Yevu 2019
Yevu 2019
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
Drivers for
The ecosystem of drivers electronic
for electronic procurement procurement
adoption
adoption for construction
project procurement 411
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a review of research developments on the ecosystem of
driving forces for electronic procurement (e-procurement) on project procurement and to propose directions
for future research for an effective adoption and sustained usage.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review was conducted in three phases to identify
and examine literature. A total of 68 papers were retrieved and were thoroughly reviewed to identify the
drivers for e-procurement.
Findings – A total of 61 drivers were identified and subsequently developed into a categorization framework
for synthesized understanding which reveals existing interrelationships. Although literature has consensus
on some selected drivers, few studies have identified drivers relating to sustainability. Gaps were identified
from the existing literature and directions for future research were proposed.
Research limitations/implications – Since this is a literature review, future research could conduct
further investigations focusing on the research gaps identified. The framework developed presents a basis for
further research to explore the drivers in various socio-economic environments.
Practical implications – This study provides valuable insights for improving the understanding of
practitioners on the complex network of drivers for e-procurement. These findings stimulate discussions on
benefits required for assessment in e-procurement adoption by practitioners.
Originality/value – This study provides the first comprehensive review of the drivers for e-procurement
adoption in the construction industry, which was lacking in the existing body of knowledge.
Keywords Electronic procurement, Drivers, Construction industry, Organization, Management,
Project management
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Since construction projects provide the facilities for many other industries to thrive in an
economy (Heigermoser et al., 2019), the procurement processes for these projects play a key
role in the effective execution of the projects (De Araújo et al., 2017; Sawan et al., 2018).
The introduction of e-procurement for conducting procurements for projects, to improve the
traditional paper-based procurement, has had a slow uptake towards the process of project
procurement (Isikdag, 2019; Jacobsson et al., 2017). E-procurement is described as
performing project procurement-related activities such as tender submission and evaluation
for a project through the internet or electronic portals (Mehrbod and Grilo, 2018).
Engineering, Construction and
The authors thank the Department of Building and Real Estate of The Hong Kong Polytechnic Architectural Management
Vol. 27 No. 2, 2020
University for funding this research. This study forms part of a PhD research project on the adoption pp. 411-440
of e-procurement for construction project procurement, which might share similar background and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
methodology with other papers but with different objectives and scopes. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-03-2019-0135
ECAM Project procurement has many different stakeholders such as architects, cost engineers,
27,2 project managers, clients, etc., contributing information to the procurement process, and
managing these information flows raises complexities (Bienhaus and Haddud, 2018; Xue
et al., 2010). Also, the prevalence of physical interactions continuously for exchanging
documents and information during the project procurement process was considered
inefficient and expensive (Oraee et al., 2017). These circumstances required an innovative
412 approach to address the issues, hence e-procurement was introduced. However,
e-procurement uptake for construction projects has been low (Isikdag, 2019; Grilo and
Jardim-Goncalves, 2011). Previous studies have explored the drivers, benefits and
motivations encouraging the adoption of e-procurement from different construction
professionals and organizations (Wimalasena and Gunatilake, 2018; Eadie et al., 2010a; Ibem
and Laryea, 2015). But, to date, a comprehensive review of the drivers in the existing body of
knowledge to guide of the next stream of effective future research is still lacking.
A thorough understanding of certain research issues has not been well represented in
literature, especially those related to the list of drivers identified in literature,
the classification of these drivers and the interrelationships existing among the drivers.
A comprehensive review of the drivers presents a broader and better understanding of
the drivers across various studies to accelerate the uptake of e-procurement in the
construction industry.
Therefore, to address this gap, the aim of this study is to conduct a critical review of the
ecosystem of drivers for the adoption of e-procurement for projects. The primary objectives
of this study are to identify the drivers, classify the drivers and reveal the interrelationships.
Subsequently, a framework is developed for these classifications indicating the complex
interrelationships of forces driving the adoption of e-procurement. The outcomes of this
study provide in-depth understanding to the diverse driving forces encouraging the
adoption of e-procurement. It also presents vital information for researchers to delve more
into the synthesis and complexities of factors encouraging the uptake of e-procurement for
projects. For organizations, this study supports the development of strategies to enhance e-
procurement adoption and sustain its performance. In this study, drivers are defined as
forces propelling, motivating and encouraging the adoption of e-procurement for project
procurement. These driving forces could be the benefits, incentives, policies or motivations
encouraging the adoption of e-procurement by stakeholders.
2. Background
The purpose of e-procurement is to facilitate the use of internet technology and tools on the
various processes of procurement for projects (Al-Yahya et al., 2018). Technologies such as
e-Tendering, e-Auction, e-Marketplace, e-Catalogue and e-Invoicing have been used to
provide effective solutions that cover all procurement stages or dedicated areas of the
procurement stages (Mehrbod and Grilo, 2018). For instance, e-Tendering uses internet
systems to disseminate information on invitation to tender, receiving tender submissions
and the evaluation of tenders for decision making during the tendering stage of
procurement. The adoption process for technology as defined by Rogers (2003) is the series
of actions during the decision-making process to implement or neglect new technology.
During this process, various drivers influence the decisions to adopt technology by
organizations (Elmustapha et al., 2018). Sepasgozar et al. (2016) indicated that the
construction literature on technology adoption is focussed on two aspects: context
independent which deals with using models from other fields to explore technology
adoption and context specific which deals with exploring the adoption process through
empirically analysis for projects. Further, Sepasgozar et al. (2016) observed in literature that
the technology adoption was discussed from the managerial level of organizations, while
the technology acceptance was viewed from the individual level by previous studies.
