmation. Public blockchains are more decentralized and have more nodes, so it is more difficult for any attacker to tamper with the information in the network(Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).Private blockchains are completely closed, exclusive to companies or individuals, with no public bookkeeping rights, and only internal transactions are recorded. Private blockchains authorize fewer participants and therefore have very strong data confidentiality. However, because there are fewer nodes, it is easier for bad actors to control the network. Therefore,private blockchains are at higher risk of hacking and data manipulation. From this point of view, it can be said that public blockchains are more secure(Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).The federated blockchain is semi-public and used internally by the organization, where all pre-selected bookkeepers co-opt to decide on the block generation and other nodes can trade but have no bookkeeping rights. The federated blockchain combines the functionality of both public and private blockchains(Wang, Zheng et al. 2018).The main difference between a federated chain and public and private blockchains is that in a federated chain a designated leader rather than a single participant validates the transaction process (Casino, Azpilicueta et al. 2017).
Blockchain in Construction Supply Chain
In recent years, blockchain, an emerging distributed digital technology, has been widely explored in many industries to bridge the gap of centralized solutions (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).It has been recognized that the technology has great potential for application in the construction industry, mainly due to the large number of participants and the volume of transactions in this industry (Kim, Lee et al. 2020).
Hamledari et al. use blockchain technology to automate payments in the construction industry. The study uses sensors, machine intelligence, and BIM to capture, analyze, and record construction progress. The construction progress data is stored in the blockchain and then transferred to smart contracts to automate payments (Hamledari and Fischer 2021).In addition, Dans et al. proposed a blockchain-based framework for ensuring transparent and secure automated payments for construction progress payments (Das, Luo et al. 2020).The results of these studies suggest that blockchain technology can be used to implement project payments in an efficient and secure manner..
Lee et al. integrate digital twin with blockchain technology to support reliable information sharing in construction projects (Lee, Lee et al. 2021).The digital twin updates the building information model in real time through IoT sensors, while blockchain technology validates all data transactions of the digital twin to enhance information trust. Wang et al.(Wang, Wang et al. 2020) constructed a blockchain-based information management model that facilitates real-time delivery of prefabricated components. The status and operation information of prefabricated components are stored in a distributed ledger, in which each operation can be confirmed as valid only after all participants agree on its authenticity, and once the validity is confirmed, it can be updated through a smart contract. Li et al. achieved real-time management of the prefabricated construction supply chain based on blockchain and IoT technologies(Li, Chen et al. 2021).In this study, blockchain technology was used to address the security and privacy risks of storing information on prefabricated components.Ilin et al. integrated RFID with blockchain technology for the construction material transportation process (Ilin, Lanko et al. 2018).The introduction of blockchain will significantly reduce losses caused by human factors and intentional false information and eliminate trust issues between transaction participants.
In summary, the existing literature has conducted extensive research on blockchain in the construction industry. Through case studies and literature reviews, the scholars critically analyzed the application potential of blockchain technology in the construction industry and identified its value in the field of construction. In addition, it explores how the construction industry can benefit from adopting blockchain technology, as well as the limitations and challenges of adopting blockchain technology as a new tool. Although the research of blockchain technology in the field of construction is still in its infancy(Xu, Chong et al. 2021), it has made a certain degree of progress in project management, supply chain management, contract management, information management and integration with other technologies, which clarifies the direction for subsequent research (Kim, Lee et al. 2020).
Technology Adoption Model in Construction Supply Chain
Decision-making is very important for the planning of any project (Laufer, Woodward et al. 1999).Based on previous research, there are a large number of technologies that can be applied to the construction industry, including blockchain technology. Technology adoption decisions require consideration of many aspects. There are many approaches that have been applied in the area of technology adoption. In an early study of low BIM technology adoption, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Diffusion of Innovations Theory(Xu, Feng et al. 2014),were utilized to examine the factors that influence BIM adoption. The findings indicated that attitudinal, technical, and organizational dimensions indirectly influence the actual use of BIM through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which are the main determinants of BIM adoption. The study identifies key factors of BIM adoption and therefore contributes to the application of BIM technology.
In addition to TAM, studies have utilized the TOE (Technology-Organization-Environment) framework and integrated Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Actor-Network theory to study RFID technology adoption(Mabad, Ali et al. 2021).The TOE framework is one of the most applicable frameworks for studying innovation adoption at the organizational level, examining adoption in terms of three main aspects of the organization (technological, organizational, and environmental), providing a more comprehensive approach for assessing both internal and external dynamic aspects of the organization(Gökalp, Gökalp et al. 2020).The technological context contains internal and external technological features that can influence the organization; the organizational context is concerned with the firm's ability to mobilize resources to facilitate technology adoption, such as firm size, organizational structure, and human resources; and the environmental context contains factors from the market, industry, and regulatory environment (Kouhizadeh, Saberi et al. 2021).The existing literature provides a strong empirical validation of the TOE framework (Lin and Lin 2008).Since the TOE framework considers multidimensional aspects of organizations when studying technology adoption and diffusion, it has more explanatory power than other adoption models such as Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)(Khayer, Talukder et al. 2020).This study therefore summarizes the factors influencing blockchain adoption decisions using the TOE framework.
Most technology adoption research in the construction industry has focused on using adoption or acceptance models to understand the factors that influence technology use, rather than the decision process used to determine whether to adopt a technology(Nnaji, Gambatese et al. 2020).Only a relatively small amount of literature examines technology adoption from a decision-making perspective. For example, Nnaji et al. developed a construction industry safety technology adoption decision model using fuzzy integrated assessment techniques (Nnaji, Gambatese et al. 2020).The model can be used to support sound safety technology adoption decisions in the construction industry.Negahban et al. proposed a decision tool for the adoption of enterprise resource planning (ERP) in small and medium-sized construction organizations (Negahban, Baecher et al. 2012).Using the technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB), and an agent-based model, Nnaji et al. proposed a simulation framework for technology adoption decisions in construction management(Nnaji, Okpala et al. 2019).Hwang et al. developed a knowledge-based decision support system for facilitating the implementation of prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (Hwang, Shan et al. 2018).The effectiveness of the tool was also tested with the input of industry experts.Juan et al. proposed a predictive model based on an artificial neural network (ANN) approach for evaluating the feasibility of BIM technology adoption and ultimately arriving at an adoption or non-adoption decision(Juan, Lai et al. 2016).
