隨著國內BIM技術的推動，專案逐漸要求執行過程中要導入BIM技術。而是否要導入BIM技術，通常以效益評估判斷可能效益後決定，但因效益有關數據通常具保密性，使得BIM技術經濟效益難以明確衡量，因此如何透過其他的面向與方法來評估，是本研究的研究課題。本研究以組織文化為出發點，主要目的為找出營造業組織文化中影響BIM專業人員使用BIM技術與選擇BIM應用(BIM Uses)的因素，以及探討整合性科技接受模式(UTAUT)中各構面、態度與任務－科技適配度，對BIM專業人員使用BIM技術與BIM應用之行為意圖與使用行為的影響。本研究以文獻回顧為基礎，並使用問卷調查來收集所需回饋，再利用結構方程模式(SEM)與模糊集質性比較分析(fsQCA)進行問卷調查結果之分析。經由本研究之進行，具體獲得以下之結論：(1)「績效期望」、「努力期望」與「有利條件」對營造業BIM專業人員使用BIM技術的使用意願有正向影響；(2)提高營造業BIM專業人員對BIM技術使用意願的多構面組合顯示，「績效期望」、「社會影響」、「任務－科技適配度」、「個人主義」為組態中最穩定出現之核心條件；(3)「高權力距離」、「績效期望」、「努力期望」與「任務－科技適配度」對營造業BIM專業人員使用BIM應用的使用意願有正向影響；(4)提高營造業BIM專業人員對BIM應用使用意願的多構面組合顯示，「績效期望」、「有利條件」、「任務－科技適配度」、「個人主義」為組態中最穩定出現之核心條件；(5)女性相較於男性，在感受到較高的系統便利性時，更容易提高對BIM技術與BIM應用的使用意願；(6)持有國際BIM證照者在感受到BIM應用與工作契合時，更容易提高對BIM應用的使用意願。而未持有國際BIM證照者在感受到BIM應用能提升工作表現時，更容易提高對BIM應用的使用意願；(7)未持有台灣BIM證照者相較於持有台灣BIM證照者，在感受到BIM技術能提升工作表現時，更容易提高對BIM技術的使用意願。最後，希望透過本研究之成果，可供營造業瞭解如何藉由組織文化變革促進BIM技術的普及，並提高BIM應用的使用率。

With the advancement of BIM (Building Information Modeling) technology in Taiwan, more projects are gradually requiring the adoption of BIM during the execution process. However, whether to adopt BIM is usually decided based on benefit evaluation. Since the relevant data related to benefits is often considered confidential and is not easily accessible, it is difficult to clearly evaluate the economic value of BIM implementation. Therefore, this study aims to explore alternative perspectives and evaluation methods. Based on the perspective of organizational culture, this research mainly aims to identify the organizational culture factors in construction companies that influence BIM professionals' use of BIM technology and their choice of BIM Uses. The study also explores how the different dimensions of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), as well as attitudes and Task-Technology Fit (TTF), affect behavioral intention and actual usage behavior among BIM professionals in the construction industry.
Based on an intensive literature review, this study adopts the method of questionnaire survey to obtain necessary feedbacks, and analyzes the outcomes using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). The major research outcomes include: (1) performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions have positive effects on BIM professionals’ behavioral intention to use BIM technology; (2) among the configurations that increase professionals’ willingness to use BIM technology, performance expectancy, social influence, task-technology fit, and individualism are the most consistently appearing core factors; (3) high power distance, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and task-technology fit have positive effects on the behavioral intention to use BIM Uses; (4) performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, task-technology fit, and individualism are the most consistently appearing core factors in the configurations that increase behavioral intention to use BIM Uses; (5) compared to male BIM professionals, female BIM professionals are more likely to enhance their behavioral intention to use BIM technology and BIM Uses when they perceive the system as easy to use; (6) BIM professionals who have obtained international BIM certification are more likely to use BIM Uses when they perceive a good fit between BIM and their job tasks; whereas those without international certification are more willing to use BIM Uses when they believe that BIM can improve their work performance; (7) compared to those with domestic BIM certification, BIM professionals without such certification are more likely to use BIM technology when they believe that BIM can improve their job performance. Finally, the outcomes of this study help the construction industry understand how organizational culture change can promote the adoption of BIM technology and increase its usage rate.