The technology acceptance model (TAM) describes the behavioural intention and attitudes Drivers for
of people towards using technology (Gong et al., 2019; Davis, 1989). The TAM draws on the electronic
theory of reasoned action which is used to predict behaviour based on intentions and procurement
attitudes of people (Liu et al., 2018). This suggests that despite the desire to adopt
technology by organizations, the willingness of individuals to use the technology is crucial adoption
for technology uptake. An understanding of the attributes and factors motivating the
adoption and influencing peoples’ behaviour for e-procurement technology would be 413
essential for the wider promotion of the technology in the construction industry.
3. Research methodology
This study employed the systematic review methodology as used by previous studies (Hong
et al., 2012; Le et al., 2014; Chan and Owusu, 2017) to guide the selection of relevant papers
from the journals. The systematic review was chosen because it compares and integrates the
findings from the papers identified (Grant and Booth, 2009). Due to the large range of
research falling within e-procurement applications from other industries, a comprehensive
and in-depth three-phase process was conducted to extract relevant papers (Lu et al., 2015).
Unlike the review process whereby a desktop search is initially conducted and subsequently
narrowed down (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015), this study initially targeted the list of journals
in Wing (1997) and subsequently conducted a desktop search followed by another specified
search as described below.
Paper
Extraction Screening of Screening of Screening of
titles/abstract/ titles/abstract/ titles/abstract/
full text full text full text
Final output
68 relevant papers selected
Figure 1.
Systematic process for Presentation
literature review of findings Analysis and Findings
27,2 7 70
5 50
416 4 40
3 30
2 20
1 10
Figure 2.
Number of papers 0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
published from
2002 to 2018 Year of publication
Number Cumulative
trend has been generally constant, with an average of four papers per year cumulatively.
This suggests that the research interest in the factors encouraging e-procurement uptake
has to be increased successively by research institutions, to improve the understanding of
the drivers considering the dynamic nature of projects and the information technology
environment for projects.
16
15
14
12
10
Number of Papers
10
9
4
4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Th ia
Sr abia
Po a
S al
Ze n
ca
a
ia
ey
M ia
sia
Ca y
a
et wan
Si nds
g e
g
l
ud and
d
K
ut S A
na
k
in
r
e
l
an
In Kon
l
ak
d
U
Ita
H apo
fri
an
N wed
rk
na
tra
ay
rtu
Ch
In
io
So U
rla
Sa ail
al
r
ov
e N Tai
Tu
A
iL
iA
at
us
al
ng
Figure 3.
he
Sl
rn
h
A
on
ew
te
Number of papers
Th
by countries
Countries
South Africa, Taiwan and Singapore have also made valuable contributions towards the Drivers for
drivers for e-procurement. The item “International” represents studies in more than one electronic
country. The number of papers by country on a topic suggests the influence of the topic on procurement
industrial developments (Hong et al., 2012).
adoption
4.3 Identification of drivers for e-procurement for project procurement
The 68 selected relevant papers were analyzed to identify the drivers of e-procurement in the 417
project procurement. In total, 61 drivers were consequently identified. Details of these drivers
are presented in Table II, indicating their codes and references retrieved from literature. The
full details on the references can be accessed in Table AI. The driver mostly identified in the
literature is “reduced process, transaction and administrative cost”. All the drivers are further
discussed to provide a better understanding of the forces motivating e-procurement adoption
for project procurement. Also, they were subsequently classified and discussed because some
of the drivers have similar characteristics relating to broader issues.
e-Procurement
Drivers
Company-Level Drivers
for construction
project procurement Classified Drivers Interrelationships
To further discuss these classifications, the total frequency and ranking of these
classifications was conducted as shown in Table IV. The arithmetic employed was based on
individual frequencies of papers identified for each classification and their respective mean
scores (Chan and Owusu, 2017). The total frequency of papers for each factor in a
classification was summed up and divided by the respective number of factors within that
classification. The first rank was allotted to the classification with the highest mean score.
