Rohana Mahbub Thesis

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BARRIERS TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATION AND ROBOTICS

TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
ROHANA MAHBUB
BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying, University of Reading
MSc Construction Project Management, UMIST
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND ENGINEERING
QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
2008
To
My husband Razak, for his love and support

and
my beloved baby son Hafid, born amid the “data analysis” phase
And
In loving memory of my parents,
My father, Mahbub Amin (1936 – 2005) and

My mother, Jamaliah Awang Noh (1943 – 2007);
For always believing in me and how strong I can truly be;
Thank you for your gift of life and love;
I miss you but know that you are proud of me.
ii
KEY WORDS AND ABSTRACT
Key Words: Automation, Robotics, Mechanisation, Construction Industry, Barriers,

Construction Operations, Construction Process, Implementation, Japan, Australia,
Malaysia
The rising problems associated with construction such as decreasing quality and
productivity, labour shortages, occupational safety, and inferior working conditions have
opened the possibility of more revolutionary solutions within the industry. One
prospective option is in the implementation of innovative technologies such as
automation and robotics, which has the potential to improve the industry in terms of
productivity, safety and quality. The construction work site could, theoretically, be
contained in a safer environment, with more efficient execution of the work, greater
consistency of the outcome and higher level of control over the production process. By
identifying the barriers to construction automation and robotics implementation in
construction, and investigating ways in which to overcome them, contributions could be
made in terms of better understanding and facilitating, where relevant, greater use of
these technologies in the construction industry so as to promote its efficiency.
This research aims to ascertain and explain the barriers to construction automation and
robotics implementation by exploring and establishing the relationship between
characteristics of the construction industry and attributes of existing construction
automation and robotics technologies to level of usage and implementation in three
selected countries; Japan, Australia and Malaysia. These three countries were chosen as
their construction industry characteristics provide contrast in terms of culture, gross
domestic product, technology application, organisational structure and labour policies.
This research uses a mixed method approach of gathering data, both quantitative and
qualitative, by employing a questionnaire survey and an interview schedule; using a
wide range of sample from management through to on-site users, working in a range of
small (less than AUD0.2million) to large companies (more than AUD500million), and
involved in a broad range of business types and construction sectors.
iii
Detailed quantitative (statistical) and qualitative (content) data analysis is performed to
provide a set of descriptions, relationships, and differences. The statistical tests selected
for use include cross-tabulations, bivariate and multivariate analysis for investigating
possible relationships between variables; and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U test
of independent samples for hypothesis testing and inferring the research sample to the
construction industry population. Findings and conclusions arising from the research
work which include the ranking schemes produced for four key areas of, the
construction attributes on level of usage; barrier variables; differing levels of usage
between countries; and future trends, have established a number of potential areas that
could impact the level of implementation both globally and for individual countries.
iv
Title Page i
Key Words and Abstract iii
Table of Contents v
List of Appendices x
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xii
Statement of Original Authorship xv
Acknowledgement xvi
List of Publications xvii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background To The Research 1
1.2 Problem Identification And Research Objectives 4
1.2.1 The Research Questions 5
1.2.2 The Objectives of the Research 7
1.2.3 The Scope of the Research 10
1.2.4 Research Contributions 11
1.3 Research Strategy and Framework 11
1.3.1 Research Strategy 11
1.3.2 Research Framework 14
1.4 Research Methodology 16
1.4.1 Literature Review 16
1.4.2 Information and Data Required 16
1.4.3 Data Collection Methods, Research Instruments and Selection of 17
Respondents
1.4.4 Data Analysis 19
1.5 Outline of Thesis and Structure of Chapters 19
1.6 Summary 21
v
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 23
2.2 Definitions 23
2.2.1 Mechanisation 23
2.2.2 Automation 24
2.2.3 Robotics 25
2.2.4 Construction 26
2.2.5 Construction Automation and Robotics 27
2.2.6 Review on Definition 27
2.3 Range Of Automation & Robotics Application in Construction 29
2.3.1 Design 30
2.3.2 Planning, Scheduling, Estimating and Costing 33
2.3.3 Project Management and Total Construction Systems 36
2.3.4 On-site Construction Operations 41
2.3.5 Other Applications: CAD/CAM Technologies 44
2.4 Characteristics Of Construction Technology And Automation And Robotics 45
Technologies
2.4.1 Construction Technology Characteristics 46

2.4.2 Construction Automation and Robotics Technologies Characteristics 47
2.4.3 Fusion of Traditional and Innovative Technologies 48
2.4.4 Review on the Characteristics and Technology Fusion 50
2.5 Construction Industry 52
2.5.1 Japan 52
2.5.2 Australia 53
2.5.3 Malaysia 55
2.6 Global Implementation And Development Of Construction Automation 56
And Robotics Technologies
2.6.1 Japan 56
2.6.2 Australia 58
2.6.3 Malaysia 59
2.6.4 North America and Europe 60
vi
2.6.5 Korea and Taiwan 61
2.7 Barriers to Implementation 63
2.7.1 Barrier Variables 66
2.7.2 Reducing the Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation 70
2.8 Summary of Literature Review 75
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 78
3.2 Research Design 79
3.2.1 Purpose of Enquiry 79
3.2.2 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 80
3.2.3 Identification of Variables 82
3.2.4 Unit of Analysis 82
3.2.5 Sampling 83
3.3 Research Methodology And Instruments 84
3.3.1 Literature Review 84
3.3.2 Questionnaire Survey 85
3.3.3 Interviews 87
3.4 Data Management And Analysis 88
3.4.1. Questionnaire Analysis: SPSS 16.0 for Windows 89
3.4.2 Content Analysis of Interviews: NUD*IST Vivo 7 (NVivo 7) 90
3.5 Pilot Study 92
3.5.1 Pre-testing 93
3.5.2 Data Acquisition 94
3.5.3 Preliminary Data Analysis 95
3.6 Summary 101
CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION: JAPAN, MALAYSIA AND

AUSTRALIA
4.1 Introduction 103
4.2 Cross-Cultural Data Collection: Japan, Malaysia and Australia 104
4.2.1 Relationship and Social Framework 104
vii
4.2.2 Time 105
4.2.3 Power 106
4.3 Data Collection Methods 107
4.3.1 Questionnaire Survey 107
4.3.2 Interviews 111
4.4 Reliability and Validity Of Data 112
4.5 Coding And Analysis Of Data 115
4.5.1 Phase One: Quantitative Data Analysis 116
4.5.2 Phase Two: Qualitative Data Analysis 121
4.5.3 Integration, Synthesising and Interpretation of Data for Phases One 124
and Two
4.6 Ethical Considerations 124
4.7 Summary 125
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND

INTERVIEWS
5.2 Questionnaire Survey Analysis 127
5.2.1 Response Rate 129
5.2.2 Section A: Demographic Information 130
5.2.3 Section B: Level of Implementation and Development 135
5.2.4 Section C: Issues and Concerns Pertaining to Use of Automation and 151
Robotics Technologies
5.2.5 Section D: Perceived Barriers for Construction Implementation 155

5.2.6 Section E: Future Trends and Opportunities 168
5.2.7 Summary of Questionnaire Analysis 174
5.3 Interview Analysis 175
5.3.1 Profile of Interviewees 175
5.3.2 Contents Analysis of Key Areas 177
5.3.3 Summary of Interview Analysis 198
5.4 Summary 198
viii
CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
ON FINDINGS
6.2 Questionnaire and Interview Data Integration 202
6.2.1 Demography Effects 202
6.2.2 Levels of Implementation: Correlation with Core Factors 203
6.2.4 Differing Levels of Usage in Between Countries 210
6.2.5 Future Trends and Opportunities 214
6.3 Linking Data Integration Phase with Literature Review Findings 218
6.3.1 Levels of Implementation: Correlation with Demographic/ Core 218
Factors

6.3.3 Differing Levels of Usage in Between Countries 224
6.3.4 Future Trends and Opportunities 227
6.4 Summary 229
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.2 Research Conclusions 231
7.2.1 Literature Contribution 232
7.2.2 Analytical Data Contribution 234
7.2.3 Summary of Research Findings 240
7.3 Recommendations For Future Research 244
7.3.1 Resolutions for Research Limitations 244
7.3.2 Recommendations for Future Expansion of the Ranking Schemes 245
7.3.3 Recommendations for Future Guidelines for the Construction Industry 246
7.4 Summary 247
REFERENCES 249
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Examples of specialised robots developed by Takenaka 266

Corporation, Japan
Appendix 2: The RIBA Plan of Work 267

Appendix 3: Postal Questionnaire: Example for Australian Participants 269
Appendix 4: SPSS Abbreviated Codebook 278
Appendix 5: Interview Consent Form and Questions 282
Appendix 6: Cross-tab Results 286
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Identification of Variables 12

Figure 1.2 Overview of Research Process 15
Figure 1.3 Data Instruments 18
Figure 2.1 Definition Spectrum: Degree of Technology Application 28
Figure 2.2 Shimizu’s SMART System 39
Figure 2.3 Obayashi’s Big Canopy System 40
Figure 2.4 On-site Construction Stages Facilitating Automation and Robotics 51
Technologies
Figure 3.1 The Scientific Process 79

