Bricklayers' perspectives on human-robot collaboration (HRC) in on-site masonry construction: Opportunities, challenges, and considerations

Franzè, A P; Belek Fialho Teixeira, M; Caldwell, G; Rafizadeh, H R; Schork, T; Gainey, L and Zahra, T (2025) Bricklayers' perspectives on human-robot collaboration (HRC) in on-site masonry construction: Opportunities, challenges, and considerations. Construction Innovation, 25(7), pp. 384-408. ISSN 1471-4175

Abstract

Purpose – The Australian construction sector is experiencing historically low productivity rates, labour shortages and increased building costs. In bricklaying, highly automated industrial robotic solutions have not alleviated these challenges. Recent advances raise the opportunity for less costly, modular and safer collaborative robots (cobots) extended through augmented reality (AR). This study aims to understand bricklayers' perspectives on working with cobots and AR; identify the opportunities and challenges for cobot integration on-site; and identify key considerations for on-site human–robot collaboration (HRC). Design/methodology/approach – This study draws upon seven face-to-face semi-structured interviews with Australian bricklayers, including cobot users and non-users. A codebook-informed reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) resulted in three key themes. Findings – The findings reveal a vital need for human-centred HRC workflows tailored to residential bricklaying. Theme 1 identifies HRC workflows as an enabler to address labour shortages and low productivity, increase workforce diversity and ultimately preserve the profession's longevity. Theme 2 suggests HRC workflows must overcome site integration, safety and usability challenges. Theme 3 addresses design considerations for successful on-site cobot deployment. Complementary AR enhances collaboration by leveraging human capabilities combined with machine assistance. Originality/value – Aligning the findings with the technology acceptance model (TAM), this study uncovers bricklayer perceptions and attitudes towards working with cobots and AR devices on-site. It outlines the challenges bricklayers' encounter with an existing assistive robot system and key considerations for HRC workflows. Future research will focus on collaborating with bricklayers to design human-centred HRC workflows to improve adoption in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: architectural robotics; augmented reality; bricklaying; cobot; construction robotics; digitalisation; human–robot collaboration; masonry construction
Index terms: methodology, integration, collaboration, thematic analysis, augmented reality, construction sector, workflow, interview, digitalization, usability, bricklayer, face, profession, labour shortage, robotics, advanced construction robotics, technology acceptance model, productivity
Subjects: methods and analysis, management, economics, industry analysis, organizational analysis, data collection methods, user-centered design, automation and robotics, acoustic properties, research methods, building construction, practitioner, institututions, digital technology, psychology, visualization
Topics: Engineering Principles, Supply Chain Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design
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