Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality-based Communication for Construction Projects

An Erratum to this article was published on 17 January 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Though computer-mediated communication technologies such as immersive virtual reality (IVR) have recently shown considerable promise, their effectiveness as methods of communication among the participants in construction projects has yet to be systematically investigated. This study helps fill this gap via a detailed comparison of traditional face-to-face (FtF) discussion of Building Information Modeling (BIM) information displayed on a monitor screen against IVR-based communication with BIM information embedded in the immersive environment. The results of experiments in which groups of participants discussed and chose optimal design options indicated that there is no large statistical difference in IVR-based and FtF communication in terms of discussion quality (level of effectiveness and satisfaction experienced), communication richness (detailed responses and vivid messages), and openness (enjoyableness and open-mindedness) during the communication. However, for the accuracy of communication (information communicated correctly and understood properly), FtF communication was better than IVR-based communication, which is assumed due to weak human-human to interaction in IVR. In addition, the communication appropriateness (behavioral acts such as politeness or social norms), IVR-based communication was significantly less than FtF communication, indicating that communicating with others only seeing virtual avatar could make it difficult to discern participant’ reactions or identify appropriate moments to speak. These results could confirm certain advantages of adopting IVR-based communication while further improvement for real-like interaction between people needs to be made for more effective use of IVR communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 17 January 2020

    This erratum is published to notify a correction in figure 1 and the addition of a citation, Du et al. 2016. See the corrected version below:

References

  1. Adriaanse, A. and Voordijk, H. (2005). “Interorganizational communication and ICT in construction projects: A review using metatriangulation.” Construction Innovation, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 159–177, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170510815230.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A. (2015). Visualization, communication, and copresence: Using building information models in virtual worlds. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andres, H. P. (2002). “A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams.” Team Performance Management, Vol. 8, Nos. 1-2, pp. 39–48, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590210425077.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., and Jin, M. (2008). “The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, Routledge, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 102–141, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793141.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bond-Barnard, T., Fletcher, L., and Steyn, H. (2016). “Exploring the influence of instant messaging and video conferencing on the quality of project communication.” Afirican Journals Online, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 36–69.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Calogiuri, G., Litleskare, S., Fagerheim, K. A., Rydgren, T. L., Brambilla, E., and Thurston, M. (2018). “Experiencing nature through immersive virtual environments: Environmental perceptions, physical engagement, and affective responses during a simulated nature walk.” Frontiers in psychology, Frontiers, Vol. 8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02321.

  7. Ceenu George and Hussmann, H. (2017). “Going beyond human communication capabilities with immersive virtual reality.” Proc. of CHI Workshop on Amplification and Augmentation of Human Perception, Denver, CO, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dainty, A., Moore, D., and Murray, M. (2007). Communication in construction: Theory and practice, Taylor and Francis, New York, NY, USA, pp. 96–118.

    Google Scholar 

  9. den Otter, A. and Emmitt, S. (2008). “Design team communication and design task complexity: The preference for dialogues.” Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 121–129, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3763/aedm.2008.0072.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dodds, T. J., Mohler, B. J., and Bülthoff, H. H. (2011). “Talk to the virtual hands: Self-animated avatars improve communication in head-mounted display virtual environments.” PloS One, PLOS, Vol. 6, No. 10, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025759.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Du, J., Shi, Y., Zou, Z., and Zhao, D. (2017). “CoVR: Cloud-based multiuser virtual reality headset system for project communication of remote users.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 144, No. 2, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001426.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fathi, M. S., Abedi, M., and Rawai, N. (2012). “The potential of cloud computing technology for construction collaboration.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans Tech Publications, Vol. 174, pp. 1931–1934, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.174-177.1931.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gamil, Y. and Rahman, I. A. (2017). “Identification of causes and effects of poor communication in construction industry: A theoretical review.” Emerging Science Journal, Ital Publication, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 239–247, DOI: https://doi.org/10.28991/ijse-01121.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Greenwald, S. W., Wang, Z., Funk, M., and Maes, P. (2017). “Investigating social presence and communication with embodied avatars in room-scale virtual reality.” Proc. of Int. Conf. on Immersive Learning, Springer, Coimbra, Portugal, pp. 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greiner, B., Caravella, M., and Roth, A. E. (2014). “Is avatar-to-avatar communication as effective as face-to-face communication? An ultimatum game experiment in first and second life.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Elsevier, Vol. 108, pp. 374–382, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.01.011.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guevara, J. M. and Boyer, L. T. (1981). “Communication problems within construction.” Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. 4, pp. 551–557.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Günhan, S., Şenol, G., and Doğan, S. Z. (2012). Non-verbal cues: Improving communication in construction projects, Proc. of ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA.

  18. Guo, Z., D’ambra, J., Turner, T., and Zhang, H. (2009). “Improving the effectiveness of virtual teams: A comparison of video-conferencing and face-to-face communication in China.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, IEEE, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 1–16, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2008.2012284.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heller, R. (2010). A cost-benefit analysis of face-to-face and virtual communication: Overcoming the challenges, White paper, The Cornell Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, New York, NY, USA.

