Bou Hatoum, Makram Bou (2023) Value propositions, adoption factors, and implementation considerations: Building a path towards construction innovation. PhD thesis, University of Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
The construction industry has been influenced by a wave of technological advancements and trends that were introduced by the fourth industrial revolution or Industry 4.0. Mapped as Construction 4.0, these technologies are disrupting the way projects are designed, planned, constructed, delivered, and operated. While existing research has predominantly focused on technology adoption and use cases across the project lifecycle, limited attention has been given to the organizational perspective and explored Construction 4.0 as a transformative vision. As such, there is a significant need for decision science research to support decision-makers in understanding the value of Construction 4.0, gaining leadership buy-in, minimizing resistance to change within the organization, and perceiving technologies as "long-term investments" rather than "shiny tools". To bridge the research gap, this dissertation presents a holistic roadmap and develops comprehensive models that can guide construction organizations in their Construction 4.0 decision-making. The findings of the dissertation serve three primary objectives, referred to as the "ABCs of Construction 4.0 Decisions". First, the findings enable organizations to assess, understand, and effectively communicate the value proposition of Construction 4.0 decisions by leveraging the Futures Triangle theory, which takes into account the organization's historical challenges, current industry trends, and future organizational aspirations. To quantify the value, a Construction 4.0 Value Proposition Score (CVPS4.0) was developed and tested with a subject matter expert. Next, the findings provide organizations with a breakdown of decision-making factors that can evaluate the fitness of Construction 4.0 decisions within the organization, guided by the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) theory. These factors can also serve as the base of a Construction 4.0 Fitness Index (CFI4.0) that decision-makers can use to quantify the fitness of technology and decisions within their organization. Lastly, the findings aid organizations in creating a systematic plan for implementing decisions. Implementation practices are provided for six key pillars: people, environment, approaches, resources, leadership, and strategy. These pillars establish the foundation for a dynamic business canvas, presented as the Construction 4.0 Implementation Canvas (ConIC4.0), that can facilitate a smooth and successful implementation process of Construction 4.0 decisions.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Nassereddine, Hala; Chen, Mei and Dadi, Gabriel |
| Index terms: | strategy, decision-making, construction innovation, construction 4.0, industry 4.0, construction organization, decision science, project lifecycle, fourth industrial revolution, technology adoption, dissertation, implementation, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, decision analysis, management, technology adoption, decision-making and optimization, building construction, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, digital engineering, project completion, organization, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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