For example, external drivers were calculated with the mean score formula below:
X X
ðDr20 þDr36 þ Dr47 þDr33 þDr45Þ=n ¼ ð6 þ3 þ2 þ3 þ2Þ=5 ¼ 3:20; (1)
ECAM Classification Code Frequency Mean Rank
27,2
External drivers 3.20 3
Government regulation and policy Dr20 6
Pressure from industry and business partners Dr36 3
Government demand for value Dr47 2
Enhance regulatory compliance on contracts Dr33 3
428 Peer organization’s uptake of technology Dr45 2
Project-level drivers 4.50 2
Wider coverage and access to contractors/suppliers Dr13 8
Improved audit trail and reducing disputes Dr21 5
Improve integration management of project data Dr22 5
Enhance inventory management and archiving Dr24 5
Cost savings in document management Dr27 4
Effective cost management procured projects Dr41 2
Better coordination and integration of contractors Dr43 2
Reduce bid collusion and corrupt practices Dr48 2
Increase competition among contractors/suppliers Dr9 9
Developing knowledge skill and ability of employees Dr25 5
Improved benchmarking Dr26 6
Degree of dispersion of project teams Dr61 1
Technology- and process-level drivers 9.90 1
Reduce process, transaction and administrative cost Dr1 31
Reduce cycle times for process and transaction Dr2 29
Fast exchange of information among stakeholders Dr4 17
Improved efficiency and effectiveness in the process Dr3 20
Ease of access to information and Dr5 15
Improved communication with stakeholders Dr7 11
Transparency, fairness and accountability Dr8 11
Improve response, accuracy and flexibility of the process and Dr6 11
Improve quality of process Dr10 9
Streamlining and integration of process Dr11 9
Error minimization by eliminating manual rekeying Dr12 8
Effective monitoring of process (real time) Dr16 7
Platform for collaboration Dr17 7
Ease of addressing queries of contractors Dr26 4
Enhance cost reduction in tender prices Dr28 4
Ease of use of technology Dr29 4
Enhance new contractor entrance and identification Dr31 3
Provide support for added value services Dr34 3
Increase trust, confidence and reliability in process Dr39 3
Access to internet intelligent tools for decision making Dr50 1
Availability of adequacy of technology and internet Dr58 1
Company-level drivers 3.20 3
Reduce staffing Dr14 8
Enhancing the competitive advantage of firm Dr15 8
Knowledge database and preserving corporate memory Dr30 3
Top management believes and supports technology Dr35 3
Compatibility of technology to firm’s goals Dr40 3
Technological readiness of firm Dr32 3
Firm’s policy for technology advancement Dr51 1
Sustaining future development of firm Dr52 1
Improve management of physical project resources Dr55 1
Better work opportunities Dr56 1
Individual-level drivers 1.60 7
Employee personal motivation to use technology Dr38 3
Table IV.
Ranking of driver
classifications (continued )
Classification Code Frequency Mean Rank
Drivers for
electronic
Employee views technology as professional credibility Dr42 2 procurement
Influence of technology champion in the firm Dr53 1
Available expertise of technology Dr57 1 adoption
Maturity of project members and teams Dr60 1
Service satisfaction drivers 2.75 6
Client satisfaction Dr23 5 429
Pressure from customers and public Dr37 3
Client’s demand for use of technology Dr46 2
Increase client involvement in the process easily Dr54 1
Sustainability concept drivers 3.00 5
Promoting paperless environment Dr18 6
Promoting sustainable goals through technology by firm Dr59 1
Reduce transportation energy, time and cost Dr44 2 Table IV.
where Dr denote the corresponding drivers within that classification and n denotes the
number of drivers within that classification.
The mean score of each classification is shown in Table III with the respective ranking.
Figure 4 illustrates the graphical presentation of the mean scores for the classifications of
the drivers (Figure 5).
7. Discussions
The findings from Table II and the classification framework in Figure 4 indicate that there are
more drivers motivating the adoption of e-procurement which could be better classified to
improve the understanding of e-procurement drivers when compared to previous
classifications (Karthik and Kumar, 2013; Eadie et al., 2010a). Whereas previous
classifications in literature were derived through the lens of process view approach and
perspectives of project goals, the classification in this study provides a broader and
comprehensive view of the drivers for e-procurement and the interrelationships among them
for understanding the current and emerging motivations for e-procurement uptake. Due to the
construction industry experiencing intense pressure to adopt new technologies and concepts
in recent years (Loosemore, 2014), the seven classifications in Figure 4 present a broader
spectrum for capturing the drivers for e-procurement. Therefore, new drivers emerging in the
construction industry in the future can be grouped under these classifications with respect to
their commonalities with the proposed classification. The external drivers’ classification
12
10
Figure 5.
2 Graphical
representation of
0 classifications mean
External Project Technology Company Individual Service Sustainability score
Drivers Level and Process Level Satisfaction Concept
ECAM (Figure 4) shows the influence government and business partners have on promoting e-
27,2 procurement uptake in organizations. This supports the argument of Loosemore (2014) and
Jacobsson et al. (2017) concerning the pressure in the industry to modernize in recent years. In
effect, this pressure from external sources might not decrease since the quest for improved
productivity is high and more governments are interested in implementing e-procurement.
Therefore, construction organizations need strategic alignment of business processes and
430 objectives in order to adapt to such coercive pressures.
Further the findings reveal that the goals and objectives determined for projects have
motivated the adoption of e-procurement as depicted in the project-level drivers’
classification. For instance, project objectives such as improve project audit trail (Dr21) and
increase competition among tenderers (Dr9) (Hansen, 2018) show that the objectives set on a
project contribute towards e-procurement uptake. This provides effective strategies for
implementers and promoters of e-procurement to ensure that project objectives stimulate
project stakeholders to adopt e-procurement. The drivers identified in the project-level
drivers’ classification could serve as a guide for formulating projects objectives that enhance
e-procurement adoption. From Figure 4, the technology- and process-level drivers show that
organizations are attracted by the benefits e-procurement brings in improving the
procurement process. This supports Sepasgozar et al.’s (2018) argument that active steps are
initiated when there is the quest to improve current conditions. This indicates that focussing
attention on the attributes of e-procurement should be a key activity for convincing
organizations to adopt e-procurement. This study reveals that aside coercive external
pressures (Li et al., 2015; Jacobsson et al., 2017), organizations desiring to improve the
procurement process are intrinsically motivated to adopt e-procurement when information
on the benefits is made available. Specifically, the drivers mostly identified in literature
(Table II) are related to the benefits reducing process cost and time (Dr1 and Dr2). This
finding presents policy makers and project developers with the key benefits encouraging
e-procurement, hence, continuous improvements in these areas would enable a sustained
usage. Other benefits that could be engaged actively to motivate the adoption include
increasing transparency and accountability (Dr8) (Santoso and Bourpanus, 2018) and
support for value added services (Dr34) (Costa and Tavares, 2014). These benefits present
integration opportunities between e-procurement and other emerging technologies to
advance the optimization of technologies in the construction industry in the future.
