Chen, Z; Zhao, Y; Zhou, X; Hao, S and Li, J (2023) Identifying the risk factors and their interactions of human–robot collaboration implementation during engineering project construction: Evidence from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(7), pp. 3073-3094. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Human–robot collaboration (HRC) is an emerging research field for the construction industry along with construction robot adoption, but its implementation remains limited in construction sites. This paper aims to identify critical risk factors and their interactions of HRC implementation during engineering project construction. Design/methodology/approach: Literature research, expert interviews, a questionnaire survey and a social network analysis (SNA) method were used. First, literature research and expert interviews were employed to identify risk factors of HRC implementation and preliminarily understand factor interactions. Second, a questionnaire survey was conducted to determine the degree of interactions between risk factors. Third, based on the data collected from the questionnaire survey, SNA metrics were used to find critical risk factors and critical interactions. Findings: The critical risk factors consist of robot technology reliability, robot-perceived level, conflict between designers and users of construction robots, organisational culture, organisational strength, project cost requirements, changeability of project construction, project quality requirements and project safety requirements. The interactions between risk factors are strong and complex. Robot technology risk factors were relatively fundamental risk factors, and project risk factors had a direct influence on the risk of HRC implementation. The implementation cost of HRC was not identified as a critical risk factor. Individual risk factors could be mitigated by improving technical and organisational factors. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the body of knowledge in the field of both HRC behaviours and its risk management in construction project management. Identifying the critical risk factors and their interactions of HRC implementation in the construction industry and introducing social network theory to the research on critical risk factors are the innovations of this paper. The findings and proposed suggestions could help construction professionals to better understand the HRC risk factors and to manage the risk of HRC implementation more effectively.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction robot; construction sites; human–robot collaboration; risk factors; social network analysis |
| Index terms: | designer, organizational factor, social network theory, interaction, implementation, construction industry, construction professional, risk factor, risk management, construction project management, social network analysis, construction site, survey, project cost, interview, body of knowledge, China, organizational culture, methodology, collaboration, project risk factor, questionnaire, evidence |
| Subjects: | professional development, project management theory and practice, project risk, Geography, research methods, economics, management, behavioral psychology, environmental hazards, industry analysis, sociology, business, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, risk assessment, profession, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, work location |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Information Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here