Although the adoption and diffusion of blockchain technology has been explored to some extent in existing research, especially in the field of supply chain management, there are few studies on the adoption and diffusion of blockchain technology in the construction industry, and these studies mostly take the approach of conceptual discourses or proposed frameworks. More importantly, although previous studies have sorted out the potential advantages and challenges of adopting blockchain technology in the construction industry, the overall situation is still fragmented, there is a lack of systematic analysis of drivers and obstacles, and the hierarchical relationship between drivers and obstacles and the intensity of impact are still unclear. In addition, no empirical research has been conducted on the adoption of blockchain technology in the construction industry. In conclusion, in the context of the construction industry, where there is a lack of blockchain adoption decision models or tools, CSC participants need to not only understand the factors influencing blockchain adoption, but also a clear answer on whether or not to adopt the technology. Therefore, a technology adoption decision model is needed to facilitate the implementation of blockchain technology in CSC. Decision models should be able to facilitate the adoption of blockchain technology by identifying the advantages and barriers to technology adoption and examining key issues in adoption.
The purpose of this study is to develop a decision-making model to help construction firms determine whether to adopt blockchain technology. Prior literature examining the potential of blockchain technology provides valuable insights for this paper. To achieve the objectives of this study, the researcher developed the following decision-making model. First, a literature review was conducted to summarize the factors influencing technology adoption decisions using the TOE framework. A two-stage decision model was then developed. The first stage is a go/no-go analysis that allows for the assessment of blockchain adoption opportunities. This phase of the assessment allows decision makers to understand the benefits of blockchain adoption as well as the barriers to adoption to make an informed decision about whether to adopt the technology. To what extent the benefits are such that adoption of blockchain technology is likely to be successful is the question to be answered in the second phase. The second phase of the assessment provides an in-depth analysis of the factors that influence blockchain adoption. The weighting of the factors was determined using the DEMATEL method to produce weighted results. Based on the weighted results, a decision was made whether to adopt blockchain technology or not. Figure 1 shows the technology roadmap for this study.
Stage1 Assessment: A Preliminary Assessment
This step of the assessment allows decision makers to understand the benefits and barriers to implementing blockchain adoption decisions and to consider the benefits when adopting blockchain technology in a construction supply chain context. The process is as follows.
Each factor was assessed for its likely influence value by means of a Likert scale with a scale score ranging from − 3 to + 3(Choi, Shrestha et al. 2020),where − 3 indicates that the factor strongly opposes the development of blockchain adoption decisions, + 3 indicates that it strongly supports the development of blockchain adoption decisions, and 0 indicates neutrality. Both barrier factors and facilitators were scored. These scores were then summed and the resulting value was Sum. The value of Sum was calculated using the following formula. If Sum is positive, it indicates that the benefits of blockchain outweigh the drawbacks of the technology. Then it proceeds to the second stage of evaluation. On the contrary, if it is negative, it indicates that the implementation of blockchain technology in CSC may not yield significant advantages and benefits. In other words, limited to current perceptions, the construction supply chain may not be suitable for widespread adoption of blockchain technology. A score of 0 indicates that the benefits and drawbacks of implementing blockchain are comparable. In the case where the sum of the scores is negative or 0, if construction companies still want to implement blockchain technology, they need to pay more attention to the factors with lower scores and take measures to address them.
Sum=\({\sum }_{i=1}^{n}pi\)+\(\sum _{t=1}^{m}ni\) (1)
where pi represents the score of the ith facilitator (for i = 1,2,...,12, pi = 0,1,2,3); ni represents the score of the tth barrier (for each t = 1,2,...,12, ni =-3,-2,-1,0).
Stage2 Assessment: An In-depth Assessment
The second stage of the assessment is an extension of the first stage. The first step of the assessment when the sum of the scores is greater than 0 indicates that overall, there is a benefit to adopting blockchain. But to what extent are the benefits of the technology so great that construction companies have a strong incentive to make an adoption decision? In other words, is the adoption of the technology likely to result in success? This is the question to be answered in the second phase of the evaluation. The second phase of the model therefore assesses the factors that facilitate the blockchain adoption decision in more detail. The first step is to determine the relative importance of the facilitators, i.e., the weights, followed by scoring the factors and summing the weighted scores of the factors. A sum of scores of at least 65% of the maximum score indicates that the adoption of the technology is likely to be successful(Goodrum, Haas et al. 2011).The decision to adopt blockchain technology should be made at this point.
The weights of the factors were first determined. In this study, the DEMATEL method was used to determine the weights. In a study on "Supply Chain Risk Solutions", it was noted that ignoring the interrelationships between risks may lead to under- or over-prioritization of risks and even affect the effectiveness of risk solutions(He, Wu et al. 2020).The DEMATEL approach has the advantage of being able to visualize complex cause-effect relationships in the form of directed graphs (Manuj and Mentzer 2008).In the study "Supply Chain Risk Solutions"(He, Wu et al. 2020),the DEMATEL method was used not only to analyze the interrelationships between risk factors, but also to determine the weights of the factors. This paper draws on that research to determine the weights of the contributing factors through the DEMATEL method, while at the same time examining the interrelationships among the factors to provide decision support for construction companies to focus on the major factors and identify the interactions among them. The following is the process of determining the weights by the DEMATEL method.
Step 1. Determine the direct impact matrix A.
The influence relationship between the factors is determined by experts through scoring, which is divided into 5 levels, where 0 means no influence, 1 means low influence, 2 means medium influence, 3 means high influence, and 4 means very high influence..
Step 2. Determine the standardized impact matrix D.
The initial direct relationship is normalized using Eq. (2).
$$D=\frac{E\left(A\right)}{s}$$
2
where s is the maximum value of the sum of the elements of each row of matrix A..
Step 3. Calculate the total relationship matrix T..
Step 4. Calculate centrality and causality.
From the matrix T, the influence degree X, the influenced degree Y, the centrality degree M and the cause degree N are calculated for each factor. The sum of each factor row in T is called the influence degree; the sum of each factor column is called the influenced degree. The sum of each factor's degree of influence and degree of being influenced is the centrality of factor i, i.e., M = X + Y; the difference between each factor's degree of influence and degree of being influenced is the cause degree of factor i, i.e., N = X-Y. If its value is positive, it is called the cause factor, and if it is negative, it is called the result factor.
Step 5. Determination of the importance of factors
Based on centrality and causality, factor importance wi is determined by the following equation:
$$wi=\sqrt{{M}^{2}+{N}^{2}}$$
4
The normalized importance Wi is calculated as follows:
$$Wi=\frac{wi}{\sum _{i=1}^{12}wi}$$
5
Wi is the weight of the factor.