Figure 3.2 Conceptual Framework 81
Figure 3.3 Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model 88
Figure 3.4 Pilot Study – Profile of Respondents 96
Figure 3.5 Pilot Study – Usage Area and Level of Implementation 97
Figure 3.6 Pilot Study – Length of Time of Using Automation and Robotics 98
Figure 3.7 Pilot Study – On-site Construction Application 99
Figure 3.8 Pilot Study – Perceived Barriers 100
Figure 4.1 Deciding Which Statistical Test To Use 118
Figure 5.1 Relationship Between Mean, Median and Mode 128
Figure 5.2 Low and High Variability 128
Figure 6.1 Flowchart for Data Integration Phases 201
Figure 7.1 Definition Spectrum of Technology Application 232
Figure 7.2 Automation and Robotics Technologies Usage Areas For On-site 233
Work Processes
Figure 7.3 Ranking Scheme 1: Correlation Between Core Factors and Level 235
of Usage
Figure 7.4 Ranking Scheme 2: Barrier Variables 236

Figure 7.5 Ranking Scheme 3: Comparison for Differing Levels of Usage 237
between Countries
Figure 7.6 Ranking Scheme 4: Future Trends and Opportunities 238
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Response Rate for Pilot Study Survey 94

Table 4.1 Summary of Data Type and Objectives of Questionnaire 119
Table 4.2 Code Note Headings and Node Categories For NVivo 7 Content 123
Analysis Data Instruments
Table 5.1 Response Rate for Questionnaire Survey 129

Table 5.2 Central Tendency and Variability Values of Branch Offices 134
Table 5.3 Construction Areas Usage for All Countries: Descriptive Statistics 138
Table 5.4 Construction Areas Usage for Japan, Malaysia and Australia: 138
Descriptive Statistics
Table 5.5 Cross-tab Table for Type of Business and Level of Use 142
Table 5.6 Cross-tab Table for Construction Sector and Level of Use 143
Table 5.7 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use 144
Table 5.8 Interpreting Values of Lambda 145
Table 5.9 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use for Japan 145
Table 5.10 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use for 146
Malaysia
Table 5.11 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use for 146
Australia
Table 5.12 Cross-tab Table for Number of International Branches and Level 147
of Use
Table 5.13 Cross-tab Table for Number of International Branches and Level 148
of Use for Japan, Malaysia and Australia
Table 5.14 Values of Gamma and Kendall’s tau-c for Annual Revenue and 149
Usage Areas
Table 5.15 Cross-tab Table for On-Site Construction Usage and Annual 150
Revenue
Table 5.16 Frequencies for Reasons Technologies Are Used Predominantly in 151
Certain Areas
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.17 Frequencies for Main Problems Associated With Automation 152
and Robotics
Table 5.18 Construction Projects Most Suited to Automation and Robotics 153
Table 5.19 Variable Codes and Description 155
Table 5.20 Frequency and Percentages within Value Labels 156
Table 5.21 Barrier Variables: Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistics and Descriptive 157
Statistics
Table 5.22 Barrier Variables: Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mean Ranks 157
Table 5.23 Barriers: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Malaysia (1-2) Pair- 159
Wise Comparison
Table 5.24 Barriers: Mann-Whitney Test Malaysia and Australia (2-3) Pair- 159
Wise Comparison
Table 5.25 Barriers: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Australia (1-3) Pair- 160
Wise Comparison
Table 5.26 Barrier Variables: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise 161

Comparisons
Table 5.27 Barrier Variables: Summary of Analysis Results 162

Table 5.29 Minimising Barriers: Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistics and 163
Descriptive Statistics
Table 5.30 Minimising Barriers: Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mean Ranks 164
Table 5.31 Solutions: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Malaysia (1-2) Pair- 165
Wise Comparison
Table 5.32 Solutions: Mann-Whitney Test Malaysia and Australia (2-3) 166
Pair-Wise Comparison
Table 5.33 Solutions: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Australia (1-3) Pair- 166
Wise Comparison
Table 5.34 Minimising Barriers: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise 167

Comparisons
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.35 Minimising Barriers: Summary of Analysis Results 167

Table 5.37 Future Trends: Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistics and Descriptive 169
Statistics
Table 5.38 Future Trends: Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mean Ranks 170
Table 5.39 Future Trends: Mann-Whitney Test Japan & Malaysia (1-2) 171
Table 5.40 Future Trends: Mann-Whitney Test Malaysia & Australia (2-3) 171
Table 5.41 Future Trends: Mann-Whitney Test Japan & Australia (1-3) 172
Table 5.42 Future Trends: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise Comparisons 173
Table 5.43 Future Trends: Summary of Analysis Results 174
Table 5.44 Interview Sample Distribution: Profession 176
Table 5.45 Interview Sample Distribution: Company Details 177
Table 5.46 Summary of Content Analysis: Impact of Core Factors on Level 178
of Usage
Table 5.47 Impact of Core Factors on Level of Usage: Country Group 179
Distribution
Table 5.48 Summary of Content Analysis: Barrier Variables 183

Table 5.49 Barrier Variables: Country Group Distribution 184
Table 5.50 Summary of Content Analysis: Differing Levels of Usage 189

Between Countries
Table 5.51 Differing Levels of Usage Between Countries: Country Group 189
Distribution
Table 5.52 Summary of Content Analysis: Future Trends and Opportunities 194
Table 5.53 Future Trends and Opportunities: Country Group Distribution 195
Table 6.1 Future Trends Categories for Phase 1 and Phase 2 215
xiv
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
This thesis is presented as an original contribution based on my PhD research at QUT

and has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at any other
higher education institutions, under my name or that of any other individuals. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
Rohana Mahbub
31st October 2008
xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors,

Professor Martin Skitmore and Dr Matthew Humphreys for their guidance, advice,
support and encouragement throughout my PhD candidature. I would also like to thank
my colleagues and friends at the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, those
who are still here and those who have graduated, for their friendship and sharing of ideas
that made this journey so much easier and enjoyable.
I am grateful to the numerous construction industry professionals who have directly or

indirectly supported this research through their participation in the survey and interviews;
with special mention to Mr Junichiro Maeda of Shimizu Corporation, who went out of
his way to provide me with useful information, relevant papers and much of his valuable
time in assisting me with the research.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the love, support and constant encouragement that I
received from my family; my parents who shared the initial journey with me but is not
here to see me finish it, I owe this to both of you. To my husband, Razak, for his love
and understanding, including his unflagging faith in my ability to multitask; Haziq and
Safwah, for their patience and hours of babysitting that allowed me to complete this
“mother of all homework”; and last but not least, to my baby son Hafid, who never fails
to brighten up my day and who makes everything I do seem worthwhile.
xvi
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Mahbub, R. and Humphreys, M. (2005), “An Investigation into the Barriers to

Automation and Robotics in Construction”, Proceedings of
COBRA/AUBEA/CIB/RICS QUT Research Week International Conference,
Brisbane
2. Mahbub, R. (2005), “Automation and Robotics Implementation in Developing

Countries: Opportunities for the Malaysian Construction Industry”, Proceedings of
International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management (ICCREM),
Penang, Malaysia
3. Mahbub, R. and Humphreys, M. (2006), “Cross-National Research on Barriers to

Construction Automation and Robotics Implementation in Australia and
Japan”, Proceedings of CRC for Construction Innovation International Conference,
Gold Coast
4. Mahbub, R and Humphreys, M. (2006), “Barriers to Construction Automation and

Robotics Implementation in Australia and Japan” published as chapter 35 in Clients
Driving Construction Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice (edited by Kerry
Brown, Keith Hampson and Peter Brandon), CRC for Construction Innovation, for
Icon.Net Pty Ltd.
5. Mahbub, R. (2006), “The Implementation and Development of Innovative

Technologies in the Construction Industry”, Proceedings of International Conference
on Science and Technology (ICSTIE), Penang, Malaysia
xvii
1.1 Background to the Research
The construction industry demands effective construction organisations, efficient

construction processes and innovative construction techniques to effectively compete
under increasing globalisation, market competition and technological advancements in
the twenty-first century. The problems associated with construction such as decreasing
quality and productivity, labour shortages, occupational safety, and inferior working
conditions have opened the possibility of more revolutionary solutions within the
industry. One prospective option is in the implementation of innovative technologies in
construction such as automation and robotics, which has the potential to improve the
industry in terms of productivity, safety and quality. The potential capability to generate
higher output at a lower unit cost, with better quality products could in turn improve
global competitiveness. The construction work site could, theoretically, be contained in
a safer environment, with more efficient execution of the work, greater consistency of
the outcome and higher level of control over the production process.
The majority of previous research into construction automation and robotics