The company-level drivers’ classification in Figure 4 depicts that the internal
environment of an organization contributes to the decisions for adopting e-procurement.
The drivers in this classification indicate that the relationship between the organizational
goals and its capacity presents fertile grounds for e-procurement adoption. For example, the
goal of an organization to enhance their competitive advantage (Dr15) coupled with the
technological capacity of the organization (Dr32) indicates the organization’s willingness to
adopt e-procurement in order to sustain the future development of the organization (Dr52).
This suggests that the drivers within this category have interdependencies. This supports
current literature which acknowledges that the competitive agenda of organizations for
increased market share and their technological preparedness makes it suitable for adopting
new technology (Santoso and Bourpanus, 2018; Wimalesena and Gunatilake, 2018). This
finding helps in the identification of potential organizations for e-procurement adoption in
the construction industry; hence, the implementation strategy becomes targeted for
optimum results. In Figure 4, this study reveals there are motivations at the individual-level
facilitating e-procurement adoption which were not categorized in previous studies (Karthik
and Kumar, 2013; Eadie et al., 2010a). This individual classification of drivers supports the
findings of previous studies in other fields that individual actors provide key motivations
for building information modelling (BIM) and energy technologies (Su et al., 2019; Singh and
Holmström, 2015). This suggests that key individuals such as technology champion (Dr53)
which could be a manager could be actively used to strategically promote e-procurement on Drivers for
projects and influence top management decisions for e-procurement usage. electronic
The service satisfaction drivers’ classification in Figure 4 emphasizes the influence of procurement
modern construction concepts in the procurement process. This finding supports the
assertions from recent studies that organizations are continuously driven to satisfy their adoption
clients (Aspeteg and Mignon, 2019; Aliakbarlou et al., 2018). Client satisfaction has been
highlighted as major indication of the success of a project in current literature 431
(Haq et al., 2018), hence there is a desire from organizations to achieve this project goal.
However, Jacobsson et al. (2017) identified another type of driver which is based on client’s
demand (Dr46). This suggests that aside using satisfaction as a project objective, the
demand for certain use of technology by the client can be used to drive the adoption of e-
procurement. In the sustainability concept drivers’ classification, this study identified that
the proliferation of sustainable practices and initiatives is influencing e-procurement
uptake. With regard to the impact construction activities have on the environment, the call
for sustainability has increased in recent years (Roman, 2017; Montalbán-Domingo et al.,
2018). In promoting a paperless environment (Dr18), Santoso and Bourpanus (2018)
acknowledged that the use of e-procurement supports the efforts for environmental
preservation. This call for sustainability has encouraged organizations to formulate
sustainability initiatives which subsequently promote their corporate image in the
construction industry (Murtagh et al., 2016). Hence, it is predicted that as sustainability
initiatives increase in the construction industry, organizations will be increasingly
encouraged to adopt e-procurement technology.
In Figure 4, this framework improves on existing literature by showing the
interrelationships among the drivers (see Section 6). These interrelationships show that
the drivers in one classification could stimulate other classification of drivers; hence, there
may be some interdependencies among the classified drivers which may create a certain
cluster of drivers motivating e-procurement in different contexts. Further, the findings from
Table IV and Figure 4 indicate that the technological- and process-level drivers were the
drivers mostly identified in literature. Also, this classification contains the most frequent
drivers identified for e-procurement: reduce process, transaction and administrative cost
(Dr1) and reduce cycle times for process and transaction (Dr2). Although the sustainability
concept drivers were less frequent in the literature, it is anticipated that the current
promotion of sustainability in the construction industry would influence the uptake of e-
procurement. While this study explores the driving factors for e-procurement, other review
studies such as Sepasgozar et al. (2016) indicate that the adoption process for construction
technology innovations moves through a three-phase process of investigation, adoption
decisions and implementation. Also, Ahmed and Kassem (2018) investigated the influence of
BIM drivers on the first three stages of the BIM adoption process. Hence, an investigation
into the drivers influencing the various stages of e-procurement adoption process would be
needful in promoting e-procurement.
References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A. and Andersen, B. (2017), “Project sustainability
strategies: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 1071-1083.
Abu-Elsamen, A., Chakraborty, G. and Warren, D. (2010), “A process-based analysis of e-procurement
adoption”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 243-259.
Ahmed, A.L. and Kassem, M. (2018), “A unified BIM adoption taxonomy: conceptual development,
empirical validation and application”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 96 No. 12, pp. 103-127.
Ajam, M., Alshawi, M. and Mezher, T. (2010), “Augmented process model for e-tendering: towards
integrating object models with document management systems”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 762-778.
Alshawi, M. and Ingirige, B. (2003), “Web-enabled project management: an emerging paradigm in
construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 349-364.
Aliakbarlou, S., Wilkinson, S. and Costello, S.B. (2018), “Rethinking client value within construction
contracting services”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 1007-1025.
