Personal Innovativeness and Initial Trust in AI-Enabled BIM Adoption Using UTAUT in Malaysia

The construction industry is undergoing a significant digital transformation driven by Construction 4.0 technologies, with Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerging as key enablers of improved productivity, collaboration, and decision-making. The integration of AI with BIM has given rise to AI-enabled BIM systems, which combine BIM's data-rich environment with advanced capabilities such as machine learning, predictive analytics, natural language processing, and intelligent automation. Despite the potential benefits of AI-enabled BIM, its adoption within the Malaysian construction industry remains limited, and empirical evidence on the factors influencing its acceptance is scarce.

This study examines the determinants of behavioral intention to adopt AI-enabled BIM systems among construction professionals in Malaysia. Grounded in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the study extends the model by incorporating personal innovativeness and initial trust as additional predictors. Data were collected from 261 professionals employed by CIDB Grade 7 (G7) construction firms randomly selected using probability sampling and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).

The results indicate that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and personal innovativeness have significant positive effects on behavioral intention to adopt AI-enabled BIM systems. Personal innovativeness was a particularly important predictor, exerting both direct effects on behavioral intention and indirect effects through performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Initial trust did not directly influence behavioral intention; however, it significantly enhanced perceptions of usefulness and ease of use, which in turn indirectly affected adoption intention through these mediating constructs. The model demonstrated satisfactory explanatory and predictive power.

This study contributes to the literature by extending UTAUT to the emerging context of AI-enabled BIM adoption and by providing one of the first empirical investigations of this technology in Malaysia. The findings offer practical implications for construction firms, policymakers, and software developers seeking to accelerate AI-enabled BIM adoption through user-centered design, digital skills development, organizational support, and targeted policy interventions.

AI, Building Information Modeling, Personal Innovativeness, Initial Trust, UTAUT.

1. Abbad, M. M. (2021). Using the UTAUT model to understand students’ usage of e-learning systems in developing countries. Education and information technologies, 26(6), 7205-7224. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adebayo, Y., Udoh, P., Kamudyariwa, X. B., & Osobajo, O. A. (2025). Artificial intelligence in construction project management: A structured literature review of its evolution in application and future trends. Digital, 5(3), 26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information systems research, 9(2), 204-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2011). Modeling the acceptance of electronic transactions using an extended technology acceptance model. Applied computing and informatics, 9(1), 47-77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Al-Haraizah, A., Jawarneh, M., Kumar, R., Khrisat, D. A., & Al Mrayat, O. I. (2025). An Extended UTAUT Model to Explain Factors Influencing Smart City Technology Adoption. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025(1), 3799390. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Alalwan, A. A., Baabdullah, A. M., Rana, N. P., Tamilmani, K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Examining adoption of mobile internet in Saudi Arabia: Extending TAM with perceived enjoyment, innovativeness and trust. Technology in Society, 55, 100-110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Alkawsi, G., Ali, N. A., & Baashar, Y. (2021). The moderating role of personal innovativeness and users experience in accepting the smart meter technology. Applied Sciences, 11(8), 3297. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Alvi, I. (2021). College students’ reception of social networking tools for learning in India: An extended UTAUT model. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Arfi, W. B., Nasr, I. B., Kondrateva, G., & Hikkerova, L. (2021). The role of trust in intention to use the IoT in eHealth: Application of the modified UTAUT in a consumer context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120688. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Basak, E., Gumussoy, C. A., & Calisir, F. (2015). Examining the factors affecting PDA acceptance among physicians: an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of healthcare engineering, 6(3), 399-418. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bhadauria, V. S., & Chennamaneni, A. (2022). Do desire, anxiety and personal innovativeness impact the adoption of IoT devices? Information & Computer Security, 30(5), 730-750. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cai, J., Li, Z., Dou, Y., Li, T., & Yuan, M. (2023). Understanding the adoption of high off-site construction level technologies in construction based on the TAM and TTF. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(10), 4978-5006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Chan, W. M., & Lee, J. W. C. (2021). 