technologies has been focused on hardware and software development, which can be
seen in areas such as concreting, steelwork lifting and positioning, and finishing works;
and use of design or planning software for the earlier stages of construction. By contrast,
relatively little attention has been given to investigating the factors which affect the
infiltration of these technologies into the construction work site and processes. Positive
factors can help to migrate automation and robotics technologies to construction work
processes whilst negative factors tend to create barriers to adoption. By identifying
common barriers, and investigating ways in which they might be overcome, strategic
approaches can be developed for facilitating greater use of automation and robotics in
construction, with respect to their relevancy to the construction industry of today.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
In general, construction automation and robotics can be defined as the use of mechanical
and electronic means in construction to achieve automatic operation or control (Hewitt
and Gambatese, 2002). For the purpose of this research, this would include the use of
automation and robotics technologies in all stages of construction, from the automation
of the design process through the use of Computer-Aided Design (CAD); the production
of cost estimates, construction schedules and project management through the use of
costing and planning softwares; to actual ingenious machines that use intelligent control
during on-site operations. The range of technologies implemented within the different
phases of construction varies according to their technology application and
sophistication, but generally “barrier variables” will be ascertained specific to
construction work tasks and processes on-site. The scope of this research will therefore
be limited to barriers to automation and robotics technologies applications within the on-
site construction phase; with applications in the design, costing and planning stages
investigated and discussed for comparison purposes and for cross-checking and
validating the analysis results within the primary data.
Previous research has predicted that construction sites will become more "intelligent and
integrated" as materials, components, tools, equipment, and people become elements of
a fully sensed and monitored environment. Automation of construction processes is
envisaged to enhance manual labour for hazardous and labour-intensive tasks such as
welding and high-steel work; with construction job sites wirelessly networked by
sensors and communications technologies to enable technology and knowledge-enabled
construction workers to perform their jobs quickly and correctly. (Fiatech, 2004)
Since the introduction of the term “construction robot” some 20 years ago, more than
550 systems for the automation, unmanned operation and robotisation of construction
works have been developed and tried in Japan (Obayashi, 1999). According to the
International Association of Automation and Robotics in Construction, IAARC (2004),
in North America, pure industry-based work is far less apparent than in Japan but many
universities are increasingly working in collaboration with Japanese construction
companies in developing automation and robotics technologies. In Europe and other
2
parts of the world, work is on a smaller scale and is usually focussed on specific areas of
construction.
Research activities in the field of automation and robotics in the construction industry
are divided according to applications into two large groups: civil infrastructure and
building. Classification according to applications divide Research and Development
activities according to the development of new equipment and processes (robots,
automatic systems etc) or the adaptation of existing machinery to transform them into
robotic systems (Gambao and Balaguer, 2002). The range of automation and robotics
applications in construction can also be best described by IAARC (2004) where
according to them, construction robots and automation fall into three categories :
enhancement to existing construction plant and equipment; task-specific, dedicated
robots; and intelligent (or cognitive) machines.
According to Bernold (1987), it is inevitable that intelligent machines will find their way
into construction. Issues such as safety, job enrichment, high quality, vanishing
craftsmanship, optimal usage of resources and preventive maintenance, are basic
incentives to study the application of both system theory and cybernetics to construction
operations. The introduction of these technologies will require organisational
adjustments on construction site as well as in the planning and design phase. Hewitt and
Gambatese (2002) states that contractors utilise automated technologies on projects as a
means of saving cost, reducing project durations, improving quality and consistency, and
gaining other related project benefits.
Alfares and Seireg (1996) in their study investigated the feasibility of automating the on-
site construction of reinforced concrete residential buildings. The basic construction
tasks were identified, analysed and modified with a view towards potential for
automation. The research outlines a computer-aided construction system approach
specially suited for integrating design and implementation by on-site robots. Slaughter
(1997) in her research analysed selected attributes of 85 existing construction
3
automation and robotics technologies to examine certain trends in the development of

construction technologies and the attributes which can influence their use.
However, the predicted trend for the future of automation and robotics technologies in
the early 1990s of greater infiltration and utilisation of these technologies on to the
construction worksite has not materialised, at least not at the level previously predicted.
In a field like automated process control and robotics, there are certainly some very real
social and economic problems as well as technical obstacles that must be identified and
overcome or accommodated if research efforts are to succeed eventually in development
and implementation. In brief, the challenges to technological advances are many in
construction and relate as much to institutional problems – like craft, company, and
process fragmentation; risk and liability; codes and standards – as they do to purely
technological or economic reasons (Boyd,1995).
By identifying the barriers to automation and robotics implementation in construction,

and investigating ways in which to overcome them, contributions can be made in terms
of better understanding and facilitating, where relevant, greater use of these technologies
in the construction industry. The current construction work processes and technology
availability need also be re-examined so that strategic approaches can be developed for
increasing the efficiency of the industry through the possible adoption of these
technologies in construction.
1.2 Problem Identification and Research Objectives
This research aims to identify and examine the key barriers to the implementation of
automation and robotics technologies in construction. It is an explanatory research that
aims to ascertain and explain the barriers to implementation by exploring and
establishing the relationship between characteristics of the construction industry and the
attributes of existing construction automation and robotics technologies to level of usage
and implementation in selected countries. According to Blaikie (2000), explanatory
research seeks to account for patterns in observed social phenomena, attitudes,
4
behaviour, social relationships, social processes or social structures. An explanatory

research therefore attempts to investigate the cause of a particular phenomenon by
finding causal relationships among selected variables. It relies on theory-based
expectations on how and why variables should be related; and hypotheses could be basic,
in that a relationships exist, or could be directional, either positive or negative. This
research aims to investigate the usage patterns of automation and robotics technologies
and study why the level of implementation is different in three selected countries. In this
research, the barriers to implementation will be studied, discussed, analysed and
evaluated for Japan, Australia and Malaysia. These three countries were chosen because
the construction industry characteristics of these countries provide contrast in terms of
culture, gross domestic product, technology application, organisational structure and
labour policies. These countries also provide a wide range of spectrum in terms of
technology application; from relatively high usage in a developed country (Japan), low
usage in a developed country (Australia) and fairly low usage in a developing country
(Malaysia). This phenomenon and the differing characteristics could provide the general
framework for analysis and comparison purposes. This may later be used to form the
model for explaining the different levels of implementation of automation and robotics
technologies globally.
1.2.1 The Research Questions
This research will examine the following research questions:
1. What are the key factors that determine the level of implementation of automation
and robotics in construction?
Factors that determine the level of implementation are investigated in relation to the
primary type of business and the sectors of the building and construction industry in
which companies operate; the size of the company, including the gross annual
revenue and number of staff and whether they operate locally or at a global scale;
and whether the technologies that the companies use are developed within or
5
acquired from outside. Level of use is also studied with respect to areas of
construction, that is, design, scheduling/ planning, costing, project management and
on-site construction.
2. What are the barriers to the infiltration of automation and robotics technologies into
the construction work processes?
The barrier variables investigated for this research are costs including initial,
updating and maintenance costs; fragmentary nature and size of the construction
industry; difficulty in using and developing the technologies; incompatibility with
existing practices and current construction operations; low technology literacy
amongst project participants; the technologies are unavailable or difficult to acquire;
and the technologies are not easily accepted by workers. These factors are analysed
and discussed with the use of the selected research instruments, namely the
questionnaire survey and interviews; and validated through significant literature
review findings.
3. Why is there greater use of construction automation and robotics technologies in

one country compared to another? (Japan, Malaysia and Australia)
This is ascertained mainly through the detailed analysis of the quantitative

(questionnaire survey) and qualitative (interviews) data collected from the three
countries and testing the correlation between level of usage for each country with
respect to the individual countries’ construction characteristics; construction labour
situation; the countries’ culture and society; the size of market share of the majority
of the countries’ construction companies; government and company policies; and
lastly, the countries’ construction management and workers’ union. Certain
significant factors identified from the questionnaire are cross-tabulated with the level
of usage for each country using selected statistical procedures, then integrated with
the content analysis results of the interviews to derive at possible solutions.
6
4. What are the future trends and opportunities for the implementation of automation
and robotics technologies in the construction industry?
This is established, in principal, through the statistical and contents analysis of the
data from the questionnaire survey and interviews; developed around five central
themes of greater awareness and acceptance of the technologies; improved
technologies’ affordability and availability; significant increase in the range and use
of the technologies; further development of the technologies in terms of making it
more flexible and easier to use; and change within the industry itself with greater
integration and more standardisation of design and work processes. Ranking of the
trends, however, will be based on the ten issues statistically analysed under phase 1:
questionnaire, to provide a broader information base and better clarity in terms of the
significance placed by participants for each trend stated.
1.2.2 The Objectives of the Research
The objectives of this research are:
1. To establish an understanding of the principles of automation and robotics as

applicable to construction.
This forms the basis of the research, and is accomplished by:

• Examining the terms and concept of “construction automation” and
“construction robotics” through literature review
• Gathering information and secondary data on existing automation and
robotics technologies, and investigating on how they are developed or
adapted for use in the construction industry
• Exploring the principal areas in construction where automation and
robotics are most useful and therefore likely to generate a higher level of
use.
7
2. To identify and describe the main characteristics of the construction industry and
the technologies used in construction work processes and sites.
This is accomplished by:

• Identifying the main characteristics of the construction industry that
makes it unique as compared to other industries. Emphasis will be on the
construction industries of the three selected countries; Japan, Malaysia
and Australia.
• Studying and investigating the key elements in the construction work
processes on site that makes use of existing advanced machineries and
technologies. Emphasis will be placed on work processes that are
repetitive or standardised.
3. To explore and determine a correlation between the characteristics of the

construction industry and the level of implementation of existing automation and
robotics in construction.

• Examining and discussing initial assumptions and issues underpinning the
two key factors “construction characteristics” and “automation and robotics.”
• Evaluating the correlation factors and developing a ranking scheme to
compare and rate their importance in terms of application. This will be
derived from results of the questionnaire survey and interview data analysis.
• Investigating and explaining how these factors could be the main barriers to
greater implementation of automation and robotics in construction, and how
the related work processes can be manipulated to encourage greater use.
4. To evaluate and compare the level of usage of automation and robotics in the
Japanese, Malaysian and Australian construction industries.
8

• Examining and discussing the different culture and characteristics of the
construction industry in Japan, Malaysia and Australia, mainly through
examining the specific areas highlighted in the literature review.
• Describing the development of automation and robotics in terms of
investment and R&D in these three countries, with examples from other
countries.
• Explaining how the differing characteristics may encourage or form barriers
to greater use of automation and robotics in construction.
5. To predict the future trends and opportunities for the implementation of

automation and robotics in the construction industry.