Al-Yahya, M., Skitmore, M., Bridge, A., Nepal, M. and Cattell, D. (2018), “E-tendering readiness in
construction: an a priori model”, International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 11
No. 5, pp. 608-638.
Anumba, C.J. and Ruikar, K. (2002), “Electronic commerce in construction – trends and prospects”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 265-275.
Aspeteg, J. and Mignon, I. (2019), “Intermediation services and adopter expectations and demands
during the implementation of renewable electricity innovation – Match or mismatch?”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 214 No. 3, pp. 837-847.
Awwad, R. and Ammoury, M. (2018), “Owner’s perspective on evolution of bid prices under various
price-driven bid selection methods”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000803.
Bienhaus, F. and Haddud, A. (2018), “Procurement 4.0: factors influencing the digitisation of procurement
and supply chains”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 965-984.
Chan, A.P. and Owusu, E.K. (2017), “Corruption forms in the construction industry: literature review”,
Journal Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 143 No. 8, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.
1943-7862.0001353.
Costa, A.A. and Tavares, L.V. (2014), “Social e-business as support for construction e-procurement:
e-procurement network dynamics”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 180-186.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
ECAM De Araújo, M.C.B., Alencar, L.H. and de Miranda Mota, C.M. (2017), “Project procurement management: a
27,2 structured literature review”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 353-377.
Doloi, H. (2014), “Rationalizing the implementation of web-based project management systems in
construction projects using PLS-SEM”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 140 No. 7, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000859.
Dooley, K. and Purchase, S. (2006), “Factors influencing e-procurement usage”, Journal of Public
434 Procurement, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 28-45.
Dossick, C., Osburn, L. and Neff, G. (2019), “Innovation through practice: the messy work of making
technology useful for architecture, engineering and construction teams”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
ECAM-12-2017-0272
Dossick, C.S. and Sakagami, M. (2008), “Implementing web-based project management systems in the
United States and Japan”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 3,
pp. 189-196.
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2010a), “A cross-discipline comparison of rankings for
e-procurement drivers and barriers within UK construction organisations”, Journal of
Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 217-233.
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2010b), “Identification of e-procurement drivers and barriers for
UK construction organisations and ranking of these from the perspective of quantity
surveyors”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 23-43.
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2011), “Key process area mapping in the production of an
e-capability maturity model for UK construction organisations”, Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 197-210.
Eadie, R., Perera, S., Heaney, G. and Carlisle, J. (2007), “Drivers and barriers to public sector
e-procurement within Northern Ireland’s construction industry”, Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 103-120.
Eadie, R., Millar, P., Perera, S., Heaney, G. and Barton, G. (2012), “E-readiness of construction
contract forms and e-tendering software”, International Journal of Procurement Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Egan, J. (1998), “Rethinking construction: report of the construction task force on the scope for
improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction”, Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, London.
Elmustapha, H., Hoppe, T. and Bressers, H. (2018), “Consumer renewable energy technology
adoption decision-making; comparing models on perceived attributes and attitudinal constructs
in the case of solar water heaters in Lebanon”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172 No. 1,
pp. 347-357.
Foley, P. (2000), “E-commerce and UK Government”, European Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-8,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2000.05412cag.001
Gardenal, F. (2013), “A model to measure e-procurement impacts on organizational performance”,
Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 215-242.
Gong, P., Zeng, N., Ye, K. and König, M. (2019), “An empirical study on the acceptance of 4D BIM in
EPC projects in China”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1-19.
Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies”, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 91-108.
Grilo, A. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2011), “Challenging electronic procurement in the AEC sector: a
BIM-based integrated perspective”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 107-114.
Grilo, A. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2013), “Cloud-marketplaces: distributed e-procurement for the AEC
sector”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 160-172.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2008), “Adoption of e-procurement in Hong Kong: an empirical
research”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 159-175.
Gupta, S.L., Jha, B.K. and Gupta, H. (2011), “Internet use and benefits in procurement for IT industry in Drivers for
Indian sub continent: a descriptive and conclusive analysis”, International Journal of electronic
Procurement Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 341-362.
Hansen, S. (2018), “Challenging arbitral awards in the construction industry: case study of
procurement
infrastructure disputes”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and adoption
Construction, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000281.
Haq, N.U., Raja, A.A., Nosheen, S. and Sajjad, M.F. (2018), “Determinants of client satisfaction in web
development projects from freelance marketplaces”, International Journal of Managing Projects
435
in Business, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 583-607.
Hasan, A., Baroudi, B., Elmualim, A. and Rameezdeen, R. (2017), “Factors affecting construction
productivity: a 30 year systematic review”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 916-937.
Hassan, H., Tretiakov, A. and Whiddett, D. (2017), “Factors affecting the breadth and depth of
e-procurement use in small and medium enterprises”, Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 304-324.
Heigermoser, D., de Soto, B.G., Abbott, E.L.S. and Chua, D.K.H. (2019), “BIM-based last planner
system tool for improving construction project management”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 104 No. 8, pp. 246-254.
Ho, P.H. (2015), “Analysis of competitive environments, business strategies, and performance in
Hong Kong’s construction industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000399.
Hong, Y., Sepasgozar, S.M., Ahmadian, A.F.F. and Akbarnezhad, A. (2016), “Factors influencing BIM
adoption in small and medium sized construction organizations”, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Alabama, 18-21 July, pp. 399-407.
Hong, Y.M., Chan, W.M., Chan, P.C. and Yeung, F.Y. (2012), “Critical analysis of partnering
research trend in construction journals”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 82-95.