Second, a weighted score R is calculated for the factors. The value of R is calculated using the following formula.R of at least 65% of the maximum score indicates that the adoption of the technology is likely to be successful(Goodrum, Haas et al. 2011).The decision to adopt blockchain technology should be made at this point..
R=\(\sum _{i=1}^{n}WiPi\) (6)
where Wi is the weight of the ith factor; Pi is the score of the ith factor..
TOE framework and blockchain adoption decision-making factors
The TOE framework is often used to analyze factors influencing technology adoption (Aboelmaged and Hashem 2018, Alkhater, Walters et al. 2018, Oliveira, Martins et al. 2019).Since the TOE framework considers multidimensional aspects of the organization when studying technology adoption and diffusion, TOE has more explanatory power compared to other adoption models such as Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)(Khayer, Talukder et al. 2020).TOE framework is a comprehensive reference to the information technology innovation to adopt relevant theories and expand on the basis of IT, it summarizes the factors affecting an enterprise or organization to adopt or implement innovative technology into three dimensions: technology, organization and environment.The technology context encompasses internal and external technology features that can influence the organization; the organizational context focuses on the company's ability to mobilize resources to facilitate technology adoption, such as firm size, organizational structure, and human resources; and the environmental context encompasses factors from the market, industry, and regulatory environment(Kouhizadeh, Saberi et al. 2021).In a recent study exploring the barriers to blockchain adoption (Kouhizadeh, Saberi et al. 2021),the environmental factors were divided into two, one for the supply chain perspective; and the other for the external perspective. To emphasize the construction supply chain as a scenario, this paper draws on that research and divides the environmental factors into an external perspective and a construction supply chain perspective. By reviewing previous literature, the decision factors for blockchain technology adoption are summarized: facilitator and barrier factors. The existing literature highlights many benefits of applying blockchain technology, which are considered as facilitators for adoption decision factors in this study; at the same time, the existing literature also summarizes many barriers to blockchain adoption, which are considered as barrier factors for adoption decisions in this study.
Facilitator Factors Influencing Blockchain Technology Adoption Decisions
Technology factors. First, smart contracts can facilitate automated procurement and payment. Payment terms for work in construction projects are vulnerable to unfair payment practices, such as unfair non-payment(Ramachandra and Rotimi 2015).Payment delays mean that contractors have to bear additional financial and transaction costs, and this increases their risk of insolvency (Odeyinka and Kaka 2005).This can increase the difficulty for contractors to claim payment for their work because of the unequal status of the owner and contractor of the construction project, with the owner having a higher status. Smart contracts are a procedure that is executed automatically in a distributed ledger environment that allows for automated transactions that are accepted by all parties, and blockchain-based smart contracts play a prominent role because this overcomes the need to trust third parties(Governatori, Idelberger et al. 2018).By applying blockchain-based smart contracts in the construction supply chain, it makes all the processes automated and neutral, which will save a lot of time and cost (Shou, Wang et al. 2017).A study that used the automatic payment function of smart contracts to procure expensive equipment for a large international project showed that smart contracts are particularly suitable for temporary, decentralized construction projects involving many stakeholders(Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).Second, the tamper-proof nature of blockchain can be used to store construction quality information. It can sometimes be a daunting task in the construction industry to determine who is responsible for substandard products(Sheng, Ding et al. 2020),and there is a lack of a system in the project supply chain that can easily capture and secure quality data (Ding, Li et al. 2017).When data is kept by a participant alone, he has the incentive and opportunity to modify the data to absolve himself of responsibility in case of product problems (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).Blockchain can contribute to quality information management in the construction industry in the following ways: the consistency of the ledger can make the information recorded on the blockchain completely transparent to supply chain participants; the tamper-proof capability of the blockchain can ensure that the data is immutable and traceable; and smart contracts can regulate the quality information management process to avoid certain violations(Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).
Organizational factors. First, blockchain can improve an organization's existing IT systems. Several applications of digital technologies already exist in the construction supply chain. For example, the Internet of Things, which allows for real-time material monitoring of large building components, better site management and improved construction efficiency (Heiskanen 2017).Blockchain combined with IoT can ensure reliability of data sharing as well as avoid forgery and spoofing (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).BIM is becoming a platform for collaboration among various participants in CSC (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).The combination of blockchain and BIM can improve the problem of BIM digital model reliability (Kim, Lee et al. 2020).Second, blockchain facilitates good project planning. Applying blockchain technology to ready-mixed concrete material transportation can reduce the losses caused by the fault of personnel and malicious false information(Ilin, Lanko et al. 2018).The supply chain management of assembled buildings often faces challenges such as fragmentation, poor traceability, and lack of real-time information. By applying blockchain technology, supply chain participants can query the logistics information of precast components in the blockchain system to control the construction process accordingly and ensure that construction requirements are well met(Wang, Wang et al. 2020).Third, blockchain facilitates information management in organizations (Belle 2017, Shou, Wang et al. 2017).This is reflected in the fact that a wide range of information and belonging to the construction industry can be stored in the blockchain system, for example, recording information on equipment rentals such as tower cranes. Fourth, blockchain technology can save construction costs. A study suggests that blockchain can help save 8.3% of the total cost in residential construction(Dakhli, Lafhaj et al. 2019).
Environmental factors (CSC perspective). First, supply chain participants are quick to verify the authenticity of documents. One problem with traditional supply chains is the lack of open and trusted information sources(Shou, Wang et al. 2017).By using blockchain technology to record construction quality data, construction progress information, and resource consumption data, the entire system can know exactly where the information comes from and can automate the process, thus saving a lot of time and cost(Shou, Wang et al. 2017).Second, blockchain can improve the transparency and traceability of the construction supply chain.Prefabricated components have the potential to be damaged during transportation.Because blockchain can track all operational information related to prefabricated components, it facilitates the resolution of disputes and claims related to prefabricated components (Wang, Wang et al. 2020).Third, blockchain can facilitate the realization of a digital construction supply chain. Blockchain can digitize the business processes of the construction industry, thus promoting the informatization of the construction industry(Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).