• Performing statistical analysis on the ten trend statements from the
questionnaire survey and contents analysis for the five themes in the
interviews.
• Integrating the results of the analyses from both phases, and providing a
ranking on the most likely trends and opportunities for the future of
automation and robotics technologies based on the results.
6. To summarise and make recommendations on the barriers to the implementation

of automation and robotics in construction.

• Drawing conclusions from the established theories and accepted practices
gathered from the extensive literature review with the results of the analysed
data from the research methodologies adopted, to support the ranking
schemes produced within the four significant areas investigated.
• Highlighting on the research contributions and recommendations for further
research work in selected areas.
9
1.2.3 The Scope of the Research
To answer the research questions and in achieving the objectives set out, the focus of the
research will be:
1. To investigate and study “construction automation and robotics” specific to the

term as defined under the literature review of the technologies being the use of
self-governing mechanical and electronic devices that utilises intelligent control to
carry out construction tasks and operations automatically. The scope of the
technologies investigated in relation to the definition of the term will be limited to
technologies in used within the construction phases (design, planning, scheduling,
costing, project management and on-site operations), but will not encompass the
wider area of total construction life-cycle (maintenance, demolition) or materials/
fittings (automatic fire-detection, smart-materials).
2. To identify and examine automation and robotics technologies in relation to the

construction phases investigated under the literature review; principally design;
planning, scheduling and costing; project management; total construction and on-
site operations. However, emphasis is on and limited to on-site operations within
the construction phase, with a general overview on the other phases provided
mainly as background knowledge and for comparison purposes. The methodology
adopted for the research (questionnaire and interviews), specifically the
investigation of barriers to implementation, is also mainly directed to on-site
operations.
3. To investigate the level of implementation of automation and robotics technologies;

key barriers to implementation and future trends and opportunities for only the
three selected countries within the sampling frame; Japan, Malaysia and Australia.
Implementations in other countries are briefly discussed under the literature review
purely to provide comprehensiveness in terms of information and background
knowledge.
10
1.2.4 Research Contributions
Addressing the research questions provided contributions that are presented in the final
chapter of this thesis. To summarise here, the contributions of this research include:
1. Adding to the body of knowledge pertaining to automation and robotics technologies

definitions and concepts in construction.
2. Providing a conceptual framework relating to the evaluation and the level of
automation and robotics implementation in the construction industry.
3. Setting out and providing various perspectives of the construction industry and
advanced technology application from the three countries studied under the research.
4. Establishing the groundwork for research on global application based on the data
findings of the three selected countries, Japan, Malaysia and Australia.
5. Providing and supporting additional knowledge through mixed method studies in the
field of construction; specifically construction technology, and use of advanced
technology on construction sites.
1.3 Research Strategy and Framework
1.3.1 Research Strategy
A research strategy provides a logic, or a set of procedures, for answering research

questions, particularly the “what” and “why” questions. The deductive research strategy
is a process of reasoning by which logical conclusions are drawn from a set of general
premises. In the methodological literature, deduction is an approach to data analysis,
explanation and theory that sees empirical social research as conducted on the basis of a
hypothesis derived from social theory which is then tested against empirical observation
and then subsequently used to confirm or refute the original theoretical proposition.
(Miller and Brewer, 2003)
This research follows a correlational research design, where the researcher will
investigate the apparent linkages or associations between the factors or variables in the
11
data in order to try and infer what the relationships or causal linkages might be. In the
use of quantitative methods, a hypothesis may be tested by processing the concepts or
notions within the hypothesis, gathering the appropriate data, and then exploring the
nature of the relationship between the measures of concept by using statistical analysis,
such as correlation or regression. For testing, it is conventional to express hypotheses in
the null and alternative forms. (Blaikie, 2000) In contents analysis for qualitative data,
patterns are ascertained within the data, with the pertinent factors identified and further
examined to determine their effect and relevancy to the research theme.
To bring clarity, specificity and focus to the research problems, the variables are
identified and stated in the following form:
Figure 1.1 Identification of Variables
CONSTRUCTION
AUTOMATION & STUDY LEVEL OF
ROBOTICS POPULATION IMPLEMENTATION
TECHNOLOGIES Vd
Vi
(INDEPENDENT VARIABLE) (DEPENDENT VARIABLE)
EXTRANEOUS
VARIABLES Ve
MODERATOR VARIABLES M1-5
• ECONOMICS AND COST
• STRUCTURE/ORGANISATION OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
• CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT & WORK PROCESSES
• TECHNOLOGY
• CULTURE/HUMAN FACTORS
Independent Variables are factors which are selected, evaluated or controlled by the
researcher to determine its relationship to an observed phenomenon. Dependent
Variables are factors which are studied and assessed to determine the effect of the
independent variable. Extraneous Variables are undesirable independent factors which
are outside the control of the research but might still influence the relationship between
the variables that the researcher is examining.
12
Moderator Variables are factors which are selected, evaluated or controlled by the
researcher to establish whether it changes the relationship of the independent variable to
an observed pattern or phenomenon. They can affect the Dependent Variable in both
positive and negative ways, that is, they can encourage or create barriers to
implementation. The information to ascertain the moderator variables for this research is
obtained from literature review, and is further tested and investigated through an
exploratory pilot study of a small sample of the study population.
The Moderator Variables selected are:

1. Economics and Cost
• Cost of owning and using automation and robotics technologies
• Maintenance and upgrading costs
• Economic risks of investment
2. Structure or Organisation of the Construction Industry
• Fragmentary nature of the construction industry (multi-point responsibility)
• Unstructured and dynamic nature of construction environment
3. Construction Product and Work Processes
• Diversity of construction tasks and work processes
• Uniqueness and non-standardisation of construction products
4. Technology
• Technological difficulty in development – construction automation and
robotics technologies need to be robust, flexible, highly mobile and versatile.
• Technological difficulty in using the technology by the end-users – need for
re-training of workers
• Lack of repetition and structure in the majority of construction work
processes
5. Culture and Human Factors
• Institutional barriers
• Government labour policies
• Labour and safety regulations
• Workers Union
13
Total Change in Extent or Level of Implementation =

Moderator Variables (Change Attributable to Construction Automation and Robotics
Technologies + Change Attributable to Extraneous Variables +
Change Attributable to Chance Variables)
Where Chance Variables (Vc) are variables associated with the respondents and/or
the research instrument.
Therefore, Total Change in Level of Implementation Vd = M1-5 ( Vi + Ve + Vc )
1.3.2 Research Framework
A research framework can assist in structuring the research methodology to critically

link the data collection and analysis to yield results and thus answer the main research
questions being investigated. The establishment of a clear and concise framework and
action plan can assist in directing the research aims and objectives towards a desirable
conclusion; as there is a clear statement on what is stated under the aims, what is
presented in the literature review; the process of data collection and analysis; and the
findings discovered in the course of the analysis. It also allows for the reviewing and
iterative process that is an important component for any research. Figure 1.2 below
provides an overview of the framework that encompasses the research processes and
thesis structure.
14
Figure 1.2 Overview of Research Process
PHASE RESEARCHER’S INPUT: PHASE

ONE BACKGROUND & EXPERIENCE TWO
STAGE 1
DEVELOP PRELIMINARY
RESEARCH PROBLEMS LITERATURE RESEARCH
Identify, Define REVIEW INTEGRATION:
And Formulate LITERATURE & DATA
FORMULATE
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Develop Research Questions, CONSULTATION SECONDARY
Establish Aims &Objectives, &FEEDBACK LITERATURE REVIEW
Develop Hypothesis
STAGE 2
SUBSTANTIAL
LITERATURE RE-EVALUATE
REVIEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Re-evaluate Research Problem
Re-examine Aims & Objectives
DEVELOP RESEARCH DESIGN

Determine Research Methods
Establish Resources Required
REVIEW & REAPPRAISAL BY RESEARCHER

STAGE 3
CONSTRUCT Determine
DATA INSTRUMENT Method &Tools
For Data Collection REVIEW & RE-APPRAISE
DATA COLLECTION
PILOT Check Validity & AND ANALYSIS
STUDY Reliability of Re-check Validity of Results
Research Tools
STAGE 4
DATA Identify Data &

COLLECTION Select Sample
Questionnaires
Interviews
Determine Method
For Data Processing
- SPSS and NVivo
DATA DATA INTEGRATION:

ANALYSIS Data Editing & Coding Correlate Data Analysis
And Findings With
Literature,
Aims and Objectives
MIXED METHOD APPROACH: FINDINGS&RESULTS
STAGE 5
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
THESIS
15
1.4 Research Methodology
This section provides a brief overview of the research methodology that form the main
components of this research; with chapter 3 of the thesis presenting a more detailed and
thorough examination and description of the research procedures relating to the issues
being investigated and studied.
1.4.1 Literature Review
Information on automation and robotics technologies is collected through a review of

academic and industry literature, and on-line search of internet websites in the research
area. The search includes all current technologies and those still under research and
development. The objective is to establish the extent and depth of existing knowledge on
the implementation of automation and robotics in construction. The literature review
also assists in the formulation of the research questions, aims and objectives; structuring
the research design and methodology; and in selecting the research instruments for a
more efficient data collection and analysis. The literature review at the preliminary stage
of the study assists in determining the Moderator Variables, which is reviewed further
into the research before the data collection stage. Through the literature review, this
research builds up on a number of previous researches; especially in providing the
general framework on automation and robotics applications in the construction industry.
1.4.2 Information and Data Required
A review of the current construction automation and robotics technologies is useful in

forming the basis of the research. This will give the research a reference point on where
the construction industry is in terms of developing, adapting and implementing these
technologies. It is also important to obtain primary data from the potential and existing
users of the technology such as contractors, specialist sub-contractors, developers and
consultants; to ascertain the main barriers to implementation. This is accomplished
through a questionnaire survey and interviews; which enabled the researcher to achieve
16
two objectives. Firstly, the survey and interviews are used to obtain invaluable
information on the use of these technologies by the sample group, and secondly, to
enable the Moderator Variables to be investigated and tested to gauge its relevancy to
the study population.
1.4.3 Data Collection Methods, Research Instruments and Selection of Respondents
This research uses a mixed method approach of gathering data, both quantitative and
qualitative, by using a questionnaire survey and an interview schedule to investigate
respondents’ attitude towards the usage of automation and robotics in their construction
firms. An Attitudinal Scale is developed following the Summated Rating or Likert Scale
of five and seven-point numerical scale. The survey is on construction firms in Japan,
Malaysia and Australia regarding their use of construction automation and robotics and
the practice of addressing its implementation in construction. Care was taken in
sampling considerations to ensure a wide range of companies is obtained, based on their
annual revenue, business type and industry sector.
A questionnaire was developed and distributed to construction firms of contractors,

specialist sub-contractors, developers and consultants to establish the extent of usage
and related value of automation and robotics technologies within the variable factors
identified in the literature review. These companies were asked to provide input
regarding industry perception, suggested practices, barriers and future trends for
implementing construction automation and robotics technologies. Before a full-scale
questionnaire survey was done, a pilot study was conducted from August to September
2005, with a sample of 75 respondents selected from across the board in all three
countries, Japan, Malaysia and Australia. The reasons why a pilot study was conducted
are: to establish the effectiveness of the sampling frame and techniques; to develop and
test the adequacy of the research instrument; to assess the feasibility of the full-scale
study; to identify logistical problems that might occur in using the proposed methods;
and to assess the proposed data analysis techniques to uncover potential problems.
Details of the pilot study and the results obtained from the preliminary analysis are
further described in Chapter 3.
17
The type chosen is a closed questionnaire, divided into five main sections, that is,
demographic information; the level of implementation and development of automation
and robotics technologies; issues and concerns pertaining to the use of automation and
robotics technologies; perceived barriers and their impact; and future trends and
opportunities. To avoid rigidity of available responses, an “Other” and “Please Specify”
is included in the choice of answers whenever possible. For the full scale questionnaire,
the sample size was selected to be 80 per country; that is a total of 240 construction
companies operating in Japan, Malaysia and Australia.
The interviews conducted were semi-structured and one-on-one, to allow some probing
and therefore gather more in-depth information on the subject to supplement the data
gathered from the questionnaire. Due to the geographical distribution of the study
population, where the potential respondents are scattered over a wide geographical area,
the sample size was relatively small, of 7 per country, with a total number of 21, as a
larger sample might prove to be expensive and inconvenient. The results of the
interviews were used to support and cross-validate the questionnaire findings. This
research therefore employs the mixed methods strategy where data is collected
sequentially, with the questionnaire survey providing a broad information base, whilst
the interviews provide the specific focus on certain characteristics or areas, specifically
the barriers to implementation factors.
Figure 1.3 Data Instruments
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
INTERVIEWS
DATA CORRELATION AND INTEGRATION
LITERATURE REVIEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
18
The findings from the survey is useful in providing better understanding of the range and
level of construction automation and robotics technologies that are in use; and in
ascertaining a pattern of usage for the three selected countries, Japan, Malaysia and
Australia. This can then be used to develop a framework to further investigate the barrier
variables under study based on the characteristics of the technologies in use, the three
countries’ construction industry and their patterns of implementation.
1.4.4 Data Analysis
The purpose of analysing data is to provide information about variables and the
relationship between them. After data has been collected, edited and inputted, they are
coded for interpreting, classifying and record. An exploratory data analysis is used to
examine data patterns so that the hypothesised relationship can be established for
subsequent investigation and testing. Detailed quantitative (statistical) and qualitative
(content) analysis is performed for the two phases of data collection, the questionnaire
survey and interviews, to provide a set of descriptions, relationships, and differences that
are then used in addressing the research objectives. The statistical tests selected for use
in this research include cross-tabulations, bivariate and multivariate analysis for
investigating possible relationships between variables; and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann
Whitney U test of independent samples for hypothesis testing and inferring the research
sample to the construction industry population of Japan, Malaysia and Australia. The
results of the statistical analysis produced for the questionnaire phase are then integrated
with the qualitative analysis of the interview phase, to facilitate the formulation of
possible conclusions and recommendations for the research.
1.5 Outline of Thesis and Structure of Chapters
The chapters in this thesis are structured and presented so that each chapter can be read
sequentially as an integral part of the whole thesis; with numerous references linking
information from the previous to the proceeding chapters. Each chapter contains
elements of the research from aims and objectives, literature reviews and methodology
through to data analysis and conclusions; that encapsulates an understanding and
19
appreciation for the research techniques and processes based on acquired knowledge and
evidence of analysis.
Chapter 1: Introduction lays the basis of the research; providing the background,
including the aims and objectives of the research, and outlining the research scope,
methodology and contribution.
Chapter 2: Literature Review presents the literature findings through review and
discussions of literature pertaining to construction automation and robotics technologies,
and the construction industries in Japan, Malaysia and Australia. The core of the
literature review is focussed on elements related to the research aims and objectives to
determine the direction of the research. The literature review also serves to identify the
knowledge and research gap of issues investigated; and assist in the formulation of the
research framework, methodology and selection of the research instrument.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology outlines the research design process;
including the conceptual framework, data collection, data analysis and validation of
results. Also addressed in this chapter is the selection of the methods (quantitative and
qualitative) and data instrument (questionnaire survey and interviews), with
justifications for selection. The pilot study with its preliminary analysis of results is also
described in this chapter.
Chapter 4: Data Collection: Japan, Malaysia and Australia describes the data
collection phase of the research; emphasising on the primary data collection methods of
the structured questionnaire survey and the interviews that were conducted for the
purpose of discovering current attitudes on construction automation and robotics
implementation. The reliability and validity of data collected, the coding and
presentation of data, and the ethical considerations were also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 5: Data Analysis: Questionnaire Survey and Interviews provides the

detailed quantitative statistical and qualitative analysis of the selected data instruments.
20
The quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire survey is organised, coded and
categorised using the SPSS software; which facilitates analysis and testing; and the
presentation of the statistical outcomes. The qualitative data from the interviews are
organised, coded and categorised using the N-Vivo software; which are then exploited
for contents analysis.
Chapter 6: Integration of Results and Discussions on Findings presents the analysis

and test results of both the quantitative and qualitative phases; with the significant
findings highlighted; and focussing on the emerging patterns and relationships between
variables. Their significance is then discussed in great depth in context with the
literature reviewed in chapter 2.
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations impart the conclusions and

recommendations drawn from the study with reference to the research questions and
objectives; as well as elaborating on the research contributions. It also discusses the
implications previously identified in the research with regard to literature, methodology
and limitations. In that context, it summarises and binds the contents of the thesis
together.
1.6 Summary
In summary, the implementation of innovative technologies in construction such as

automation and robotics has the potential to improve the industry in terms of
productivity, safety and quality. Positive factors can facilitate the transfer of automation
and robotics technologies to construction work processes whilst negative factors tend to
create barriers to adoption. Currently, the range of technologies implemented within the
different phases of construction varies according to their technology application and
sophistication, but generally, the selected “barrier variables” of this research are
ascertained specific to construction work tasks and processes on-site.
21
This introduction chapter brings together related issues pertaining to construction

automation and robotics in establishing the research questions, aims and objectives in
context of the research. It also provides the flow of progression in terms of the research
framework, contributions and a brief description of the research methodology. This
forms an overview of the basis of the research work which will later be discussed
comprehensively in proceeding chapters.
22
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the relevant academic and industry literature with regard to
automation and robotics technologies in construction, including all current technologies
and those still under research and development. The basis of the literature review is to
critically establish the extent and depth of existing knowledge on construction
automation and robotics technologies in terms of definitions, range of technologies and
level of global implementation. The main characteristics of the construction industry and
the likely automation technologies to be used throughout a construction project, from
design to on-site application, is also examined to further explore the correlation and
collaborate the relevancy of automation and robotics technologies to the construction
industry. The issues underpinning the two key factors “construction characteristics” and
“automation and robotics” can then be evaluated and investigated to produce the “barrier
factors” i.e. the moderator variables.
2.2 Definitions
To gain a clear understanding on the concept of automation and robotics and its
application in the construction industry, there is a need to find a concise and acceptable
definition of the terms. First, the terms will be defined in general, before specifically
relating them to construction applications. A summary of the terms will be produced
from the review of current literature and this summary will be the definition of
construction automation and robotics for this particular research.
2.2.1 Mechanisation
To mechanise, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (2002) is:

1. To equip with machinery: mechanise a factory.
23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2. To equip (a military unit) with motor vehicles, such as tanks and trucks.
3. To make automatic or unspontaneous; render routine or monotonous.
4. To produce by or as if by machines.
Mechanisation (Wordnet, 2005) is:

1. the condition of having technical implementation
2. the act of implementing the control of equipment with advanced technology, usually
involving electronic hardware.
2.2.2 Automation
Historically, automation can be defined (Dictionary of World History, 2005) as the use
of automatic machinery and systems, mainly for manufacturing or data-processing
systems requiring little or no human intervention in their normal operation. During the
19th century, a number of machines such as looms and lathes became increasingly self-
regulating. At the same time, transfer-machines were developed, whereby a series of
machine-tools, each doing one operation automatically, became linked in a continuous
production line by pneumatic or hydraulic devices transferring components from one
operation to the next. In addition to these technological advances in automation, the
theory of scientific management, which was based on the early time-and-motion studies
of Frederick Winslow Taylor in Philadelphia, USA, in the 1880s was designed by Taylor
to enhance the efficiency and productivity of workers and machines.
In the early 20th century, following the development of electrical devices and time-
switches, more processes became automatically controlled, and a number of basic
industries such as oil-refining and food processing were becoming increasingly
automated. The development of computers after World War II enabled more
sophisticated automation to be used in manufacturing industries; with the most familiar
example of a highly automated system being the assembly plant for cars. Over the last
few decades, automation has evolved from the comparatively straightforward
mechanisation of tasks traditionally carried out by hand, through to the introduction of
24
complex automatic control systems, and to the widespread automation of information

collection and processing.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2002), automation is:

1. The automatic operation or control of equipment, a process, or a system.
2. The techniques and equipment used to achieve automatic operation or control.
3. The condition of being automatically controlled or operated.
The World Encyclopedia (2005) defines automation as the use of self-governing

machines to carry out manufacturing, distribution and other processes automatically. By
using feedback, sensors check a system’s operations and send signals to a computer that
automatically regulates the process. Dictionary of Sociology (ed:Marshall,1998) states
that in theory, automation is a workerless system of manufacture; in practice, it is a
series of individual computer-controlled or robotic machine tools, with electro-
mechanical link operations replacing transfer by hand. Research on the modern labour
process suggests that automation displaces, rather than replaces, human labour and skill,
to maintenance, planning, distribution and ancillary work.
Automation can therefore be defined as a self-regulating process performed by using

programmable machines to carry out a series of tasks. Introducing the use of machines to
a production process is called mechanisation. Automation goes one step further and the
process is not only supported by machines but these machines can work in accordance
with a program that regulates the behaviour of the machine.
2.2.3 Robotics
The word robot initially came from a Czech play called Rossum’s Universal Robots,
published in 1920 and premiered in Prague in 1921. The author, Karel Capek (1890-
1938), borrowed the word robot from the slavic robota, meaning a forced labour
(Freeman, 1997). Robotics is a discipline overlapping artificial intelligence and
mechanical engineering. It is concerned with building robots; which are programmable
devices consisting of mechanical actuators and sensory organs that are linked to a
25
computer. The mechanical structure might involve manipulators, as in industrial

robotics, or might concern the movement of the robot as a vehicle, as in mobile robotics.
(Dictionary of Computing, 2004)
According to Issacs (2000), robotics is the study of the design, manufacture, and
operation of robots, i.e. machines capable of being programmed to perform mechanical
tasks and to move by automatic control. Robots are used in industry to perform tasks
that are either repetitive or in a dangerous environment; and as computers develop,
robots are used for increasingly more intricate tasks. Hewitt and Gambatese (2002)
defined robotics as the field of knowledge and techniques that permit the construction of
robots. Robots are designed to carry out various tasks in place of humans and should be
more than simple computers; they must be able to sense and react to changes in their
environment to be able to perform effectively.
In Webster's Dictionary (1998), a robot is defined as an automatic device that performs

functions normally ascribed to humans or a machine in the form of a human. A robot
should be programmable to enable it to mimic human movements, with multifunctional
manipulators designed specifically to move tools, material or components for the
performance of a variety of tasks. A broader definition can therefore be, “a robot is a
multifunctional manipulator programmed to perform various tasks normally ascribed to
humans” (Explanation Guide, 2005).
2.2.4 Construction
Construction is defined by Webster Dictionary (1998) as the process or art of

constructing, the act of building; erection; the act of devising and forming; fabrication;
composition and the form and manner of building or putting together the parts of
anything; structure; arrangement. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2004) defines
construction as the act or process of constructing, or the industry of erecting buildings.
26
The Oxford English Dictionary (2004) also provided a list of definitions for
construction, including:
1. The action of constructing

 The action of framing, devising, or forming, by the putting together of parts
 The art or science of constructing
2. The manner in which a thing is artificially constructed or naturally formed; structure,
conformation, disposition
3. A thing constructed; a material structure.
2.2.5 Construction Automation and Robotics
Construction Automation has been described as the use of mechanical and electronic
means in construction to achieve automatic operation or control to reduce potential
exposure, time or effort while maintaining or improving quality (Hewitt and Gambatese,
2002). Construction Robots are ingenious machines that use intelligent control but vary
in sophistication; and generally designed to increase speed and improve accuracy of
construction field operations (Stein, Gotts and Lahidji, 2002). The Japanese have a
liberal interpretation of the word construction robots. Their definition includes advanced
automation and remote control devices used on the construction site or prefabrication
shop (Seward, 1992). Both the term automation and robotics have been widely accepted
throughout the construction industry and usually refer to automation, unmanned
operation and robotisation of construction works.
2.2.6 Review on Definition
From the literature review conducted on the definitions of construction automation and
robotics, the evidence seems to indicate that the industry has still not reached a
consensus on a clear definition of construction automation and robotics. Three separate
areas have emerged from studying the definitions, namely the difference in the
sophistication of technology application between mechanisation, automation and
robotics. At one end of the spectrum is Mechanisation, which involves the act of
27
equipping a process with machinery. The machinery used may range from the simplest
to the highly sophisticated and innovative machines, and the aim here is to make the
process easier, with the tasks accomplished within a shorter time frame, cheaper cost and
of a higher quality.
The machinery used may be so technologically advanced that it would render the whole
process automatic. In this case, the mechanisation process has become an automation
process, where it goes one step further and the process is not only supported by
machines but these machines can work in accordance with a program that regulates the
behaviour of the machine. The automation process is where, such as in manufacturing,
the products moves along the assembly and the automation technology or machinery
used remains more or less stationary. Here, automation is easier to incorporate in a sense
because each product is identical and the process is repetitive. This may apply to
prefabrication of materials off-site in the construction industry or production of drawings
during the design stage. For on-site application, an example of this would be the
assembly of prefabricated buildings.
The most sophisticated and advanced application would be that of robotics, where task-
specific, dedicated robots performing discrete tasks on simplified building technology is
used. Further research especially in Japan has explored the possibility of using
intelligent or advanced robots capable of executing complex, ill-structured tasks
(IAARC, 2004).
The three areas that emerged from the definition can be summarised in the diagram
below:
Figure 2.1 Definition Spectrum: Degree of Technology Application
LOW DEGREE OF TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION HIGH
28
For the purpose of this research, construction automation and robotics can therefore be
defined as the use of self-governing mechanical and electronic devices that utilises
intelligent control to carry out construction tasks and operations automatically. The
construction work tasks and operations are regulated through programmable controls
and sensors; set up as a series of individual computer-controlled or robotic equipment
with electro-mechanical links. This definition is also as described in Mahbub and
Humphreys (2005).
2.3 Range of Automation and Robotics Application in Construction
Numerous efforts have been made to automate parts of the construction process in order
to improve its speed and efficiency, dating back to the 19th century when larger and
more technologically challenging constructions such as long-span bridges were
increasingly being commissioned. Fabrication, assembly and erection processes that
used machines instead of men were early forms of automation. In the late 1970s,
masonry robots capable of laying regular bricks and blocks were being developed; and
the late 1980s in Japan marked the increasing popularity of construction robots (IAARC,
2004). In construction, the scope for automation and robotics technologies
implementation can be fairly broad, encompassing all stages of the construction life-
cycle, from the initial design, through to the actual construction of the building or
structure on site. Even after the structure has been completed, the technologies can still
be used for the maintenance or control of the structure, and even through to the eventual
dismantling or demolition. The degree of implementation, however, varies significantly
from one construction phase to another, for example, automation of design through the
use of CAD is fairly commonplace nowadays, but not the use of construction robots for
on-site operations. It is useful, therefore, to look at applications in different areas of the
construction project life-cycle, before focussing on on-site application.
The literature review in this section will include examples of automation and robotics
implementation in the design stage; planning, scheduling, estimating and costing; project
management or organisation; and total construction i.e. integration of all the construction
29
phases. This is to provide a broad overview on the technologies in use in these stages of
construction, before focussing on on-site operations.
2.3.1 Design
The design phase can be simply described to include the conceptual design i.e. the initial
stage of identifying the need, producing a design brief and creating initial design
concepts; the developed design i.e. developing the design once the concept has been
approved; and the construction, production and manufacturing of working drawings
(Hooker, 2004). Different automation tools or design software can be used within the
different stages of the design process, from simple 2D sketching tools with parametric
controls through to fully integrated 3D AutoCAD Interface.
The quality of the design process is influenced by both the designer’s abilities and the
design tools chosen. Whereas the creation of design ideas and the judgement of design
solutions should be left to the human decision, the computer can provide significant
support by its capability to store, maintain and evaluate highly complex and integrated
design data (Kim, Liebich and Maver, 1997). The high capacity-to-cost ratio of current
computing and communication technologies are making the adoption of computer-
integrated technologies economically feasible.
The concept of computer-aided design is not new in the construction industry, with on-
going development constantly providing improvements in the tools used. CAD has also
been readily accepted by the construction industry, with the majority of designers from
across the board embracing the technology and using it extensively in their design work.
There have been numerous researches attempting to expand the use of CAD; from the
functional tool merely aiding the production of design, to a more elaborate
communication tool able to better organise, collaborate and control the design data.
Campbell (2000) described the use of the Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML)
and the World Wide Web (WWW) in communicating an architect’s design intention
throughout the design process. The use of VRML was investigated in the production and
communication of construction documents within the final phase of the architectural
30
building design. A prototype, experimental website was set up and used to disseminate
design data as VRML models and HTML text to the design client, contractor and
fabricators. Results from this study indicated that the VRML specification and the tools
used to implement it need be more developed for it to be used specifically for
documenting a building design. Campbell (2000) also found that this technology is
unlikely to be taken up by the industry until it can be proven to be cost effective; and
socially and legally accepted.
The function of CAD has increased from a mere tool used to communicate and
collaborate on design functions, to encompass improvements in the management and
control within all aspects of architectural practices. Husin and Rafi (2003) investigated
the impact of Internet-enabled Computer Aided Design (iCAD) in the construction
industry. Unlike normal CAD, iCAD is supported with communications and
collaboration tools (sharing of knowledge and collaboration) previously enabled by the
Computer Information Systems (CIS). In the architectural practice, a lot of
documentation and communication has to be managed. Huge amounts of data is
accumulated over time, but are often seldom used because of the way the data is
organised. Also, the separate and variable nature of construction contracts and
organisation meant that knowledge transfer is rarely optimised between people and
projects. iCAD can be utilised in this case to manage and share the information and
knowledge accumulated throughout the project life-cycle. Perhaps the biggest potential
of iCAD as an application for knowledge management is in its capabilities for building
digital information on the building/project. Information and knowledge repositories can
therefore be better managed by the architects, ensuring that all parties are always kept
up-to-date, with better level of access for information sharing.
According to Sacks, Warszawski and Kirch (2000), structural design of buildings has
proven to be particularly difficult to automate, with parametric templates that are too
limited to be practicable and pure AI-based approaches having little application in
design offices. They developed the “Intelligent Parametric Templates” (IPT) for
structural design within an automated building system, demonstrating that for
31
rectangular plan building types, comprehensive automation of general and detailed

