Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Results of Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA based on ranking (breakdown of enterprises by owner of construction enterprise*)_
| Equity holder | Code | Number of valid responses | Exploitation level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slovak private equity | 1 | 44 | 1.83 |
| Foreign private equity | 2 | 11 | 3.46 |
Results of Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA based on ranking (breakdown of enterprises by participants of construction project*)_
| Participants | Code | Number of valid responses | Exploitation level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investor/developer | 1 | 4 | 3.11 |
| Designers/architects | 2 | 9 | 3.48 |
| Contractors | 3 | 28 | 2.03 |
| Subcontractors | 4 | 33 | 1.54 |
Review of foreign research and publications on cloud computing in construction project management_
| Authors (year) | Article or topic | Country |
|---|---|---|
| Lorio and Snowdon (2010) | Leveraging Cloud Computing and High Performance Computing Advances for Next-Generation Architecture, Urban Design and Construction Projects | Canada |
| Fathi et al. (2012) | Context-Aware Cloud Computing for Construction Collaboration | Malaysia |
| Kumar and Chang (2012) | Cloud Computing and its Implications for Construction IT | USA |
| Chuang et al. (2012) | Applying Cloud Computing Technology to BIM Visualization and Manipulation | Taiwan |
| Jiao et al. (2013) | A Cloud Approach to Unified Lifecycle Data Management in Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Facilities Management: Integrating BIMs and social networking services | China |
Impact of construction enterprise on exploitation of cloud computing in construction project management (results of Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA based on ranking*)_
| Size of enterprises | Code | Number of valid responses | Exploitation level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Large enterprises | 1 | 7 | 3.37 |
| Medium-sized enterprises | 2 | 12 | 2.43 |
| Small enterprises | 3 | 17 | 2.01 |
| Microenterprises | 4 | 19 | 1.89 |