Environmental factors (external perspective). First, the fourth industrial revolution, characterized by the convergence of emerging technologies, has changed the industrial environment. The construction industry is no exception, such as the convergence of technologies such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), the Internet of Things (IoT), and blockchain(Kim, Lee et al. 2020).The term "Industry 4.0" emphasizes the trend towards digitization and automation in manufacturing, which contributes to improved product quality and better business performance, but this concept has not received much attention in the construction industry (Oesterreich and Teuteberg 2016).The digital revolution and the shortage of skilled labor in the construction industry have led to the need for the construction industry to adopt technological innovations to cope with a rapidly changing world(Craveiro, Duarte et al. 2019).The concept of "constrcution 4.0", which is analogous to "industry 4.0", will help to improve the productivity of construction companies, reduce project delays and cost overruns, and improve safety, quality, and resource efficiency(García de Soto, Agustí-Juan et al. 2018, Ghaffar, Corker et al. 2018).Second, blockchain helps to improve the image of the construction industry. The adoption of blockchain can improve the negative perception of the construction industry as "slow to innovate" (2016, Farmer 2016) as the poor image of the industry is one of the reasons for the failure and low performance of the construction industry. Third, the blockchain market is growing in size. The global blockchain technology market size growth trend is expected to continue and is expected to exceed $3.74 billion in 2022(Kim, Lee et al. 2020).This is likely to enhance the maturity of the technology, which will facilitate its adoption in the construction industry.The Table 1 summarizes the facilitating factors for blockchain adoption decisions.
| TOE view | Facilitator factors | Description | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | T1-Automate procurement and payment. | Smart contracts address payment delays, reduce the risk of bankruptcy and protect subcontractors' interests. | (Das et al., 2020; Shemov et al., 2020; Shou et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2020) |
| T2-Store building quality information using tamper-proofness. | Construction products have a long running time, and the use of blockchain storage can ensure that the information is not distorted | (D. Sheng et al., 2020) | |
| Organazition | O1-Improve the organization's existing IT systems. | Blockchain-based BIM platform improves the reliability of BIM digital models; IoT integrates with blockchain to achieve reliable data sharing and avoid forgery and cheating. | (Kim et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020) |
| O2-Facilitates good project planning for the organization. | Integration of blockchain in construction material logistics for tracking material delivery times, as well as predicting delivery times for better construction process planning. | (Ilin et al., 2018; Z. Wang et al., 2020) | |
| O3-Facilitates organizational information management. | Blockchain can store a wide range of information or data in the construction field, such as recording building performance, equipment rental information. | (Belle, 2017; Shou et al., 2017) | |
| O4-Cost saving. | It has been noted that blockchain can help save 8.3% of the total cost in residential construction. | (Dakhli et al., 2019) | |
| Environment(CSC perspective) | CSC1-CSC participants verify the authenticity of documents quickly. | Storing construction quality data and other documents in a distributed ledger ensures transparency and guarantees that all supply chain participants can verify the authenticity of documents in real time, while being fast. | (Shou et al., 2017; Z. Wang et al., 2020) |
| CSC2-Improve CSC transparency and traceability. | When a product defect is found, it can be traced back to its origin to facilitate the pursuit of liability and claims. | (Shou et al., 2017; Z. Wang et al., 2020) | |
| CSC3-Promoting the digitization of the construction supply chain. | Blockchain can digitize the business processes of the construction industry and promote the informatization of the construction industry. | (Yang et al., 2020) | |
| Environment factors (external perspective). | E1- Background of Industry 4.0. | Industry 4.0 has enabled manufacturing to achieve better benefits. Blockchain can facilitate Construction 4.0 to digitize, automate and integrate construction processes. | (Kim et al., 2020; McNamara & Sepasgozar, 2021; Oesterreich & Teuteberg, 2016) |
| E2-Raising the profile of the construction industry. | The adoption of blockchain could improve the negative perception of the construction industry as "slow to innovate", as the poor image of the industry is one of the reasons for its failure and low performance. | (Farmer, 2016; R. Agarwal, 2016) | |
| E3-Blockchain market size is growing rapidly. | Global blockchain market size is growing rapidly. | (Kim et al., 2020) |
| TOE view | Barrier factors | Description | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | T1- Time lag in technology usage | Blockchain developers have yet to deliver a 100% industry-tested blockchain application for the construction industry. | (Kim et al., 2020; Shemov et al., 2020; Da Sheng et al., 2020) |
| T2-Deficiencies of the technology itself | Limited number of transactions processed per second, Slow verification of public blockchain,etc. | (Dakhli et al., 2019; Das et al., 2020; Shemov et al., 2020; D. Sheng et al., 2020; Z. Wang et al., 2020; F. Xue & Lu, 2020; Yang et al., 2020) | |
| Organazition | O1-Financial restrictions | High investment costs and migrating costs. | (Shemov et al., 2020; Da Sheng et al., 2020; Z. Wang et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020) |
| O2-Lack of professional knowledge | Accumulated blockchain knowledge and experience in the construction industry is still scarce. | (McNamara & Sepasgozar, 2021; Da Sheng et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020) | |
| O3- Difficulties in converting to the new system. | a lack of awareness and understanding may prevent conservative participants from embracing emerging innovations. | (Z. Wang et al., 2020) | |
| Environment(CSC perspective) | CSC1-Large number of construction supply chain members | blockchain technology makes it difficult to quickly identify users and objects in the dynamic process of business. | (Yang et al., 2020) |
| CSC2-Reluctance to share information. | For centuries, construction companies have kept their business ledgers private and may refuse to distribute ledger access to stakeholders. | (Z. Wang et al., 2020) | |
| CSC3- Temporary nature of the construction supply chain | Significant initial investment costs are incurred during the initial application phase and it may be difficult to reuse existing blockchain networks due to the one-time nature of construction projects. | (Z. Wang et al., 2020) | |
| CSC4-Lack of cooperation and communication among construction supply chain partners. | The construction industry in general is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation, conflict and dispute. | (Behnke & Janssen, 2020; Longo et al., 2019; X. Xue et al., 2007) | |
| Environment factors (external perspective). | E1-The construction industry is slow to adopt new technologies. | The construction industry has often given the impression that they are traditional and they are reluctant to embrace new technologies. | (J. Li et al., 2019; McNamara & Sepasgozar, 2021; Shemov et al., 2020; Da Sheng et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020) |
| E2-Lack of technical standards and supporting laws and regulations. | The technical standards and supporting regulations on which technology implementation depends are scarce. | (Da Sheng et al., 2020) | |
| E3-The construction industry is not yet ready for a large-scale implementation of blockchain. | It is too early to establish a blockchain system for all construction project management activities at this stage. |
Barrier Factors Influencing Blockchain Technology Adoption Decisions
Despite the many benefits blockchain technology promises to bring to the traditional construction industry, it still faces many obstacles in its adoption process. Clarifying the obstacles and challenges to the adoption of blockchain technology in the construction industry will help practitioners in the construction industry to better apply and implement blockchain technology. This paper mainly analyzes the obstacles to the adoption of blockchain technology in the construction industry, in order to explore the hierarchical structure of each obstacle and the causal relationship between them and the degree of impact.