structural design is feasible. The software “knowledge modules” developed deals with
rectangular buildings and IPTs for two complete slab solutions were implemented.
The evaluation of design alternatives is an important phase in supporting design

decisions and producing new design concepts. It is a repetitious process where a number
of design alternatives are evaluated and optimised within the limited cost and time scope.
Lee, Woo and Sasada (2001) in their research, evaluated various media used for the
evaluation of design alternatives and proposed an evaluation system based on findings of
case studies. The evaluation methods are by model, by CG still image, by animation, and
by VRML. The evaluation system is set-up using Live Connect (VRML, VRML
controller and Controller), Java-to-Java communication, and network communication.
Using these systems, participants can review design alternatives simultaneously from
various viewpoints and then efficiently decide on the best plan or option.
Bouchlaghem et al (2005) investigated the use of visualisation application at the

conceptual design stage. The INTEGRA system was developed to support concurrent
conceptual design using Internet as a communication medium. INTEGRA is
implemented as an “integrated” environment, with multiple applications rolled into a
single coherent system. It includes eight functional components: (1)user agent, (2)client
briefing tool, (3)cost modelling tool, (4) constraints checking tool, (5)risk assessment
tool, (6) sketching and drawing tool, (7) 3D visualisation tool, and (8) synchronous and
asynchronous communication tool. The INTEGRA system allows for 3D models to be
generated at different stages of the conceptual design process using tools and methods
appropriate for each stage. Visualisation applications are becoming readily available and
accessible to construction professionals due to decreasing costs of software and
hardware. Some companies are using advanced tools for the creation of walkthrough
models of new developments to communicate concepts to clients, or to check integrity
of designs in terms of clash detection between services and the structure.
32
Other recent research on applications in design include Interactive Media of Dynamic

Sketch (Chen et al, 2006); Instant Interaction Environment in Design (Wang et al, 2006);
DSM and fmGA determination of the optimal design process for engineering design
projects (Feng and Yeh, 2006); and TRIVERA: Tool for Cost Integration into 4D
Models (Liapi, 2006). TriVera takes application of 4D models in design further in that it
provides project participants with the ability to analyse and visualise multiple design
alternatives in order to develop the most cost-effective solutions. It consequently allows
for better control and decision-making over different constructability issues and
schedule scenarios, providing in this manner a linkage between constructability, 4D, and
cost estimating.
In improving the quality of design products and in striving to make the production of
designs more efficient, designers are looking at new tools and products on the market
that are able to provide this, not just at micro level, but also at macro level, as designs
are usually part of a large and complex system. Researches on the automation of the
design process have provided designers the tools needed for them to produce designs
economically and efficiently; and the readily available design software and products
with high capacity-to-cost ratio are making the adoption of computer-integrated
technologies in the design phase highly extensive.
2.3.2 Planning, Scheduling, Estimating and Costing
Decisions taken during the construction process, beginning at pre-tender stage and
continuing until the end of the contract, are normally subjected to four constraints: time,
cost, the quantity and the quality of the work required. While the quality and the quantity
of the work are defined in the project drawings and specifications, the contractor has
more control over the time and cost of executing a project (Laptali, Bouchlaghem and
Wild, 1997). There are numerous computer softwares available on the market to assist
construction planners, quantity surveyors and contractors in the scheduling, planning,
estimating and costing of construction projects. Examples include FastTrack Schedule™
6.03 (AEC Software), Schedule Tracker 97 (Comprotex Software), Milestones
33
Simplicity (KIDASA Software), DataCAD Estimator (DataCAD LLC), WinEstimator

Construction Estimating Software (WinEstimator Inc.), Global Estimating (Buildsoft),
QS Plus (New Dimension Computing), Construction Cost Management System
(Construction Concepts – ADREC Inc), Builder Information Systems for Windows
(BIS), and many more (Software for AEC.com, 2005).
Engineers and construction planners routinely use planning tools to prepare and
document master plans for construction. Miyagawa (1997) described the Construction
Manageability Planning System (CMy Planner) that builds a master plan and schedule
that explicitly represents the manageability of planned construction methods, schedules
and resource utilisation. The system simulates project execution and identifies potential
risk factors in the plan and schedules, then predicts construction manageability to assist
project managers. With a manageability planning automation built into the current
planning and scheduling tools, project managers can endeavour to further decrease
project durations and costs.
McKinney and Fischer (1998) discussed the requirements for CAD tools that support
construction planning tasks; and thus allow for easy visualisations of the construction
process. Construction managers develop construction plans to meet clients’ cost and
time requirements, to communicate a plan to project participants, and to prevent costly
construction errors. Typically construction planners interpret design documentation (2D
or 3D drawings and specifications) to produce a construction schedule consisting of a set
of activities and sequential relationships. While construction schedules communicate
time and the sequence of construction activities, project participants must mentally
associate this schedule information with the description of the physical building. 4D-
CAD removes this abstraction by representing the associations between schedule
information and CAD information through a 4D movie that visually communicates the
sequence of building construction. In this manner, CAD is used to generate a visual
representation of the construction schedule and enhances existing scheduling techniques.
4D-CAD technology is steadily advancing and will have a great impact on the processes
of current construction management practice. Wang et al (2004) developed a 4D Site
34
Management Model+ (4DSMM+) to address the requirement for linking scheduling data
to 3D computer graphics building model, allowing planners to perform graphic
simulations of the construction process. 4DSMM+ is an enhanced 4D model,
characterised by its extensions into the areas of resource management and layout
assessment. Ma et al (2005) described a 4D Integrated Site Planning System (4D-ISPS)
which integrates schedules, 3D models, resources and site spaces together with 4D-CAD
technology to provide 4D graphical visualisation capability for construction planning.
Waly and Thabet (2002) proposed the framework for a new planning approach utilising
Virtual Reality (VR) modelling techniques coupled with object-oriented technologies to
develop an integrated virtual planning tool called Virtual Construction Environment
(VCE).VCE provides the user with the means to construct/reassemble graphical
elements of a 3D product model of the facility in the perceived order of construction.
User movement is captured and processed to develop planning sequences. VCE would
also enable the user to check design constructability, select methods based on space and
accessibility constraints, and assign resources based on availability. Li et al (2003) also
investigated the use of VR in construction planning, by proposing an integrated VR
system that generates near to reality construction environment for the construction
planner to perform construction activities in a real world manner in order to plan,
evaluate and validate construction operations.
Dzeng and Tommelein (2004) explored the different notions of similarity required when
performing different scheduling tasks, using the CasePlan system to assist schedulers
retrieve and reuse parts of existing schedules based on a generic product model, and
apply case-based reasoning to generate new schedules. Experimentation showed
CasePlan’s accuracy in determining component networks and activity durations, but
showed weak performance in determining interlinks between component networks.
Huang and Sun (2005) developed a non-unit based algorithm and a prototype system for
the planning and scheduling of repetitive projects. Through the sample case study, it was
shown that application of repetitive scheduling methods can be facilitated by the
developed system.
35
Laptali, Bouchlaghem and Wild (1997) investigated the planning and estimating work
practices in the construction industry in order to establish the important issues for the
development of an integrated planning and estimating computer model, OPTIMA.
Integrated computer models are needed for a rapid analysis of quantitative data and a
less time consuming tendering decision making process without affecting the accuracy
of results. This can result in a decrease in the cost of tendering; and overcoming
difficulties that arise from handling the same data separately during estimating and
planning. However, the acceptance of a computer model by a construction firm would
depend on issues like cost/benefit ratio of purchasing; operating and maintaining the
system; reliability of results; ease of use; maintainability; fast response time; ease of
modification; good explanation facilities; and good security and privacy provisions. As
with most technologies infiltration, the advantages of using the system have to far
outweigh their disadvantages in order for it to gain acceptance amongst practitioners.
2.3.3 Project Management and Total Construction Systems
Project management is the methodical planning, organising and monitoring of allocated

