Construction 4.0 and built assets in-use: Creating an e-topia or dystopia?

Du Plessis, C and Sherratt, F (2020) Construction 4.0 and built assets in-use: Creating an e-topia or dystopia? Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 173(4), pp. 182-189. ISSN 17514304

Abstract

Construction 4.0 makes many promises. The use of technologies will not only improve productivity in the construction of future built environments but will also enhance their operation and maintenance as they become smart cities. These latter stages in the built asset project life cycle are impacted by Construction 4.0 technologies able to both automate and optimise their operations, thus bringing benefits for facility management while also linking the built environment fabric to wider societal and governmental systems. However, there is growing concern that Construction 4.0 is directing the industry towards a 'smart dystopia', a situation with as much vulnerability as resilience, without due consideration or challenge. For example, the automation of operational processes arguably increases vulnerabilities to cyberattacks, corruptions of data or energy loss, while the constant collection of worker and citizen data by smart buildings and infrastructures raises concerns around surveillance and privacy, as well as issues of exclusion. Although Construction 4.0 has the potential to enable the industry to support the delivery, operation and maintenance of an e-topia, such ethical and social challenges should perhaps be considered before its technologies are unquestioningly embedded within built assets for use throughout the duration of their life cycles.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: information technology; social impact; sustainability
Index terms: built asset, information technology, surveillance, smart building, corruption, privacy, vulnerability, operation and maintenance, duration, automation, social impact, built environment, productivity, life cycle, smart city, construction 4.0
Subjects: computing systems, urban sustainability, value management, sociology, project controls, infrastructure and transport systems, management, digital engineering, construction type, asset management, environmental hazards, professional ethics, maintenance engineering, monitoring and control systems, automation and robotics
Topics: Legal Issues, Sustainability, Project Management, Time Control, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice
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