Foskett, F. and Alwisy, A. (2026) Socio-industrial analysis of cross-sector robotics adoption obstacles for light-gauge steel construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, pp. 1-40. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – This research examines robotics adoption in industrialized construction to accelerate adoption by applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB) framework to analyze cross-sector technology transfer obstacles between manufacturing and construction sectors, specifically for light-gauge steel construction systems. Design/methodology/approach – A mixed-methods approach combines systematic literature analysis of 144 documents with a novel socio-industrial analysis framework. The methodology integrates industrial technology analysis examining 189 technological components across three categories (robotics, control systems and end effectors) with behavioral, social and organizational analysis applying TPB's five constructs (perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, attitude toward behavior, behavioral intention and actual system use) to categorize adoption obstacles. Findings – Analysis found that 88% of robotic systems demonstrate no cross-sector applicability despite component transferability. Of the 75 obstacle-bearing documents identified within the corpus, perceived behavioral control emerges as the dominant barrier, present in 69% (52 of 75) and multi-construct obstacles impact 60% (45 of 75), indicating systemic challenges requiring comprehensive interventions. End effectors show highest cross-sector potential compared to robotic systems, suggesting modular implementation strategies prove more viable than complete system transfers. Originality/value – This research extends TPB application to cross-sector manufacturing-construction technology adoption at the organizational level, developing an integrated analytical framework connecting technical capabilities with behavioral barriers. The findings offer actionable insights for practitioners implementing construction robotics, emphasizing organizational transformation and multi-dimensional interventions over purely technical solutions. The framework advances both TPB theoretical application and construction automation practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction robotics; knowledge transfer; light-gauge steel construction; technology adoption barriers; theory of planned behavior |
| Index terms: | organizational analysis, construction technology, planned behaviour, steel construction, advanced construction robotics, robotics, knowledge transfer, technology adoption, technology transfer, analytical framework, automation, subjective norm, methodology, strategy, control system, practitioner, implementation, transformation, industrialized construction, construction sector, documents |
| Subjects: | innovation and technology management, building construction, behavioral psychology, data analysis and analytics, automation and robotics, social justice, professional development, construction type, practitioner, business, monitoring and control, structural engineering, digital engineering, knowledge management, management, contractual arrangements, research methods, industry analysis, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Ethics, Procurement, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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