1.Abbas, S. K., Hassan, H. A., Asif, J., Ahmed, B., Hassan, F., & Haider, S. (2018). Integration of TTF, UTAUT, and ITM for mobile Banking Adoption. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 4. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.4.5.6
2.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076477
3.Alankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Edwards, D. J., & Samaraweera, A. (2023). Exploring BIM-triggered organisational and professional culture change: a systematic literature review. Construction Innovation, 23(1), 229-247. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2021-0084
4.Alankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Samaraweera, A., Rameezdeen, R., & Edwards, D. J. (2024). Diagnosing Organizational BIM Culture: A Qualitative Case Study Using Schein's Model [Article]. Journal of Management in Engineering, 40(3), 13, Article 05024005. https://doi.org/10.1061/jmenea.Meeng-5672
5.Altamimi, M., Zagoracz, M., & Halada, M. (2024). Common BIM Uses: experience-based research. In (pp. 379-386). https://doi.org/10.18485/arh_pt.2024.8.ch45
6.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16, 74-94.
7.Batarseh, S., & Kamardeen, I. (2017). The Impact of Individual Beliefs and Expectations on BIM Adoption in the AEC Industry.
8.Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588.
9.Beran, T., & Violato, C. (2010). Structural equation modeling in medical research: A primer. BMC research notes, 3, 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-267
10.Brown, S. A., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Burkman, J. R. (2002). Do I Really Have to? User Acceptance of Mandated Technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000438
11.Chauhan, S., & Jaiswal, M. (2016). Determinants of acceptance of ERP software training in business schools: Empirical investigation using UTAUT model. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 248-262. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.05.005
12.Chen, Y., Dib, H., Cox, R., Shaurette, M., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2016). Structural Equation Model of Building Information Modeling Maturity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142, 04016032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001147
13.Davies, K., McMeel, D. J., & Wilkinson, S. (2017). Making friends with Frankenstein: hybrid practice in BIM [Article]. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 24(1), 78-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-04-2015-0061
14.Deke Smith. (2007). An Introduction to Building Information Modeling (BIM). Journal of Building Information Modeling, pp.12-15.
15.Dowelani, F., & Ozumba, O. (2022). Determinants of BIM Adoption in Facilities Management in South Africa: An Application of the UTAUT Model. HF-SE, 61, 88.
16.Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of management journal, 54(2), 393-420.
17.Goodhue, D. L. (1995). Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems. Management Science, 41(12), 1827-1844. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.12.1827
18.Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. Mis Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.2307/249689
19.Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature.
20.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills.
21.Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures (Vol. 3). Sage.
22.Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
23.Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations, software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival.
24.Hong, Y., Hammad, A. W. A., & Akbarnezhad, A. (2019). Impact of organization size and project type on BIM adoption in the Chinese construction market. Construction Management and Economics, 37(11), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1575515
25.Howard, R., Restrepo, L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2017). Addressing individual perceptions: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to building information modelling. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 107-120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.012
26.Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
27.Hussain, S., Fangwei, Z., Siddiqi, A. F., Ali, Z., & Shabbir, M. S. (2018). Structural equation model for evaluating factors affecting quality of social infrastructure projects. Sustainability, 10(5), 1415.
28.Ismail, N. A. A., Idris, N. H., Ramli, H., Muhammad Rooshdi, R. R. R., & Sahamir, S. R. (2018). The relationship between cost estimates reliability and BIM adoption: SEM analysis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 117(1), 012045. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/117/1/012045
29.Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and psychological measurement, 34(1), 111-117.
