Ahmed, S; Romdhane, L; El-Sayegh, S M and Manjikian, S (2025) Risk assessment for 3D printing in construction projects. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 30(1), pp. 67-87. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify and assess new risks in construction projects that use 3D printing. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed approach of both qualitative and quantitative methods was used. Literature review was conducted to extract 30 risks of 3D printing in construction. A survey was then developed to assess the probability and impact of these risks. In total, 37 respondents, who have experience and/or knowledge of 3D printing, completed the survey. The risk priority was calculated using a fuzzy logic approach. The main benefit of the proposed model is being able to use numerical and linguistic data in the risk assessment model. Findings: The results show that the main risks, in terms of priority, are lack of codes and regulations for 3D printing in construction, delay in government approvals, shortage in labour skilled in 3D printed construction, lack of knowledge and information of 3D printed design concepts and changes in 3D construction codes and regulations. Originality/value: This paper fills an identified gap in the literature related to 3D printing in construction and provides insights into the key risks affecting this disruptive technology.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | 3D printing in construction; fuzzy logic; risk management; risks; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | fuzzy logic, risk assessment, risk management, approval, 3D printing, literature review, survey, construction project, methodology, questionnaire, quantitative method, regulation |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, data science, political science, manufacturing, contractual role, financial risk, production management, research methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Governance, Research Practice, Cost Management, Risk Management, Project 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