Almatari, H A Q; Chan, M and Masrom, M A N (2024) Factors inhibiting the adoption of industrial revolution 4.0 in malaysian construction industry. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 13(4), pp. 1041-1065. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: The construction industry is a major economic driver in Malaysia, playing a pivotal role in the developing nations economic growth. Malaysia's reliance on labor-driven construction practices often sees local industry lagging in adopting technological advancements common to the construction sector on a global scale. This study investigates the challenges faced by project players in using new construction industrial revolution (IR) 4.0 technologies and the difficulties in implementing these technologies in construction projects. Design/methodology/approach: A quantitative survey was distributed to 183 practitioners in the Malaysian construction industry. The collected data (N = 121) has been analyzed using statistical software to calculate relative importance index values for the identified factors. A triangulation approach to validate the factors obtained from the survey was conducted with an expert group to ensure there were no additional considerations identified in the study. Findings: The study results show that the main factors in adopting construction IR 4.0 technologies are 1) high implementation costs, 2) hesitation to adopt technologies, 3) lack of standards, 4) legal and contractual uncertainty and 5) complexity. By investigating these factors, cost and regulation issues can gradually be resolved, with construction firms implementing new technologies, educating workers and ensuring government involvement in training for skill development to support IR 4.0. Originality/value: The outcome of these efforts to resolve construction productivity would be beneficial in their industry impact on practice and digital transformation. Additionally, the results add to the body of knowledge for construction practitioners and technology developers to work together efficiently on the implementation of construction 4.0 technologies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction ir 4.0; construction technologies; quantitative; technology adoption |
| Index terms: | body of knowledge, construction sector, complexity, triangulation, methodology, construction project, regulation, practitioner, relative importance index, skills development, construction firm, survey, construction practitioner, developing nation, construction productivity, construction industry, implementation, economic growth, construction technology, technology adoption, transformation, construction 4.0, Malaysia, new technology |
| Subjects: | operations management, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, business, digital engineering, organization, research design and methodology, data collection methods, risk assessment, practitioner, political science, systems engineering, industry analysis, research methods, economic development, development economics, professional development, personnel development, production management, Geography |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, International Construction, Human Resources, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Governance, Sustainability, Procurement |
| 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