Key Determinants of Life Cycle Costing Adoption in Nairobi’s Construction Industry
| International Journal of Civil Engineering |
| © 2024 by SSRG - IJCE Journal |
| Volume 11 Issue 3 |
| Year of Publication : 2024 |
| Authors : Thomas Berhe Tsegai, Mugwima Njuguna, Kennedy Aburili |
10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V11I3P104
How to Cite?
Thomas Berhe Tsegai, Mugwima Njuguna, Kennedy Aburili, "Key Determinants of Life Cycle Costing Adoption in Nairobi’s Construction Industry," SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 43-53, 2024. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V11I3P104
Abstract:
Despite the availability of various Life Cycle Costing (LCC) methodologies, the widespread uptake of LCC remains limited. This study delves into the adoption of LCC practices within the Nairobi County construction industry, seeking to unravel the factors influencing its limited uptake despite the availability of diverse methods. The central predicament addressed revolves around the moderate levels of LCC adoption, a paradox considering its potential advantages. The primary objective is to dissect the influential factors affecting the Level of LCC Adoption (LoA) alongside secondary goals like exploring correlations between different factors, assessing the significance of User Experience (UX) and Fit for Purpose (FP), and validating the model’s adequacy in explaining observed data patterns. Involving a sample of 185 respondents from Nairobi county’s construction sector, the study employed descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, ANOVA, regression analysis, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to scrutinize collected data. Results revealed a moderate mean LoA (2.5149), with UX standing out significantly (mean = 5.2622), underlining its pivotal role. FP, Navigability (NA), Visibility (VI), and Institutional Context (IC) exhibited varied impacts on LoA. Regression analysis confirmed substantial positive relationships between UX, FP, and LoA, while CFA endorsed the model’s robustness in explaining data patterns. These findings hold considerable implications for strategic decision-making and policy formulation within the construction domain, offering insights into factors driving LoA. Moreover, they lay the groundwork for further research avenues, particularly in unraveling the nuanced role of IC in steering LCC adoption rates.
Keywords:
Life Cycle Costing, Construction industry, Adoption factors, User Experience, Institutional context.
References:
[1] Mysarah Maisham, Hamimah Adnan, and Noor Akmal Adillah Ismail, “Identification of the Challenges of Life Cycle Costing in Green Construction Projects in Malaysia,” International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 116-124, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[2] Bee Hua Goh, and Yuting Sun, “The Development of Life-Cycle Costing for Buildings,” Building Research & Information, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 319-333, 2016.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[3] Anupa Manewa, Mohan Siriwardena and Christaline Wijekoon, “Life Cycle Costing in Construction: Current Trends and Emerging Directions,” Proceedings of the 9th World Construction Symposium, pp. 403-412, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[4] Renata Schneiderova-Heralova, “Importance of Life Cycle Costing for Construction Projects,” Engineering for Rural Development, pp. 1223-1227, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[5] Renata Schneiderova Heralova, “Life Cycle Costing as an Important Contribution to Feasibility Study in Construction Projects,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 196, pp. 565-570, 2017.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[6] Thorsten Knauer, and Katja Möslang, “The Adoption and Benefits of Life Cycle Costing,” Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 188-215, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[7] Mustafa S. Sadliwala, and Nivedita G. Gogate, “Life Cycle Costing Methodology for Sustainable Construction,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 1084, pp. 1-7, 2022.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[8] Thomas Olushola, and James O. Abiola, “The Efficacy of Technology Acceptance Model : A Review of Applicable Theoretical Models in Information Technology Researches,” Journal of Research in Business and Management, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 70-83, 2017.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[9] Shih-Chih Chen, Shing-Han Li, and Chien-Yi Li, “Recent Related Research in Technology Acceptance Model: A Literature Review,” Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 124-127, 2011.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[10] Jawdat M. Al-Tarawneh, “Technology Acceptance Models and Adoption of Innovations: A Literature Review,” International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 833-857, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[11] Fred D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[12] Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed., The Free Press, pp. 1-17, 1964.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[13] Ismail Sahin, “Detailed Review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Educational Technology-Related Studies Based on Rogers’ Theory,” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 14-23, 2006.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[14] Benjamin E. Sharp, and Shelie A. Miller, “Potential for Integrating Diffusion of Innovation Principles into Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Technologies,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 2771-2781, 2016.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[15] Mary Lundberg, Susanne Engström, and Helena Lidelöw, “Diffusion of Innovation in a Contractor Company: The Impact of the Social System Structure on the Implementation Process,” Construction Innovation, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 629-652, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[16] Edwin Amenta, and Kelly M. Ramsey, “Institutional Theory,” Handbook of Politics, pp. 15-39, 2010.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[17] Siti Mazzuana Shamsuddin et al., “A Framework of Initiatives for Successful Application of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in Industrialised Building System (IBS) in Malaysian Construction Industry,” MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 138, pp. 1-9, 2017.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[18] Marianna Lena Kambanou, “Life Cycle Costing: Understanding How It is Practised and Its Relationship to Life Cycle Management-A Case Study,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1-19, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[19] Fabio Manca, “Technology Catch-up and the Role of Institutions,” Journal of Macroeconomics, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1041-1053, 2010.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[20] Zainab Asif, Zivanemoyo Chinzara, and Radhika Lahiri, “The Role of Risk and Institutions in the Adoption and Diffusion of Technologies: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 77, pp. 16-33, 2023.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[21] Pi-Tzong Jan, Hsi-Peng Lu, and Tzu-Chuan Chou, “The Adoption of E-Learning: An Institutional Theory Perspective,” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 326-343, 2012.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]