Hosseini, M.R., Martek, I., Chileshe, N., Zavadskas, E.K. and Arashpour, M. (2018), “Assessing the
influence of virtuality on the effectiveness of engineering project networks: ‘Big Five Theory’
perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 144 No. 7, pp. 1-12,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001494.
Huang, C.C., Fan, Y.N., Chern, C.C. and Yen, P.H. (2013), “Measurement of analytical knowledge-based
corporate memory and its application”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 846-857.
Ibem, E.O. and Laryea, S. (2014), “Survey of digital technologies in procurement of construction
projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-21.
Ibem, E.O. and Laryea, S. (2015), “e-Procurement use in the South African construction industry”,
Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 364-384.
Isikdag, U. (2019), “An evaluation of barriers to e-procurement in Turkish construction industry”,
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 252-259.
Jaafar, M., Aziz, A.R.A., Ramayah, T. and Saad, B. (2007), “Integrating information technology in the
construction industry: technology readiness assessment of Malaysian contractors”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 115-120.
Jacobsson, M., Linderoth, H.C. and Rowlinson, S. (2017), “The role of industry: an analytical framework
to understand ICT transformation within the AEC industry”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 611-626.
Kang, Y., O’Brien, W.J. and O’Connor, J.T. (2011), “IOP tool: assessing the benefits and hindrances of
information integration implementation opportunities”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 160-169.
Kang, Y., O’Brien, W.J. and O’Connor, J.T. (2013), “Information-integration maturity model for
the capital projects industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000274.
ECAM Karthik, V. and Kumar, S. (2013), “Investigating ‘degree of adoption’ effects on e-procurement benefits”,
27,2 International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 211-234.
Khan, K.I.A., Flanagan, R. and Lu, S.L. (2016), “Managing information complexity using system
dynamics on construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 192-204.
Kim, A.A., Sadatsafavi, H. and Kim Soucek, M. (2015), “Effective communication practices for
436 implementing ERP for a large transportation agency”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000415.
Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001), “Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 122-136.
Le, Y., Shan, M., Chan, A.P. and Hu, Y. (2014), “Overview of corruption research in construction”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.
0000300.
Li, X., Pillutla, S., Zhou, H. and Yao, D.Q. (2015), “Drivers of adoption and continued use of
e-procurement systems: empirical evidence from China”, Journal of Organizational Computing
and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 262-288.
Liao, T.S., Wang, M.T. and Tserng, H.P. (2002), “A framework of electronic tendering for
government procurement: a lesson learned in Taiwan”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 11
No. 6, pp. 731-742.
Liu, D., Lu, W. and Niu, Y. (2018), “Extended technology-acceptance model to make smart construction
systems successful”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 144 No. 6,
pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001487.
Loosemore, M. (2014), “Improving construction productivity: a subcontractor’s perspective”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 245-260.
Lu, Y., Li, Y., Skibniewski, M., Wu, Z., Wang, R. and Le, Y. (2015), “Information and communication
technology applications in architecture, engineering, and construction organizations: a 15-year
review”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.
1943-5479.0000319.
Mahamid, I., Bruland, A. and Dmaidi, N. (2011), “Causes of delay in road construction projects”, Journal
of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 300-310.
Mehrbod, A. and Grilo, A. (2018), “Tender calls search using a procurement product named entity
recogniser”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 216-228.
Men, L.R. and Tsai, W.H.S. (2014), “Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioural outcomes of organization-
public engagement on corporate social networking sites”, Journal of Public Relations Research,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 417-435.
Montalbán-Domingo, L., García-Segura, T., Amalia Sanz, M. and Pellicer, E. (2018), “Social
sustainability in delivery and procurement of public construction contracts”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000674.
Murtagh, N., Roberts, A. and Hind, R. (2016), “The relationship between motivations of architectural
designers and environmentally sustainable construction design”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 61-75.
Nasirian, A., Arashpour, M. and Abbasi, B. (2019), “Critical literature review of labor multiskilling in
construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 1-13,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001577.
Nitithamyong, P. and Skibniewski, M.J. (2006), “Success/failure factors and performance measures of
web-based construction project management systems: professionals’ viewpoint”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 80-87.
Oraee, M., Hosseini, M.R., Papadonikolaki, E., Palliyaguru, R. and Arashpour, M. (2017), “Collaboration
in BIM-based construction networks: a bibliometric-qualitative literature review”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1288-1301.
Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. (2015), “Review of studies on the critical success factors for public–private Drivers for
partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013”, International Journal of Project Management, electronic
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1335-1346.
procurement
Owusu, E.K. and Chan, A.P. (2018), “Barriers affecting effective application of anticorruption measures
in infrastructure projects: disparities between developed and developing countries”, Journal of adoption
Management in Engineering, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000667.
Pala, M., Edum-Fotwe, F., Ruikar, K., Peters, C. and Doughty, N. (2016), “Implementing commercial 437
information exchange: a construction supply chain case study”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 898-918.
Papadonikolaki, E. (2018), “Loosely coupled systems of innovation: aligning BIM adoption with
implementation in Dutch construction”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000644.
Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H. (2005), “Factors enabling information and communication technology
diffusion and actual implementation in construction organisations”, Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, Vol. 10 No. 14, pp. 193-218.
Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H. (2006), “Information communication technology (ICT) implementation
constraints: a construction industry perspective”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 364-379.