Technology factors. First, the time lag in the use of technology. Although studies have shown that the construction industry can improve efficiency, transparency, and traceability through the use of blockchain technology, these are still theoretical and most applications are in early development or pilot stages(Kim, Lee et al. 2020),and no 100% industry-tested blockchain systems are yet available for the construction industry (Heiskanen 2017).Therefore,blockchain technology still needs some time to pass before it can be implemented in real projects (Shemov, Garcia de Soto et al. 2020).Second, the blockchain technology itself has some drawbacks: 1) The maximum number of transactions per second is currently limited (Shemov, Garcia de Soto et al. 2020).2)It takes a long time to process the business because to ensure business security and transparency, transactions cannot be approved until all participants in the CSC reach a consensus (Wang, Wang et al. 2020).3༉It takes a long time to download the whole blockchain (Shemov, Garcia de Soto et al. 2020).4༉The blockchain system has restrictions on the format of uploaded data, and some large but valuable files, such as videos, will degrade the performance of the blockchain (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).5༉Smart contracts cannot be changed once they are deployed (Das, Luo et al. 2020),but the construction process has many uncertainties, so encoding smart contracts is a challenge from the beginning (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).6༉Blockchain networks may be subject to attacks. Some participants wish to conceal certain sensitive information (Das, Luo et al. 2020) (e.g., discounts agreed between contracting parties, or fines).7༉Admittedly, blockchains are tamper-proof, but it is required that the data entering the blockchain be of high quality (Dakhli, Lafhaj et al. 2019).If falsified data is entered into it, the problem will remain in the system and cannot be removed.8) Blockchain integration with BIM can encounter the huge challenge of information redundancy (Xue and Lu 2020).
Organizational factors. First, financial constraints. The transaction costs of using blockchain can be divided into initial platform build costs, on-boarding or deployment costs, cloud costs, ongoing maintenance costs, and monitoring costs(Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).Blockchain is different from traditional project management systems. Therefore,managing historical data stored in traditional systems separately or migrating them to the blockchain will likewise lead to higher costs (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).Second, there is a lack of expertise. The relevant knowledge and experience accumulated in the construction industry is still lacking, and deploying blockchain is a knowledge-intensive task (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).Measures such as tools or templates are needed to enable people with low computer skills to write smart contracts (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).Third, blockchain is still a very new concept in the construction industry, and a lack of understanding of it may cause conservatives to reject the innovation (Wang, Wang et al. 2020).
Environmental factors (CSC perspective). First, there are many members in construction supply chain. Construction business processes involve many stakeholders and objects (e.g., owners, general contractors, subcontractors, design units, etc.), and blockchain systems have difficulties in quickly identifying users and objects in a dynamic business environment (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).Second, for centuries, construction companies' business ledgers have been private, which may cause participants in the CSC to deny other members access to their ledgers (Wang, Wang et al. 2020).Third, blockchain incurs significant initial investment costs in the initial adoption phase, and it may be difficult to reuse used blockchain systems due to the one-time nature of construction projects and the temporary nature of CSCs(Wang, Wang et al. 2020).Fourth, there is a lack of collaboration and communication among CSC partners. The construction industry in general is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation, conflict and disputes. Over time, CSC participants have performed poorly in collaboration (Xue, Wang et al. 2007).
Environmental factors (external perspective). First, the construction industry is often perceived as a traditional industry that is reluctant to embrace new technologies (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).Second, the technical standards and supporting regulations that are associated with the technology implementation are scarce (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020).Third, the environment for applying blockchain has not yet developed in the construction industry (Sheng, Ding et al. 2020),so it is premature to apply blockchain technology to all construction project activities at this stage (Yang, Wakefield et al. 2020).In Table 2, we summarize the barrier factors that affect blockchain adoption decisions.
Application of Blockchain Technology Adoption Decision-Making Model
Sample and respondent information
An illustrative case of applying a blockchain adoption decision-making model is conducted in this study. Practitioners from the construction industry and those familiar with blockchain technology are invited to participate in this research. A total of 30 questionnaires are received. Respondents were mainly from the construction and IT industries, with 26.7% and 53.3% respectively. In addition, there are some other industries that are familiar with blockchain technology, such as manufacturing and logistics. Considering that the application of blockchain in the construction industry is still in its infancy, it may be informative to know the opinions of people from other industries for the adoption of blockchain in the construction industry. About 26.7% of the respondents have more than 15 years of experience. The percentage of those with less than 5 years of work experience was approximately 13.3%. Feedback from practitioners with broad experience is of significant value(Nnaji, Gambatese et al. 2020).Thus the knowledge background and extensive work experience of the respondents increased the confidence and reliability of the study results.
The results are positive and have a high score of 297 points in the assessment of stage 1. This indicates that the potential for the application of blockchain technology in the construction supply chain is widely viewed. This is in line with Kim et al. that the construction industry is generally considered to have a great potential for applying blockchain (Kim et al., 2020). (Kim, Lee et al. 2020).
A stage 2 evaluation followed. The results are shown in Table 3. The weighted score sum is 110.227, which is 73.5% of the maximum available score (150), which is greater than the threshold of 65%. This suggests that if the decision is made to adopt blockchain technology in the construction supply chain, there is a greater likelihood that the technology will be successfully implemented. Therefore, it is recommended that managers should make the decision to adopt blockchain technology and blockchain technology should be implemented in the construction supply chain. And the technology has a high probability of success when implemented.
| Number | Factors | Rating sum | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | T1-Automate procurement and payment. | 110 | 0.086 |
| 2 | T2-Store building quality information using tamper-proofness. | 106 | 0.082 |
| 3 | O1-Improve the organization's existing IT systems. | 104 | 0.082 |
| 4 | O2-Facilitates good project planning for the organization. | 111 | 0.084 |
| 5 | O3-Facilitates organizational information management. | 104 | 0.083 |
| 6 | O4-Cost saving. | 100 | 0.074 |
| 7 | CSC1-CSC participants verify the authenticity of documents quickly. | 110 | 0.084 |
| 8 | CSC2-Improve CSC transparency and traceability. | 123 | 0.085 |
| 9 | CSC3-Promoting the digitization of the construction supply chain. | 105 | 0.086 |
| 10 | E1- Background of Industry 4.0. | 113 | 0.086 |
| 11 | E2-Raising the profile of the construction industry | 116 | 0.082 |
| 12 | E3-Blockchain market size is growing rapidly. | 119 | 0.086 |
| Weighted sum | 110.227 | ||
| % Relative to maximum score | 73.5% |
Implications for Technology Adoption Researchers and Practitioners
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the theory in several ways. First, this study identifies and validates the factors that influence blockchain adoption in CSC. The identified decision factors can be used to predict the acceptance and effectiveness of blockchain technology in specific work contexts. In addition, researchers involved in developing blockchain technologies can use the decision factors from this study as a guide to increase the chances of translating the technology into practical productivity. If researchers ensure that the developed technology meets the adoption criteria of this study, the chances of adoption in practice will increase.