30.Keong, M. L., Ramayah, T., Kurnia, S., & Chiun, L. M. (2012). Explaining intention to use an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system: an extension of the UTAUT model. Business Strategy Series, 13, 173-180.
31.Khairi, M., Susanti, D., & Firman, S. (2021). Study on Structural Equation Modeling for Analyzing Data. International Journal of Ethno-Sciences and Education Research, 1, 52-60. https://doi.org/10.46336/ijeer.v1i3.295
32.Kuciapski, M. (2019). How the Type of Job Position Influences Technology Acceptance: A Study of Employees’ Intention to Use Mobile Technologies for Knowledge Transfer. IEEE Access, PP, 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2957205
33.Levy, J. A. (1988). Intersections of Gender and Aging. The Sociological Quarterly, 29(4), 479-486. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121091
34.Lücke, G., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2014). Multiculturalism from a cognitive perspective: Patterns and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 45. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.53
35.Mariati, T., He, Q., & Nooriati, T. (2023). Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption for Cost Engineering Consultant; Case Study of Southern China. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 29(3), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.29.3.2136
36.Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562.
37.Messner, J., Anumba, C., Dubler, C., Goodman, S., Kasprzak, C., Kreider, R., Leicht, R., Saluja, C., & Zikic, N. (2019). BIM project execution planning guide (V. 2.2). In: Computer Integrated Construction Research Program, Pennsylvania State University.
38.Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), 100971. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100971
39.Murguia, D., Demian, P., & Soetanto, R. (2021). Systemic BIM Adoption: A Multilevel Perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(4), 04021014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002017
40.Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory 2nd edition (New York: McGraw).
41.Olugboyega, O., & Windapo, A. O. (2022). Structural equation model of the barriers to preliminary and sustained BIM adoption in a developing country. Construction Innovation, 22(4), 849-869. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2021-0061
42.Park, J.-H., Lee, S.-K., & Yu, J.-H. (2015). Analysis of Key Factors affecting BIM performance using fsQCA. Journal of the architectural institute of Korea planning & design, 31, 29-36. https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK_PD.2015.31.4.29
43.Ragin, C. C. (2017). User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.
44.Renaud, K., & Biljon, J. v. (2008). Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology, Wilderness, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.1145/1456659.1456684
45.Ronaghi, M. H., & Forouharfar, A. (2020). A contextualized study of the usage of the Internet of things (IoTs) in smart farming in a typical Middle Eastern country within the context of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model (UTAUT). Technology in Society, 63, 101415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101415
46.Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. psychology press.
47.Sheldon, P., Herzfeldt, E., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2020). Culture and social media: the relationship between cultural values and hashtagging styles. Behaviour & information technology, 39(7), 758-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1611923
48.Siebelink, S., Voordijk, H., Endedijk, M., & Adriaanse, A. (2020). Understanding barriers to BIM implementation: Their impact across organizational levels in relation to BIM maturity. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0088-2
49.Stein, C., Morris, N., & Nock, N. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 850, 495-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-555-8_27
50.Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.003
51.Syamil, A., & Kharisma, I. (2023). Smart Construction Using Building Information Modelling (BIM). E3S Web of Conferences, 440. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344007009
52.Taib, M., Quanhua, H., & Taib, N. (2023). Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption for Cost Engineering Consultant; Case Study of Southern China. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 29(3), 21-36.
53.Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
54.The Culture Factor Group. (2024). Country Comparison. https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool?utm_source=chatgpt.com&countries=taiwan
55.Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 37, 21-54. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02
56.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
57.Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view [Article]. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
58.Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 43-60.
59.Yao, H., Xu, P., Fu, H., & Chen, R. (2023). Promoting sustainable development in the construction industry: The impact of contractors' cultural preferences on green construction performance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 103, 107253.