Pearson, J.M. and Grandon, E.E. (2005), “An empirical study of factors that influence e-commerce
adoption/non-adoption in small and medium sized businesses”, Journal of Internet Commerce,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-21.
Quesada, G., González, M.E., Mueller, J. and Mueller, R. (2010), “Impact of e‐procurement on
procurement practices and performance”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 516-538.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Roman, A.V. (2017), “Institutionalizing sustainability: a structural equation model of sustainable
procurement in US public agencies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143 No. 2, pp. 1048-1059.
Ruikar, K., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. (2005), “End-user perspectives on use of project extranets in
construction organisations”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 222-235.
Ruikar, K., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. (2006), “VERDICT – an e-readiness assessment application
for construction companies”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 98-110.
Santoso, D.S. and Bourpanus, N. (2018), “Moving to e-bidding: examining the changes in the bidding
process and the bid mark-up decisions of Thai contractors”, Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 2-18.
Sariola, R. (2018), “Utilizing the innovation potential of suppliers in construction projects”, Construction
Innovation, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 167-182.
Sarshar, M. and Isikdag, U. (2004), “A survey of ICT use in the Turkish construction industry”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 238-247.
Sawan, R., Low, J.F. and Schiffauerova, A. (2018), “Quality cost of material procurement in construction
projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 974-988.
Sepasgozar, S. and Davis, S. (2018), “Construction technology adoption cube: an investigation on
process, factors, barriers, drivers and decision makers using NVivo and AHP analysis”,
Buildings, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 1-31.
Sepasgozar, S.M., Loosemore, M. and Davis, S.R. (2016), “Conceptualising information and equipment
technology adoption in construction: a critical review of existing research”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 158-176.
Sepasgozar, S.M., Davis, S., Loosemore, M. and Bernold, L. (2018), “An investigation of modern building
equipment technology adoption in the Australian construction industry”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1075-1091.
ECAM Silva, S., Nuzum, A.K. and Schaltegger, S. (2019), “Stakeholder expectations on sustainability
27,2 performance measurement and assessment: a systematic literature review”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 217 No. 4, pp. 204-215.
Singh, V. and Holmström, J. (2015), “Needs and technology adoption: observation from BIM experience”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 128-150.
Strejcek, G. and Theil, M. (2003), “Technology push, legislation pull? E-government in the European
438 Union”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 305-313.
Su, D., Zhou, W., Gu, Y. and Wu, B. (2019), “Individual motivations underlying the adoption of cleaner
residential heating technologies: evidence from Nanjing, China”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 224 No. 7, pp. 142-150.
Sullivan, K.T. (2010), “Quality management programs in the construction industry: best value
compared with other methodologies”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 210-219.
Sun, H. (2013), “Longitudinal study of herd behaviour in the adoption and continued use of
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1013-1041.
Svidronova, M.M. and Mikus, T. (2015), “E-procurement as the ICT innovation in the public services
management: case of Slovakia”, Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 317-340.
Transparency International (2005), “Global Corruption Report 2005”, Pluto Press, London.
Tas, E., Cakmak, P.I. and Levent, H. (2013), “Determination of behaviors in building product
information acquisition for developing a building product information system in Turkey”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 9, pp. 1250-1258.
Wimalasena, N.N. and Gunatilake, S. (2018), “The readiness of construction contractors and consultants to
adopt e-tendering: the case of Sri Lanka”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 350-370.
Wing, C.K. (1997), “The ranking of construction management journals”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 387-398.
Xiong, B., Skitmore, M. and Xia, B. (2015), “A critical review of structural equation modelling
applications in construction research”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
Xue, X., Shen, Q. and Ren, Z. (2010), “Critical review of collaborative working in construction projects:
business environment and human behaviours”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 196-208.
Zhang, N. and Tiong, R. (2003), “Integrated electronic commerce model for the construction industry”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 5, pp. 578-585.
Zou, P.X. and Seo, Y. (2006), “Effective applications of e-commerce technologies in construction supply
chain: current practice and future improvement”, Journal of Information Technology in
Construction, Vol. 11 No. 10, pp. 127-147.
Further reading
Ahuja, V., Yang, J. and Shankar, R. (2009), “Study of ICT adoption for building project management in
the Indian construction industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 415-423.
Baccarini, D. (1996), “The concept of project complexity – a review”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 201-204.
Lee, C.Y., Chong, H.Y., Liao, P.C. and Wang, X. (2018), “Critical review of social network
analysis applications in complex project management”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000579.
Ruparathna, R. and Hewage, K. (2015), “Review of contemporary construction procurement practices”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.
1943-5479.0000279.
Weiner, B. (1992), Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research, Sage, London.