Most of the existing literature studying the barriers to blockchain adoption in supply chains focuses on industries such as manufacturing (Kurpjuweit, Schmidt et al. 2019),agriculture (Mukherjee, Singh et al. 2021) etc,and there is a lack of research on blockchain adoption in the context of construction supply chain. And the construction supply chain has some different characteristics from them (Xue, Wang et al. 2007).This study extends the industry context of the supply chain to the construction industry, further developing the construction industry as an important area of IS research to explore the factors influencing the adoption of blockchain in the construction supply chain, which broadens the theoretical understanding..
In addition, to address the problem of sluggish blockchain adoption in the construction industry, Xu analyzed the blockchain adoption barrier factors (Xu, Chong et al. 2021).Although the analysis of the relationship between the barrier factors facilitates measures to address the barriers and thus promote blockchain adoption. However, existing studies still lack a decision-making tool. This study contributes to promoting the adoption of blockchain technology from a decision-making perspective..
Practical Implications
Blockchain technology is a hot topic that has attracted a lot of attention from various industries. The construction industry lags behind other industries in terms of IT adoption and is often perceived as traditional and reluctant to embrace technological innovation. In addition, the temporary nature of the construction supply chain, adversarial relationships, and other factors have slowed blockchain adoption. Much of the existing literature agrees that blockchain technology should not be ignored when looking at future business developments(Hunhevicz and Hall 2020).Therefore, decision makers in the construction industry may be hesitant to adopt blockchain technology to catch the "wave" of this new technology or not. What is the likelihood of success if blockchain technology is adopted in the future? The decision-making model developed in this study can help decision makers to rationally analyze the influencing factors (barriers and facilitators) of blockchain adoption and make an informed decision to adopt blockchain or not by quantitatively considering these decision factors in an integrated manner.
This model can be used to assess the potential for successful adoption of blockchain technology prior to widespread investment in the technology. The methodology encourages collaboration and extensive discussion among the various participants in the construction supply chain during the construction process. It is expected that by utilizing this decision-making process, enhanced adoption of blockchain technology at a specific scale will be achieved. Following the assessment, each supply chain participant can decide whether to continue to invest in the technologies assessed or to pause the process and work to create an environment that will facilitate future adoption. The measure could be to develop a strategic plan that focuses on prioritizing the importance of factors and focusing resources on the important ones.
The purpose of this paper is to develop a decision-making model for blockchain technology adoption based on a construction industry context. This is the first effort to study blockchain technology adoption from a decision-making perspective. The focus of this study is to enhance our understanding of the influencing factors that affect blockchain technology adoption. And by incorporating them into the TOE framework, a practical and novel approach to assess blockchain technology adoption is developed..
First, this study identifies the factors that can be used to predict technology adoption through a literature review. Then, using the TOE framework, the predictors were categorized into technology predictors, organizational predictors, environmental predictors (construction supply chain perspective), and environmental predictors (external environment perspective). The two-stage assessment yields an organization's propensity to adopt blockchain technology and draws conclusions about adoption or non-adoption.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations in this study. First, our influencing factors were only summarized by reviewing the existing literature, and new influencing factors may emerge with the development of blockchain technology and the construction industry. Future research could identify certain new factors, for example, through the method of expert interviews. Second, the predictive power of the evaluation model was not validated in this study. Future research could consider using methods such as neural networks to validate the predictive power of the model..
Author Contribution
M.X., X.C. and M.W. wrote the main manuscript text, Y.H. and X.X. prepared Figs. 1 and Tables 1, 2, . All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Basic Research Project of Colleges and universities of Liaoning Province（No. LJKMZ20220688;No.JYTMS20230814）These supports are gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to the reviewers for discerning comments on this paper.
- Aboelmaged, M. and G. Hashem (2018). "RFID application in patient and medical asset operations management: A technology, organizational and environmental (TOE) perspective into key enablers and impediments." International Journal of Medical Informatics 118: 58-64.
- Agarwal, R. and A. Tiwana (2015). "Editorial—Evolvable Systems: Through the Looking Glass of IS." Information Systems Research 26(3): 473-479.
- Alkhater, N., R. Walters and G. Wills (2018). "An empirical study of factors influencing cloud adoption among private sector organisations." Telematics and Informatics 35(1): 38-54.
- Andoni, M., V. Robu, D. Flynn, S. Abram, D. Geach, D. Jenkins, P. McCallum and A. Peacock (2019). "Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 100: 143-174.
- Aubert, B. A., A. Schroeder and J. Grimaudo (2012). "IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An empirical analysis of farmers' adoption decision of precision agriculture technology." Decision Support Systems 54(1): 510-520.
- Barnes, D. G., M. Vidiassov, B. Ruthensteiner, C. J. Fluke, M. R. Quayle and C. R. McHenry (2013). "Embedding and publishing interactive, 3-dimensional, scientific figures in Portable Document Format (PDF) files." PLoS One 8(9): e69446.
- Behnke, K. and M. F. W. H. A. Janssen (2020). "Boundary conditions for traceability in food supply chains using blockchain technology." International Journal of Information Management 52.
- Belle, I. (2017). The Architecture,Engineering and Construction Industry and Blockchain Technology. 2017 National Architecture School and Department Architecture Digital Technology Teaching Seminar and DADA2017 Digital Architecture International Academic Seminar, Nanjing,China.
- Casino, F., L. Azpilicueta, P. Lopez-Iturri, E. Aguirre, F. Falcone and A. Solanas (2017). "Optimized Wireless Channel Characterization in Large Complex Environments by Hybrid Ray Launching-Collaborative Filtering Approach." IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 16: 780-783.
