The people-process-technology triad in BIM implementation: structural analysis of hierarchical interdependence

Purpose Despite widespread adoption of building information modelling (BIM), the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry continues to report suboptimal implementation outcomes due to misaligned people, process and technology (PPT) factors. While sociotechnical systems theory posits these elements interact, the relative influence and structural hierarchy among them remain empirically unclear, limiting targeted implementation strategies. This study aims to quantify the asymmetric influence structure of people, process and technology on BIM implementation process success (BIPS). Design/methodology/approach A triangulated analysis was performed using data from a quantitative cross-sectional survey of 102 experienced BIM professionals. Statistical associations were established by preliminary screening tests using correlation and regression. Hierarchical structure of important relationships was developed using interpretive structural modeling (ISM). The Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement (MICMAC) analysis classified the factors based on driving power and dependence. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), Fornell-Larcker criterion and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios ensured validity. Findings Preliminary screening tests revealed that all three constructs had significant correlation with the success of BIM implementation process. Regression confirmed all three as significant predictors, providing the empirical justification for structural ISM analysis. ISM level partitioning reveals a three-level hierarchy: Level III: People Factors – independent driving factor with no antecedents. Level II: Process Factors and Technology Factors – linkage factors driven by People and driving BIPS. Level I: BIPS – dependent outcome driven by all upstream factors. MICMAC confirms People as a Driving factor with high driving power and low dependence, Process and Technology as Linkage factors and BIPS as Dependent. The asymmetric influence is measured in magnitude. People have almost twice the direct effect of technology (ß = 0.479 vs ß = 0.240, p < 0.01) and process is in-between (ß = 0.321, p < 0.001). The three constructs together explained 64.1% of variance (R² = 0.641, p < 0.001). Practical implications People factors have the strongest direct effect on BIPS, almost twice that of Technology and approximately 1.5 times that of Process. Therefore, AEC organizations should focus on investing in BIM expertise, training and role clarity before focusing on software or process standardization. We propose a people-first approach, using human capital to optimize processes and guide technology selection. Originality/value This study contributes to the sociotechnical systems theory for BIM by empirically illustrating asymmetric causality, rather than balanced interaction, of the people-process-technology triad. Data-driven ISM/MICMAC framework provides quantitative evidence that people related factors precede and enable process and technology effectiveness in BIPS.