## 5 Discussion of Findings: Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison  
The qualitative results reveal a number of interesting insights, given that the data was exploratory in nature, as such, it was possible to deduce some grounded theories from the interviewees. The probing helped to focus them and prompt them for more information, which they willingly gave out. The quantitative results were easy to follow and explain, yet the qualitative results had too much information, which was not related sometimes. Feedback from the quantitative and qualitative research methods largely corroborated each other, although some subtle differences were noted. Furthermore, efforts to corroborate some findings with the literature were challenging. For example, an interviewee stated that it was viable to use mobile/cloud BIM technology for contract management, however, no studies corroborate this view. That notwithstanding, using mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative and literature review) served the purpose of validation of the results. Findings from the quantitative and qualitative studies revealed the same state-of-the-art emerging mobile phones used onsite for managing construction activities. Furthermore, the feedbacks from both methods revealed that architectural and consultancy organizations had a higher number of participants, especially for those who were experts in mobile/cloud BIM technology. This research uncovered that the main mobile devices used onsite are iPhones, iPads, Samsung smartphones and tablet PCs. These devices are the state-of-the-art mobile phones in the U.K. mobile communications market. Most of the respondents acknowledged the qualitative benefits of these mobile/cloud devices. Using mobile/cloud BIM technology allowed them to remotely view and exchange data over a wireless network such as the web using the mobile devices. Therefore, mobile/cloud computing technology together is used for many activities onsite. Its use is not limited to any specific onsite project activities, as a number of uses were cited by the respondents. However, the most popular use of mobile/cloud BIM was for collaborative purposes. This is quite important in construction practice as collaborative working and effective communication are critical for every construction project [42; 43]. In the survey, only one respondent cited quantifiable benefits of mobile/cloud BIM technology use in their organization. In their research project, 95% waste management was achieved due to reduced rework and minimised over-ordering. Furthermore, 80% of post contract change was achieved by using Navisworks to detect clashes and visualisation. These seemed too generous figures and were difficult to verify using existing literature. The reduction of time and costs was achievable because clashes and omissions are identified earlier and corrected before the actual construction is carried out. That reduces rework or change instructions. The results revealed that the mobile/cloud BIM technology experiences problems in its adoption and implementation onsite because of the reliance on in-house systems, as such, unable to share or exchange files with external stakeholders. The other problem is further exacerbated by the functionality of the system in terms of adoption across multiple stakeholders. One interviewee cried foul about a client such as the Ministry of Justice, who stated the needs that they had problems addressing. From the results, it can be said that mobile/cloud BIM technology is adopted mainly by large organizations. More mobile/cloud BIM respondents for this study were from large organizations. That could be due to the resources of large organizations, making them able and willing to invest in the new technology. The other trend shown by the results was that the architectural and consultancy respondents were the majority. Can it be said the mobile/cloud BIM technology is only for a few select, and if so, why that disparity? Only one respondent cited the use of mobile/cloud BIM technology for quantities and cost information.