60.Yu, W.-D., Chang, H.-K., & Wang, K.-C. (2023). Measuring the value and cost of BIM use—an empirical lesson learned from Taiwan’s social housing projects. Canadian journal of civil engineering, 50(12), 1047-1065. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2023-0184
61.Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., & Piotrowski, J. (2023). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_1124-1
62.Zhang, W., Li, J., & Liang, Z. (2023). Barriers to Building Information Modeling from an Individual Perspective in the Chinese Construction Industry: An Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Buildings, 13, 1881. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071881
63.上海市住房和城鄉建設管理委員會. (2017). 上海市建築資訊模型技術應用指南.
64.方正榮（2002），高雄港發展國際物流中心競爭優勢之研究-從資源基礎理論觀點，國立成功大學交通管理學系碩博士班，碩士論文，台南市。
65.王旭斌, 黃世昌, 王世旭, & 王維志. (2022). 台灣BIM應用現況之案例分析 [Case studies of bim applications in taiwan]. 營建管理季刊(113), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.6505/cmj.202212_(113).0001
66.王明德, 張陸滿, & 蔡奇成. (2013). 建築資訊模型之法律議題初探. 建築學報(84), 185-203.
67.王淑娟. (2021). 知识员工职业发展"35岁困境":基于不确定性视角的解释. 中国青年研究(3), 76-83.
68.古智蜜（2017），利用模糊質性比較分析法探討員工的工作滿意度、組織承諾與離職意圖之影響因素─以國內某國際航空公司為例，輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班，碩士論文，新北市。
69.江宗融（2018），施工端執行BIM技術效益因子之研究，國立交通大學土木工程系所，碩士論文，新竹市。
70.吳孟翰（2016），探討公寓大廈案場管理因素之關係-因素分析與SEM之應用，國立雲林科技大學營建工程系，碩士論文，雲林縣。
71.吳金璋（2010），電子公文線上簽核系統使用之縱斷面研究：以UTAUT為基礎，朝陽科技大學企業管理系碩士班，碩士論文，台中市。
72.吳昱德（2021），BIM應用項目作業方式與模型沿用性建模導則之建立，國立陽明交通大學工學院工程技術與管理學程，碩士論文，新竹市。
73.李怡青（2016），國內營建產業應用BIM技術現況調查與分析，國立中央大學營建管理研究所在職專班，碩士論文，桃園縣。
74.沈靜君（2014），運用UTAUT及TTF探討從業人員對電子貨架標籤之接受度，國立臺北科技大學工業工程與管理系碩士班，碩士論文，台北市。
75.林佩璇（2014），文化與行動商務使用行為，逢甲大學科技管理研究所，碩士論文，台中市。
76.林靖紋（2018），企業施行CSR對員工工作滿意度、工作績效與留職傾向之影響—以fsQCA分析，輔仁大學國際經營管理碩士學位學程，碩士論文，新北市。
77.林德薇（2023），The Selection of BIM Benefit Evaluation Approaches: Theoretical Framework and Guideline，國立中央大學土木系營建管理碩士班，碩士論文，桃園縣。
78.邱杰瑞（2024），BIM採用：真實？假象？原因何在？，國立臺灣大學土木工程學系，碩士論文，台北市。
79.邱蔓萍（2019），社群網站訊息特性、國家文化構面 對分享意願之影響，南臺科技大學行銷與流通管理系，碩士論文，台南市。
80.洪馨妤（2024），應用結構方程模式剖析台灣營建安全管理實施之驅動因素─以小型營造廠為例，國立雲林科技大學營建工程系，碩士論文，雲林縣。
81.胡心慈（2019），建構營造廠BIM模型控管模式之研究，國立臺北科技大學土木工程系土木與防災博士班，碩士論文，台北市。
82.范素玲, 謝尚賢, & 沈裕倫. (2011). BIM: 工程專案應用建築資訊模型之契約附件範本與解說. 國立臺灣大學土木工程學系工程資訊模擬與管理研究中心.