5G connected autonomous vehicle acceptance: The mediating effect of trust in the technology acceptance model. Asian Journal of Business Research, 11(1), NA-NA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chen, L., & Aklikokou, A. K. (2020). Determinants of E-government adoption: testing the mediating effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(10), 850-865. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910-922. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Chong, Y. L., Lui, T. K., & Go, Y. H. (2024). Exploring the mediating effect of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on actual adoption of mobile wallets in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Business and Economics (MJBE), 11(1), 73-89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB) (2021). Construction 4.0 Strategic Plan (2021-2025). Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia. https://www.cidb.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CR4_web_compressed.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB). Building Information Modeling (BIM). (n.d). cidb.gov.my. https://www.cidb.gov.my/eng/bim/#:~:text=Building%20Information%20Modelling%20%28BIM%29%20is%20a%20process%20of,attaining%20objectives%20throughout%20the%20implementation%20of%20the%20project [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dagou, H., GÜRGÜN, A., Koc, K., & Kunkcu, H. (2024). Navigating the Landscape of Innovative Technologies in Construction Project Management: A Comprehensive Review. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences, 6(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Datta, S. D., Islam, M., Sobuz, M. H. R., Ahmed, S., & Kar, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in the project lifecycle of the construction industry: A comprehensive review. Heliyon, 10(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Egwim, C. N., Alaka, H., Demir, E., Balogun, H., Olu-Ajayi, R., Sulaimon, I., ... & Muideen, A. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in the construction industry: A systematic review of the entire construction value chain lifecycle. Energies, 17(1), 182. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Eren, E., Ergüleç, F., & Kara, A. (2025). The Mediating Role of Resilience between Positive Personality Traits and Hopes of Emerging Adults: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Fan, W., Liu, J., Zhu, S., & Pardalos, P. M. (2020). Investigating the impacting factors for the healthcare professionals to adopt artificial intelligence-based medical diagnosis support system (AIMDSS). Annals of Operations Research, 294(1), 567-592. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Faraji, A., Arya, S. H., Ghasemi, E., & Shiri, H. (2024). The Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Advancing Construction 4.0 Practices. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-Markovic, M., & Sajid, A. (2017). Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: Extending UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329-348. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures. Internet research, 29(3), 430-447. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192-3198. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. García de Soto, B., Agustí-Juan, I., Joss, S., & Hunhevicz, J. (2022). Implications of Construction 4.0 to the workforce and organizational structures. International journal of construction management, 22(2), 205-217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ghimire, P., Kim, K., & Acharya, M. (2024). Opportunities and challenges of generative AI in the construction industry: Focusing on the adoption of text-based models. Buildings, 14(1), 220. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Gökçearslan, Ş., Yildiz Durak, H., & Atman Uslu, N. (2024). Acceptance of educational use of the Internet of Things (IoT) in the context of individual innovativeness and ICT competency of pre-service teachers. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 557-571. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Guo, Y., & Barnes, S. (2007). Why people buy virtual items in virtual worlds with real money. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 38(4), 69-76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Evaluation of reflective measurement models. In Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook (pp. 75-90). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Handa, R., & Kaur, R. (2025). Behavioral Intention Towards Online Insurance Adoption: A UTAUT-Based Analysis. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 24(3), 58-79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Heidari, A., Peyvastehgar, Y., & Amanzadegan, M. (2024). A systematic review of the BIM in construction: From smart building management to interoperability of BIM & AI. Architectural Science Review, 67(3), 237-254. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Heo, S., & Na, S. (2025). Ready for departure: Factors to adopt large language model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. Results in Engineering, 25, 104325. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kim, Y., Blazquez, V., & Oh, T. (2024). Determinants of generative AI system adoption and usage behavior in Korean companies: Applying the UTAUT model. Behavioral Sciences, 14(11), 1035. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism management, 86, 104330. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (ijec), 11(4), 1-10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Lee, K. Y., Sheehan, L., Lee, K., & Chang, Y. (2021). The continuation and recommendation intention of artificial intelligence-based voice assistant systems (AIVAS): the influence of personal traits. Internet Research, 31(5), 1899-1939. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Lee, M., Chai, C., Xiong, Y., & Gui, H. (2022). Technology acceptance model for Building Information Modeling-Based Virtual Reality (BIM-VR) in cost estimation. Journal of information technology in construction, 27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Lee, S., Jones-Jang, S. M., Chung, M., Kim, N., & Choi, J. (2024). Who is using ChatGPT and why? Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. Information Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Li, J., Liu, Z., Han, G., Demian, P., & Osmani, M. (2024). The relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) technologies for sustainable building in the context of smart cities. Sustainability, 16(24), 10848. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Lindner, J. R., & Wingenbach, G. J. (2002). Communicating the handling of nonresponse error in Journal of Extension Research in Brief articles. Journal of extension, 40(6), 9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Lu, Y. & Deng, Y. (2022). What drives construction practitioners’ acceptance of intelligent surveillance systems? An extended technology acceptance model. Buildings, 12(2), 104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Lund, B. (2023). The questionnaire method in systems research: an overview of sample sizes, response rates and statistical approaches utilized in studies. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 53(1), 1-10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Mata, M., Ancheta, R., Batucan, G., & Gonzales, G. G. (2024). Exploring technology acceptance model with system characteristics to investigate sustainable building information modeling adoption in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry: The case of the Philippines. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 100967. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 2(2), 1-25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. McLeod, A., Pippin, S., & Mason, R. (2008). Individual taxpayer intention to use tax preparation software: Examining experience, trust, and perceived risk. In Proceedings of the ISOneWorld conference (Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 1-16). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Mei, Y., Liu, J., Jia, L., Wu, H., & Lv, J. (2023). Exploring the Acceptance of the Technical Disclosure Method Based on 3D Digital Technological Process by Construction Workers through the Perspective of TAM. Buildings, 13(10), 2419. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Min, Q., Ji, S., & Qu, G. (2008). Mobile commerce user acceptance study in China: a revised UTAUT model. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 257-264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Nnaji, C., Okpala, I., Awolusi, I., & Gambatese, J. (2023). A systematic review of technology acceptance models and theories in construction research. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Obidallah, W. J., Rashideh, W., Kamaruddeen, A. M., Alzahrani, T., Alduraywish, Y., Alsahli, A., & Alshuqayran, N. (2024). Beyond the hype: A TAM-based analysis of blockchain adoption drivers in the construction industry. Heliyon, 10(19). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Omotayo, T., Tanyer, A. M., Deng, J., Kaima, A., Akponeware, A., Pekericli, M. K., ... & Ogunnusi, M. (2025). Advancing AI-Powered BIM for Circularity in Construction in the UK and Turkiye: State-of-the-Art Review and Capability Maturity Modeling. Buildings, 15(8), 1224. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Oyuga, J. O., Gwaya, A., & Njuguna, M. B. (2023). Investigation of the current usage of BIM capabilities by large-sized building contractors in Kenya based on the theory of innovation diffusion. Construction Innovation, 23(1), 155-177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Pan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2023). Integrating BIM and AI for smart construction management: Current status and future directions. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 30(2), 1081-1110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International journal of electronic commerce, 7(3), 101-134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Prakash, A. V., & Das, S. (2021). Medical practitioner's adoption of intelligent clinical diagnostic decision support systems: A mixed-methods study. Information & management, 58(7), 103524. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Radomir, L., & Moisescu, O. I. (2020). Discriminant validity of the customer-based corporate reputation scale: Some causes for concern. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(4), 457-469. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Rahim, N. F., Bakri, M. H., Fianto, B. A., Zainal, N., & Hussein Al Shami, S. A. (2023). Measurement and structural modelling on factors of Islamic Fintech adoption among millennials in Malaysia. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 14(6), 1463-1487. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Rahim, N. S. A., Ismail, S., Subramaniam, C., Abdullah Habib, S. N. H., & Durdyev, S. (2023). Building information modelling strategies in sustainable housing construction projects in Malaysia. Sustainability, 15(3), 2313. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Ramos Salazar, L., & Peeples, S. (2025). ChatGPT Adoption in Higher Education: A Study of Faculty Generation Cohort, Self-Efficacy, and Innovativeness. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Rana, M. M., Siddiqee, M. S., Sakib, M. N., & Ahamed, M. R. (2024). Assessing AI adoption in developing country academia: A trust and privacy-augmented UTAUT framework. Heliyon, 10(18). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Roemer, E., Schuberth, F., & Henseler, J. (2021). HTMT2–an improved criterion for assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. Industrial management & data systems, 121(12), 2637-2650. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-disciplinary view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, F. N., Rahim, N. F. A., Khoshkam, M., & Mirzaei, M. (2023). Determinants of intention to use e-wallet: personal innovativeness and propensity to trust as moderators. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(12), 2361-2373. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Asif, M. (2025). Factors affecting generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, use in higher education: An application of the technology acceptance model. British Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 489-513. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016). Why different trust relationships matter for information systems users. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(3), 274-287. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Srivastava, A., Jawaid, S., Singh, R., Gehlot, A., Akram, S. V., Priyadarshi, N., & Khan, B. (2022). The imperative role of technology intervention and implementation for automation in the construction industry. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022(1), 6716987. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Su, J., Wang, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Wang, Z., & Li, Z. (2025). Investigating the factors influencing users’ adoption of artificial intelligence health assistants based on an extended UTAUT model. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 18215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Tai, H. W., Cheng, K. T., Wei, C. C., & Liu, L. (2025). Investigating the Adoption Mindset of Smart City Technology Within the Construction Sector. SAGE Open, 15(3), 21582440251361878. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Thiesse, F. (2007). RFID, privacy and the perception of risk: A strategic framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(2), 214-232. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Tuyen, B. Q., & Nguyen, P. M. (2025). Applying extended UTAUT model to examine microlearning adoption: An Empirical study of Vietnamese Telecommunication Companies. Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci: časopis za ekonomsku teoriju i praksu, 43(1), 233-258. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Venkatesh, V. (2022). Adoption and use of AI tools: a research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1), 641-652. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view1. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology1. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Vitente, L. S., Ong, A. K. S., & German, J. D. (2024). Assessment of Adoption and Acceptance of Building Information Modeling for Building Construction among Industries in Qatar. Buildings, 14(5), 1433. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Wang, J., Li, X., Wang, P., Liu, Q., Deng, Z., & Wang, J. (2021). Research trend of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology theory: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 14(1), 10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Wang, X., Liu, L., Liu, J., & Huang, X. (2022). Understanding the determinants of blockchain technology adoption in the construction industry. Buildings, 12(10), 1709. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Wu, L., Li, J. Y., & Fu, C. Y. (2011). The adoption of mobile healthcare by hospital's professionals: An integrative perspective. Decision support systems, 51(3), 587-596. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Wu, W., Zhang, B., Li, S., & Liu, H. (2022). Exploring factors of the willingness to accept AI-assisted learning environments: An empirical investigation based on the UTAUT model and perceived risk theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 870777. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Wu, X., Yan, Y., Zhu, W., & Yang, N. (2025). An extended UTAUT model study on the adoption behavior of artificial intelligence technology in the construction industry. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 49(2), 564-581. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper and Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Yizing, J. A., Ahmadpour, S., Loo, J. T. K., & Ahmadpour, L. (2025, March). The Adoption of Business Intelligence BIM System in Construction: A Study of Readiness In Malaysia. In Proceedings National & International Conference (Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 833). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Zawada, K., Rybak-Niedziółka, K., Donderewicz, M., & Starzyk, A. (2024). Digitization of AEC industries based on BIM and 4.0 technologies. Buildings, 14(5), 1350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Enhancing Formation Control of Multi Agent Systems Using Ann Based Technique
• Improving Sliding Mode Control with Chattering Reduction using Fuzzy Based Technique
• Cooking Quality, Fasting Blood Glucose, Glycemic Index and Load of High–Fiber Noodles Made from Wheat, Tiger Nut Residue and Cassava Flour Blends
• Matrix Rhythm Therapy Versus Interferential Therapy Combined with Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Trial
• Formulation and Sensory Evaluation of Functional Cake Prepared from Sweet Potato Powder