- Choi, J. O., B. K. Shrestha, J. S. Shane and Y. H. Kwak (2020). "Facility Design Standardization Decision-Making Model for Industrial Facilities and Capital Projects." Journal of Management in Engineering 36(6).
- Choudhry, R. M. (2015). "Achieving Safety and Productivity in Construction Projects." Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 23(2): 311-318.
- Company, M. (2017). Reinventing construction: A route to higher productivity.
- Craveiro, F., J. P. Duarte, H. Bartolo and P. J. Bartolo (2019). "Additive manufacturing as an enabling technology for digital construction: A perspective on Construction 4.0." Automation in Construction 103: 251-267.
- Dakhli, Z., Z. Lafhaj and A. Mossman (2019). "The Potential of Blockchain in Building Construction." Buildings 9(4).
- Das, M., H. Luo and J. C. P. Cheng (2020). "Securing interim payments in construction projects through a blockchain-based framework." Automation in Construction 118.
- Ding, L., K. Li, Y. Zhou and P. E. D. Love (2017). "An IFC-inspection process model for infrastructure projects: Enabling real-time quality monitoring and control." Automation in Construction 84: 96-110.
- Farmer, M. (2016). "The Farmer review of the UK construction labour model." Retrieved 16 Apr., 2021, from http://www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Farmer-Review.pdf.
- Gambatese, J. A. and M. Hallowell (2011). "Enabling and measuring innovation in the construction industry." Construction Management and Economics 29(6): 553-567.
- García de Soto, B., I. Agustí-Juan, J. Hunhevicz, S. Joss, K. Graser, G. Habert and B. T. Adey (2018). "Productivity of digital fabrication in construction: Cost and time analysis of a robotically built wall." Automation in Construction 92: 297-311.
- Ghaffar, S. H., J. Corker and M. Fan (2018). "Additive manufacturing technology and its implementation in construction as an eco-innovative solution." Automation in Construction 93: 1-11.
- Gökalp, E., M. O. Gökalp and S. Çoban (2020). "Blockchain-Based Supply Chain Management: Understanding the Determinants of Adoption in the Context of Organizations." Information Systems Management: 1-22.
- Goodrum, P. M., C. T. Haas, C. Caldas, D. Zhai, J. Yeiser and D. Homm (2011). "Model to Predict the Impact of a Technology on Construction Productivity." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-Asce 137(9): 678-688.
- Goodrum, P. M., D. Zhai and M. F. Yasin (2009). "Relationship between Changes in Material Technology and Construction Productivity." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135(4): 278-287.
- Governatori, G., F. Idelberger, Z. Milosevic, R. Riveret, G. Sartor and X. Xu (2018). "On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems." Artificial Intelligence and Law 26(4): 377-409.
- Hamledari, H. and M. Fischer (2021). "Construction payment automation using blockchain-enabled smart contracts and robotic reality capture technologies." Automation in Construction 132.
- Haymaker, J., D. H. Chau and B. Xie (2013). Inference-assisted choosing by advantages. Proc., 21th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Citeseer.
- He, L., Z. Wu, W. Xiang, M. Goh, Z. Xu, W. Song, X. Ming and X. Wu (2020). "A novel Kano-QFD-DEMATEL approach to optimise the risk resilience solution for sustainable supply chain." International Journal of Production Research 59(6): 1714-1735.
- Heiskanen, A. (2017). "The technology of trust: How the Internet of Things and blockchain could usher in a new era of construction productivity." Construction Research and Innovation 8(2): 66-70.
- Helo, P. and A. H. M. Shamsuzzoha (2020). "Real-time supply chain—A blockchain architecture for project deliveries." Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 63.
- Hu, T., X. Liu, T. Chen, X. Zhang, X. Huang, W. Niu, J. Lu, K. Zhou and Y. Liu (2021). "Transaction-based classification and detection approach for Ethereum smart contract." Information Processing & Management 58(2).
- Hunhevicz, J. J. and D. M. Hall (2020). "Do you need a blockchain in construction? Use case categories and decision framework for DLT design options." Advanced Engineering Informatics 45.
- Hwang, B.-G., M. Shan and K.-Y. Looi (2018). "Knowledge-based decision support system for prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction." Automation in Construction 94: 168-178.
- Ilin, I., A. Lanko, N. Vatin, A. Kaklauskas and O. Kalinina (2018). "Application of RFID combined with blockchain technology in logistics of construction materials." MATEC Web of Conferences 170.
- Juan, Y.-K., W.-Y. Lai and S.-G. Shih (2016). "Building information modeling acceptance and readiness assessment in Taiwanese architectural firms." Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 23(3): 356-367.
- Kano, Y. and T. Nakajima (2018). "A novel approach to solve a mining work centralization problem in blockchain technologies." International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications 14(1): 15-32.
- Khayer, A., M. S. Talukder, Y. Bao and M. N. Hossain (2020). "Cloud computing adoption and its impact on SMEs’ performance for cloud supported operations: A dual-stage analytical approach." Technology in Society 60.
- Kim, K., G. Lee and S. Kim (2020). "A Study on the Application of Blockchain Technology in the Construction Industry." KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 24(9): 2561-2571.
- Kouhizadeh, M., S. Saberi and J. Sarkis (2021). "Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers." International Journal of Production Economics 231.
- Kurpjuweit, S., C. G. Schmidt, M. Klöckner and S. M. Wagner (2019). "Blockchain in Additive Manufacturing and its Impact on Supply Chains." Journal of Business Logistics.
- Laufer, A., H. Woodward and G. A. Howell (1999). "Managing the Decision-Making Process during Project Planning." Journal of Management in Engineering 15(2): 79-84.
- Lee, D., S. H. Lee, N. Masoud, M. S. Krishnan and V. C. Li (2021). "Integrated digital twin and blockchain framework to support accountable information sharing in construction projects." Automation in Construction 127.
- Li, C. Z., Z. Chen, F. Xue, X. T. R. Kong, B. Xiao, X. Lai and Y. Zhao (2021). "A blockchain- and IoT-based smart product-service system for the sustainability of prefabricated housing construction." Journal of Cleaner Production 286.
- Li, J., D. Greenwood and M. Kassem (2019). "Blockchain in the built environment and construction industry: A systematic review, conceptual models and practical use cases." Automation in Construction 102: 288-307.
- Li, Z., W. M. Wang, G. Liu, L. Liu, J. He and G. Q. Huang (2018). "Toward open manufacturing." Industrial Management & Data Systems 118(1): 303-320.