  20. Johansson, D. (2015). Design and evaluation of an avatar-mediated system for child interview training. MSc Thesis, Linnaeus University (LNU), Växjö, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lam, C. (2015). “The role of communication and cohesion in reducing social loafing in group projects.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, SAGE Publishing, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 454–475, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615596417.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lam, C. (2016). “Improving technical communication group projects: An experimental study of media synchronicity theory training on communication outcomes.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, SAGE Publishing, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 85–112, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651915602293.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laufer, A., Shapira, A., and Telem, D. (2008). “Communicating in dynamic conditions: How do on-site construction project managers do it?” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 75–86, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:2(75).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lee, N. and Kim, Y. (2018). “A conceptual framework for effective communication in construction management: Information processing and visual communication.” Proc. of Construction Research Congress, ASCE, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Littlemore, J. (2003). “The communicative effectiveness of different types of communication strategy.” System, Elsevier, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 331–347, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00046-0.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano Jr, N. C., Cheney, P. D., and Hightower, R. T. (2006). “The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference?” Small Group Research, SAGE Publishing, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 631–661, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406294322.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., and González-Marrero, A. (2017). “Virtual technologies trends in education.” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 469–486, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00626a.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nowak, K. L. and Fox, J. (2018). “Avatars and computer-mediated communication: A review of the definitions, uses, and effects of digital representations.” Review of Communication Research, Vol. 6, pp. 30–53, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2018.06.01.015.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Olanrewaju, A., Tan, S. Y., and Kwan, L. F. (2017). “Roles of communication on performance of the construction sector.” Procedia Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 196, pp. 763–770, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.005.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., and Ives, B. (2004). “Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research.” The Database for Advances in Information Systems, ACM, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 6–36, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/968464.968467.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Roberts, T. L., Lowry, P. B., Cheney, P. H., and Hightower, R. T. (2006). “Improving group communication outcomes with collaborative software: The impact of group size, media richness, and social presence” Proc. of the 39th Annual Hawaii Int. Conference on System Science, IEEE, Kauia, HI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Roth, D., Waldow, K., Latoschik, M. E., Fuhrmann, A., and Bente, G. (2017). “Socially immersive avatar-based communication.” Proc. of IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 259–260.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Senaratne, S. and Ruwanpura, M. (2016). “Communication in construction: A management perspective through case studies in Sri Lanka.” Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 3–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2015.1056721.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Setareh, M., Bowman, D. A., Kalita, A., Gracey, M., and Lucas, J. (2005). “Application of a virtual environment system in building sciences education.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE,Vol. 11. No. 4, pp. 165–172, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2005)11:4(165).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shiratuddin, M. F. and Sulbaran, T. (2006). “Development of immersive learning in a virtual reality environment (ILVRE) system to assist construction education.” Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. on Engineering Education, Puerto Rico, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Svalestuen, F., Knotten, V., Lædre, O., Drevland, F., and Lohne, J. (2017). “Using building information model (BIM) devices to improve information flow and collaboration on construction sites.” Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp. 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tanaka, K., Nakanishi, H., and Ishiguro, H. (2014). “Comparing video, avatar, and robot mediated communication: Pros and cons of embodiment.” Proc. of 7th Int. Conf., Springer, Santiago, Chile, pp. 96–110.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011). “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha.” International Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 2, pp. 53–55, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thomas, S. R., Tucker, R. L., and Kelly, W. R. (1998). “Critical communications variables.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 58–66, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:1(58).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tutt, D., Harty, C., Smith, S., and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. (2013). “Journeys through the cave: The use of 3d immersive environments for client engagement practices in hospital design.” Proc. of 29th Annual ARCOM Conf., Reading, UK, pp. 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., and Wang, X. (2018). “A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, MDPI, Vol. 15, No. 6, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061204.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Witmer, B. G. and Singer, M. J. (1998). “Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire.” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, MIT Press, Vol. 7. No. 3, pp. 225–240, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wu, T.-H., Wu, F., Liang, C.-J., Li, Y.-F., Tseng, C.-M., and Kang, S.-C. (2017). “A virtual reality tool for training in global engineering collaboration.” Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 243–255, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0594-0.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Xie, C., Wu, D., Luo, J., and Hu, X. (2010). “A case study of multi-team communications in construction design under supply chain partnering.” Supply Chain Management, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 363–370, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011068279.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zahoor, H., Chan, A. P., Masood, R., Choudhry, R. M., Javed, A. A., and Utama, W. P. (2016). “Occupational safety and health performance in the Pakistani construction industry: Stakeholders’ perspective.” International Journal of Construction Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 16, No, 3, pp. 209–219, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1138027.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zaker, R. and Coloma, E. (2018). “Virtual reality-integrated workflow in BIM-enabled projects collaboration and design review: A case study.” Visualization in Engineering, Springer Open, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1–15, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-018-0065-6.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang, H. (2017). “Head-mounted display-based intuitive virtual reality training system for the mining industry.” International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, Elsevier, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.717–722, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.05.005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research study was supported by a grant (19CTAP-C151784-01) from Technology Advancement Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government, and partially supported by the Early Career Scheme (PolyU 25210917) from Research Grants Council, Hong Kong and the Teaching Development Grant (No. 1-49CV) from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JoonOh Seo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbas, A., Choi, M., Seo, J. et al. Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality-based Communication for Construction Projects. KSCE J Civ Eng 23, 4972–4983 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-0898-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • communication effectiveness
  • visual communication
  • immersive virtual reality
  • face-to-face (FtF) communication
  • construction projects