Everett, J G and Saito, H (1996) Construction automation: Demands and satisfiers in the United States and Japan. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), pp. 147-151. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Automation and robotics are often proposed as solutions to problems in productivity, quality, safety, and skilled-labor availability in the United States and in Japan. In recent years, many prototype robots have been developed, but few practical examples can be found on construction sites today. Nevertheless, several large Japanese contractors are aggressively pursuing research and development (R&D) programs to introduce robots on construction sites. United States contractors exhibit little interest. This paper evaluates construction automation and robotics in the context of their ability to satisfy the often conflicting demands of managers and owners, workers, and society in the United States and in Japan. In the United States, there is weak demand for construction automation and robotics. In fact, there may be considerable resistance. In Japan, there is a great deal of demand for automation and robotics, much of it coming from workers and society in general. Differences in cultural, economic, and business practices help explain why construction automation and robotics are generating so much activity and investment in Japan and so little in the United States.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | automation, program, prototype, society, research and development, United States, manager, Japan, owner, construction site, robotics, productivity |
| Subjects: | work location, communities and social development, modelling and simulation, research management, automation and robotics, sociology, management, Geography, software systems, practitioner |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Site Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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