83.徐惠心（2024），強化電子商務— 透過UTAUT模型探究消費者使用AI助理的情況，中原大學商學博士學位學程，碩士論文，桃園縣。
84.張逸升（2018），建築資訊模型(BIM)應用工作項目選擇之初探，朝陽科技大學營建工程系，碩士論文，台中市。
85.張境恩（2020），以UTAUT探討文化因素對穿戴性裝置使用意圖之差異，逢甲大學科技管理碩士學位學程，碩士論文，台中市。
86.許志豪（2012），科技接受與國家文化-以智慧型手機為例，逢甲大學科技管理研究所，碩士論文，台中市。
87.許俊逸, 徐景文, 林傑, & 李文欽. (2014). BIM 帶來的變革與政府的前瞻作為. 中國工程師學會 工程雙月刊.
88.許博淵（2005），國家文化差異對工作績效影響之研究－以高科技業菲籍、泰籍勞工為實證－，國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班，碩士論文，台南市。
89.郭芷柔（2019），國家文化對於國家環境、社會、治理之關聯性研究 -以Hofstede 文化模型作為文化依據，國立臺北大學金融與合作經營學系，碩士論文，新北市。
90.陳怡靜（2021），以UTAUT模型探討全聯福利中心導入行動支付APP 對中年客群之購物意願及使用行為影響之研究，國立臺南大學經營與管理學系科技管理碩士在職專班，碩士論文，台南市。
91.陳姵妤（2016），營造工程專案導入BIM之效益評估，朝陽科技大學營建工程系，碩士論文，台中市。
92.陳昱如（2012），以整合性科技接受模式及從眾行為探討消費者對平板電腦之使用意圖，國立高雄第一科技大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文，高雄市。
93.陳柏宏（2022），以UTAUT模式探討APP隨買跨店取對消費者購物意願及使用行為影響之研究—以全家便利商店為例，亞洲大學經營管理學系碩士在職專班，碩士論文，台中市。
94.陳瑞鈴, 楊智斌, 王翰翔, 李軒豪, 謝宗興, 白景富, 劉心慧, & 范姜逸珊. (2017). 我國建築工程BIM應用分類之評估選用方法研究. 內政部建築研究所協同研究報告
95.陳靖玟（2019），會計盈餘品質和投資-現金流量敏感性之關聯-fsQCA 模型分析，逢甲大學會計學系，碩士論文，台中市。
96.陳麗琴（2023），國家文化差異與多國籍企業知識管理 滿意度之研究，東海大學高階經營管理碩士在職專班，碩士論文，台中市。
97.董心瑀（2020），國家文化差異對 Mobile Learning 使用意圖之研究-以整合性科技接受模型探討德國和臺灣使用者對 Duolingo app 之使用意願，國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系，碩士論文，台北市。
98.劉邦彥（2021），策略性人力資源措施對人壽保險業務員離職傾向之影響－以模糊集質性比較分析法(fsQCA)進行分析，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所在職專班，碩士論文，桃園縣。
99.範氏鴛（2011），國家文化差異與海外適應對工作績效之影響研究-以越籍勞工為例國家文化差異與海外適應對工作績效之影響研究-以越籍勞工為例，國立高雄應用科技大學企業管理系，碩士論文，高雄市。
100.蔡瓊卉（2011），以整合型科技接受理論探討大專教師學習管理系統採用行為之研究，元培科技大學企業管理研究所，碩士論文，新竹市。
101.鄭生欽, 司紅運, & 張雷. (2016). 基于UTAUT的建筑信息模型技术采纳意向实证研究. 科技管理研究, 36(19), 230-235. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2016.19.040
102.謝沛芸（2024），文化差異對餐廳評論影響之研究：以 TripAdvisor 網站上 台灣餐廳評論為例，國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所，碩士論文，高雄市。
103.蘇柏仰（2017），營建工程評估選用BIM應用(BIM Uses) 架構與流程之研究，國立中央大學營建管理研究所，碩士論文，桃園縣。
104.饒涵清（2016），人力資本投資與其效益關係之再審視-FsQCA模型分析，逢甲大學財稅學系，碩士論文，台中市。