- Lin, H.-F. and S.-M. Lin (2008). "Determinants of e-business diffusion: A test of the technology diffusion perspective." Technovation 28(3): 135-145.
- Longo, F., L. Nicoletti, A. Padovano, G. d'Atri and M. Forte (2019). "Blockchain-enabled supply chain: An experimental study." Computers & Industrial Engineering 136: 57-69.
- Mabad, T., O. Ali, M. Ally, S. F. Wamba and K. C. Chan (2021). "Making Investment Decisions on RFID Technology: An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors in Construction Firms." IEEE Access 9: 36937-36954.
- Manuj, I. and J. T. Mentzer (2008). "Global Supply Chain Risk Management." Journal of Business Logistics 29(1): 133-155.
- McNamara, A. J. and S. M. E. Sepasgozar (2021). "Intelligent contract adoption in the construction industry: Concept development." Automation in Construction 122.
- Mukherjee, A. A., R. K. Singh, R. Mishra and S. Bag (2021). "Application of blockchain technology for sustainability development in agricultural supply chain: justification framework." Operations Management Research.
- Negahban, S. S., G. B. Baecher and M. J. Skibniewski (2012). "A Decision-Making Model for Adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning Tools by Small-to-Medium Size Construction Organizations / SprendimŲ PriĖmimo Modelis, Taikomas ĮmonĖs IŠtekliŲ Planavimo PriemonĖms Parinkti MaŽose Ir VidutinĖse Statybos Organizacijose." Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18(2): 253-264.
- Nnaji, C., J. Gambatese, A. Karakhan and R. Osei-Kyei (2020). "Development and Application of Safety Technology Adoption Decision-Making Tool." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146(4).
- Nnaji, C., I. Okpala and S. Kim (2019). "A Simulation Framework for Technology Adoption Decision Making in Construction Management: A Composite Model." Computing in Civil Engineering 2019: Visualization, Information Modeling, and Simulation: 499-506.
- Odeyinka, H. A. and A. Kaka (2005). "An evaluation of contractors’ satisfaction with payment terms influencing construction cash flow." Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 10(3): 171-180.
- Oesterreich, T. D. and F. Teuteberg (2016). "Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry." Computers in Industry 83: 121-139.
- Oliveira, T., R. Martins, S. Sarker, M. Thomas and A. Popovič (2019). "Understanding SaaS adoption: The moderating impact of the environment context." International Journal of Information Management 49: 1-12.
- Pelt, R. v., S. Jansen, D. Baars and S. Overbeek (2020). "Defining Blockchain Governance: A Framework for Analysis and Comparison." Information Systems Management 38(1): 21-41.
- R. Agarwal, S. C., M. Sridhar. (2016). " Imagining construction's digital future." from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/imagining-constructions-digital-future#.
- Ramachandra, T. and J. O. B. Rotimi (2015). "Mitigating Payment Problems in the Construction Industry through Analysis of Construction Payment Disputes." Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 7(1).
- Shemov, G., B. Garcia de Soto and H. Alkhzaimi (2020). "Blockchain applied to the construction supply chain: A case study with threat model." Frontiers of Engineering Management 7(4): 564-577.
- Sheng, D., L. Ding, B. Zhong, P. E. D. Love, H. Luo and J. Chen (2020). "Construction quality information management with blockchains." Automation in Construction 120.
- Sheng, D., L. Y. Ding, B. T. Zhong, P. E. D. Love, H. B. Luo and J. G. Chen (2020). "Construction quality information management with blockchains." Automation in Construction 120.
- Shou, W., X. Wang, P. Wu and J. Wang (2017). "The outlook of blockchain technology for construction engineering management." Frontiers of Engineering Management 4(1).
- Streule, T., N. Miserini, O. Bartlomé, M. Klippel and B. G. de Soto (2016). "Implementation of Scrum in the Construction Industry." Procedia Engineering 164: 269-276.
- Viriyasitavat, W., L. Da Xu, Z. Bi and A. Sapsomboon (2018). "Blockchain-based business process management (BPM) framework for service composition in industry 4.0." Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 31(7): 1737-1748.
- Wang, H., Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H. N. Dai and X. Chen (2018). "Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey." International Journal of Web and Grid Services 14(4).
- Wang, Z., T. Wang, H. Hu, J. Gong, X. Ren and Q. Xiao (2020). "Blockchain-based framework for improving supply chain traceability and information sharing in precast construction." Automation in Construction 111.
- Wang, Z. J., T. Y. Wang, H. Hu, J. Gong, X. Ren and Q. Y. Xiao (2020). "Blockchain-based framework for improving supply chain traceability and information sharing in precast construction." Automation in Construction 111.
- Werner, F., M. Basalla, J. Schneider, D. Hays and J. Vom Brocke (2020). "Blockchain Adoption from an Interorganizational Systems Perspective – A Mixed-Methods Approach." Information Systems Management 38(2): 135-150.
- Xu, H., J. Feng and S. Li (2014). "Users-orientated evaluation of building information model in the Chinese construction industry." Automation in Construction 39: 32-46.
- Xu, M., X. Chen and G. Kou (2019). "A systematic review of blockchain." Financial Innovation 5(1).
- Xu, Y., H.-Y. Chong and M. Chi (2021). "Modelling the blockchain adoption barriers in the AEC industry." Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
- Xue, F. and W. Lu (2020). "A semantic differential transaction approach to minimizing information redundancy for BIM and blockchain integration." Automation in Construction 118.
- Xue, X., Y. Wang, Q. Shen and X. Yu (2007). "Coordination mechanisms for construction supply chain management in the Internet environment." International Journal of Project Management 25(2): 150-157.
- Yang, R., R. Wakefield, S. Lyu, S. Jayasuriya, F. Han, X. Yi, X. Yang, G. Amarasinghe and S. Chen (2020). "Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration." Automation in Construction 118.
- Zheng, Z., S. Xie, H. Dai, X. Chen and H. Wang (2017). An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends. 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress): 557-564.
- Zhong, B., H. Wu, L. Ding, H. Luo, Y. Luo and X. Pan (2020). "Hyperledger fabric-based consortium blockchain for construction quality information management." Frontiers of Engineering Management 7(4): 512-527.
- Ziolkowski, R., G. Miscione and G. Schwabe (2020). "Decision Problems in Blockchain Governance: Old Wine in New Bottles or Walking in Someone Else's Shoes?" Journal of Management Information Systems37(2): 316-348.
No competing interests reported.