Appendix Drivers for
electronic
procurement
Reference Author(s) Year Journal adoption
1 Hosseini, M.R., Martek, I., Chileshe, N., Zavadskas, E.K. and Arashpour, M. 2018 JCEM
2 Al-Yahya, M., Skitmore, M., Bridge, A., Nepal, M.P. and Cattell, D. 2018 IJOPM 439
3 Santoso, D.S. and Bourpanus, N. 2018 JFMPC
4 Al Yahya, M., Skitmore, M., Bridge, A., Nepal, M. and Cattell, D. 2018 CI
5 Wimalasena, N.N. and Gunatilake, S. 2018 CI
6 Mehrbod, A. and Grilo, A. 2018 AEI
7 Jacobsson, M., Linderoth, H.C. and Rowlinson, S. 2017 CME
8 Hassan, H., Tretiakov, A. and Whiddett, D. 2017 JOCEC
9 Khan, K.I.A., Flanagan, R. and Lu, S.L. 2016 CME
10 Pala, M., Edum-Fotwe, F., Ruikar, K., Peters, C. and Doughty, N. 2016 CME
11 Kim, A.A., Sadatsafavi, H. and Kim Soucek, M. 2015 JME
12 Ibem, E.O. and Laryea, S. 2015 ITcon
13 Li, X., Pillutla, S., Zhou, H. and Yao, D. Q. 2015 JOCEC
14 Svidronova, M.M. and Mikus, T. 2015 JOPP
15 Doloi, H. 2014 JCEM
16 Costa, A.A. and Tavares, L.V. 2014 AIC
17 Ibem, E.O. and Laryea, S. 2014 AIC
18 Laryea, S. and Ibem, E.O. 2014 ITcon
19 Tas, E., Cakmak, P.I. and Levent, H. 2013 JCEM
20 Kang, Y., O’Brien, W.J. and O’Connor, J.T. 2013 JME
21 Karthik, V. and Kumar, S. 2013 IJOPM
22 Bahri, S., Mahzan, N. and Kong, L.C. 2013 IJOPM
23 Grilo, A. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. 2013 AEI
24 Gardenal, F 2013 JOPP
25 Eadie, R., Millar, P., Perera, S., Heaney, G. and Barton, G. 2012 IJOPM
26 Kang, Y., O’Brien, W.J. and O’Connor, J.T. 2011 JME
27 Grilo, A. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. 2011 AIC
28 Gupta, S.L., Jha, B.K. and Gupta, H. 2011 IJOPM
29 Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. 2011 JFMPC
30 Ajam, M., Alshawi, M. and Mezher, T. 2010 AIC
31 Cheng, J.C., Law, K.H., Bjornsson, H., Jones, A. and Sriram, R. 2010 AIC
32 Abu-ELSamen, A., Chakraborty, G. and Warren, D. 2010 JIC
33 Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. 2010a ITcon
34 Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. 2010b ITcon
35 Quesada, G., González, M.E., Mueller, J. and Mueller, R. 2010 BAIJ
36 Azadegan, A. and Teich, J. 2010 BAIJ
37 Dossick, C.S. and Sakagami, M. 2008 JCEM
38 Rahim, M.M. and Singh, M. 2008 JIC
39 Jaafar, M., Aziz, A.R.A., Ramayah, T. and Saad, B. 2007 IJPM
40 Castro-Lacouture, D., Medaglia, A.L. and Skibniewski, M. 2007 AIC
41 Fox, P. and Skitmore, M. 2007 BRI
42 Eadie, R., Perera, S., Heaney, G. and Carlisle, J. 2007 ITcon
43 El-Diraby, T.E. 2006 JCEM
44 Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H. 2006 ECAM
45 Ruikar, K., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. 2006 AIC
46 Zou, P.X. and Seo, Y. 2006 ITcon
47 Dooley, K. and Purchase, S. 2006 JOPP
48 Nitithamyong, P. and Skibniewski, M.J. 2006 JCEM
49 Ruikar, K., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. 2005 ECAM
50 Obonyo, E., Anumba, C. and Thorpe, T. 2005 ECAM Table AI.
The details of the
references as indicated
(continued ) in Table II
ECAM Reference Author(s) Year Journal
27,2
51 Pearson, J.M. and Grandon, E.E. 2005 JIC
52 Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H 2005 ITcon
53 Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H. 2005 CI
54 Croom, S.R. and Brandon-Jones, A. 2005 JOPP
55 Wang, W.C. 2004 JCEM
440 56 Sarshar, M. and Isikdag, U. 2004 JME
57 Nitithamyong, P. and Skibniewski, M.J. 2004 AIC
58 Voordijk, H., Van Leuven, A. and Laan, A. 2003 CME
59 Zhang, N. and Tiong, R. 2003 JCEM
60 Li, H., Cao, J., Castro-Lacouture, D. and Skibniewski, M. 2003 AIC
61 Alshawi, M. and Ingirige, B. 2003 AIC
62 Lockley, S.R., Watson, R. and Shaaban, S. 2002 ECAM
63 Yeo, K.T. and Ning, J.H. 2002 IJPM
64 Anumba, C.J. and Ruikar, K. 2002 AIC
65 Stewart, R.A., Mohamed, S. and Daet, R. 2002 AIC
66 Liao, T.S., Wang, M.T. and Tserng, H.P. 2002 AIC
67 Tserng, H.P. and Lin, P.H. 2002 AIC
68 Dulaimi, M.F., Y. Ling, F.Y., Ofori, G. and Silva, N.D. 2002 BRI
Notes: JCEM, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management; CME, Construction Management and
Economics; JFMPC, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction; IJOPM, International
Journal of Procurement Management; CI, Construction Innovation; AEI, Advanced Engineering Informatics;
JME, Journal of Management in Engineering, JOCEC, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce; ITcon, Journal of Information Technology in Construction; JOPP, Journal of Public Procurement;
AIC, Automation in Construction; JIC, Journal of Internet Commerce; BAIJ, Benchmarking: An International
Journal; IJPM, International Journal of Project Management; BRI, Building Research & Information; ECAM,
Table AI. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
Corresponding author
Sitsofe Kwame Yevu can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]