Warszawski, A and Navon, R (1998) Implementation of robotics in building: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), pp. 31-41. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A survey to evaluate the state-of-the-art development and employment of building robots was conducted worldwide among construction companies, universities, and other research organizations. The methodology of the survey and its results are presented. The analysis of the results yields a gloomy picture of the present level of on-site of robot employment. The reasons for this situation are identified as follows: (1) Existing robots are not well adapted to building construction. (2) There are problems associated with the conventionally designed building. (3) It is difficult to justify robot employment economically. (4) There are managerial barriers. Consequently, recommendations are offered for more efficient future implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | state of the art, methodology, construction company, survey, building construction, robotics, implementation, employment |
| Subjects: | building construction, management, research methods, automation and robotics, contractual arrangements, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, organization |
| Topics: | Procurement, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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