resources to achieve time, cost and performance objectives of construction projects. It
involves the total planning and co-ordination, from inception to completion, of projects
in order to meet the clients’ requirements within the targeted time and cost frames and
set quality standards. There are numerous softwares available on the market for project
managers; examples include Pertmaster Professional Project Management Risk Analysis
Software, Prolog Manager (Vertigraph) and Construction Management System
(Computer Guidance Corp). (Software for AEC.com, 2005)
Alshawi and Ingirige (2003) discussed the impact of the latest advances in technology
on project management and the emerging paradigm of performing project management
over the web. Electronic data exchange between project participants and web-enabled
project management software are discussed with specific reference to five case studies to
ascertain the success of using such technologies. It was found that in order for the
construction industry to successfully embrace web-enabled project management tools on
36
a large scale, it must equally consider technology, process, people and knowledge
management. The industry should also work towards minimum common standards to
facilitate the flow of information across the supply chain.
Nitithamyong and Skibniewski (2004) identified factors determining the success or

failure of web-based construction project management systems, particularly through the
use of application service providers utilised by construction firms without in-house
expertise. Project Management System-Application Service Provider (PM-ASP) is
becoming popular because it requires minimal technical, financial and human resources
to develop and operate.
Abeid et al. (2003) described the development and implementation of an automated real-
time monitoring system for construction projects programmed in the Delphi
environment. The system links time-lapse digital movies of construction activities,
critical path method (CPM) and progress control techniques. It accepts digital images
taken from multiple cameras, stores them in chronological order and links them to a
database that contains schedule information. The system enables the contractor’s and
owner’s management staff to follow developments at the construction site in real time.
Additionally, time-lapse films of activities at the construction site can be played back in
synchrony with dynamic graphs showing planned versus actual schedules.
Sacks and Warszawski (1997) described an automated building system (ABS) that
automatically generate maximum information and the related documents for the
preliminary design, detailed design and construction planning of a building project. The
ABS system includes features such as: representation of project information by a tri-
hierarchical project model, step-by-step progress through predefined design and
construction planning stages, use of knowledge-based modules, linkages to various
databases, and implementation of intelligent parametric “templates” of building layouts
and work assemblies.
37
The automation of the Total Construction System looks at the integration and inter-
linkages between the different phases of the construction project in order to achieve a
cohesive automated fusion of process, organisation and product. Computer Integrated
Construction (CIC) is a strategy adapted by the construction industry from the
manufacturing industry to promote technology and knowledge fusions. The SMART
system (Shimizu Manufacturing system by Advanced Robotics Technology) is a part of
Shimizu’s CIC strategy for developing an automated construction system, which
automates a wide range of construction processes of high-rise building by integrating
prefabrication, automation, and information technologies with construction technology.
Also, information management systems associated with automated construction are
integrated within a wide range of design, engineering, planning and management
knowledge of the project functions. (Yamazaki, 2004)
As described by IAARC (2004), Shimizu SMART system is a construction system that

takes about six weeks to set-up. The building’s top floor and roof are erected on top of
four jacking towers that were set up to elevate the 1323 tonnes top floor assembly,
which forms the main work platform, as well as lifting their own bases from floor to
floor in a cycle time of around two and a half hours. The main delivery system
comprises of lifting mechanisms and automatic conveying equipment which is installed
on the work platform, which later becomes the roof of the building.
Overhead gantry cranes are connected to the underside of the roof structure to resemble
a factory production facility; with trolley hoists introduced at ground level for the lifting
and positioning of components. The entire construction and assembly work processes is
controlled by computers, with workers employed to supervise and manage the
operations. Fairly rapid erection times are achieved through the use of simplified
connections between components, which only require fine-tuning with a torque wrench
and a laser-guided gauge. A task-specific device in the form of a clamp-on welding
robot is used towards the end to effect the final mating of the column ends. Floors
emerge from under the pre-clad from the inside, allowing work in fitting out to begin
immediately. Weather is further excluded from the job-site by a mesh fabric hung
around the work area. The use of pre-assembled pipework are an additional example of a
38
complete method for rationalising design and production, with the aim of further
reducing the man-hours required for production. SMART, therefore, automates a range
of production processes including the erection and welding of steel frames; placement of
precast concrete floor planks; exterior and interior wall panels; and installation of
various prefabricated units. (iaarc.org, 2004)
Figure 2.2 Shimizu’s SMART System
This figure is not available online.

Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
Photographs by Shimizu Corporation and extracted

from: http://www.iaarc.org/frame/technologies/casestudies/shimiz.htm
Wakisaka et al. (2000) described the development of an all weather automated

construction system to reduce the total cost of high-rise reinforced concrete building
construction. It was applied for the first time ever to the construction of a 26-storey
reinforced concrete condominium project located in the Tokyo Metropolitan area in
1995. This system incorporates four major elements: (1) a synchronously climbing all-
weather temporary roof; (2) a parallel material delivery system; (3) prefabrication and
unification of construction materials; and (4) a material management system. Benefits of
the system include ensuring good quality; improving working and environmental
conditions; reducing the construction period, manpower and waste; and improving
overall productivity.
Obayashi’s Big Canopy System is an all-weather automated construction system

developed by Obayashi for high-rise reinforced concrete buildings. The system is aimed
at shortening construction periods and improving the safety and productivity of the
construction process by applying a factory automation concept to the construction site,
39
including automation, mechanisation and computerisation. Zenith Osaka, a 42 storey

(plus basement) reinforced concrete residential building with a total floor area of 55
328m2 and completed in March 2003, is the fifth application of the system on
construction projects. (Obayashi, 2003)
The Big Canopy System is not fundamentally affected by the building shape because the
temporary roof frame is supported by temporary posts that are independent of the
building. The key elements to using the system are: the synchronously climbing
temporary roof consisting of four tower crane posts erected independently outside the
building, climbing device, and a temporary roof frame; a parallel delivery system
consisting of a construction lift for vertical delivery and three overhead cranes for
horizontal delivery and erection; a materials management system consisting of a
management system for prefabricated skeleton members and a finishing material
management system for finishing and equipment materials; and prefabrication of
skeleton members and unification of finishing and equipment materials. (Wakisaka et al,
2000)
Figure 2.3 Obayashi’s Big Canopy System

Photographs by Obayashi Corporation and extracted

from: http://www.thaiobayashi.co.th/html/oba/tech.php
40
2.3.4 On-site Construction Operations
Application of automation technologies to construction work processes on site was

initially started through the development of construction robots, aimed at resolving some
of the difficulties associated with construction activities. According to the International
Association of Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC), construction robots
and automation fall into three categories: enhancements to existing construction plant
and equipment; task-specific, dedicated robots; and the relatively few intelligent (or
cognitive) machines.
i) Category One: Enhancements to Existing Construction Plant and Equipment
Enhancements to existing construction plant and equipment can be realised through the
attachment of sensors and navigational aids, so as to provide improved feedback to the
operative. Under some conditions, productivity can be increased dramatically.
According to Greer et al (1997), fundamental advances in sensors, actuators and control
systems technology are creating opportunities to improve the performance of traditional
construction equipment. Their research identifies emerging control paradigms and
describes methods for measuring their performance; with examples focusing on
University of Texas’s large scale hydraulic manipulator (LSM) and Automated Road
Maintenance Machine (ARMM). Rosenfeld (1995) described the conversion of an
existing full-scale 5-ton load crane into a semi-automatic handling robot, where the
control system is enhanced so that it can be taught to memorise up to 50 different
benchmarks, i.e. particular points at the construction site, as well as safe routes among
them. Another example in this area is tele-operation for construction equipment where,
in their research, Greer, Kim and Haas (1997) identified examples of tele-operated
systems and defined their common control elements.
Ha et al (2002) presented results of the autonomous excavation project conducted at the

Australian Centre for Field Robotics (ACFR) with a focus on construction automation.
The ultimate goal of the ACFR excavation project is to demonstrate fully autonomous
execution of excavation tasks in common construction, such as loading a truck or
41
digging a trench. Another example is a prototype driver-less excavator and earth-

moving grader developed at Lancaster University (2005) called LUCIE. Once the
machine is placed in position in front of its work area, digging and placing of spoil can
be done automatically through the addition of sensors and controls that enables program-
controlled operation.
Thus, the performance of traditional construction equipment over entirely manually-

controlled methods can be significantly enhanced through the use of supplementary
navigational aids, sensors and advanced control systems. Laser controls and ultrasound
is commonly used; and in one application area, large pour concrete screeding which
utilises laser-controlled equipment has transformed a low technology area into one that
has raised productivity and lowered costs significantly. (iaarc.org, 2004)
ii) Category Two: Task-Specific, Dedicated Robots
Most of these construction robots have been developed in Japan; with significant
duplication of research developments amongst the “Big Five” construction companies,
Shimizu, Obayashi, Takenaka, Taisei and Kajima. There are many examples; and can be
categorised into (1) robots for structural work, such as concrete placing and power-
floating; and steelwork lifting and positioning; (2) robots for finishing or completion
work, such as exterior wall spraying; wall and ceiling panel handling, positioning and
installation; (3) robots for inspection works, such as external wall inspection; and (4)
robots for maintenance work, for example, window and floor cleaning.
Task-specific, dedicated robots generally work under tele-operation or program control.

The operative is positioned outside the immediate vicinity of the machine, with the
instructions transmitted to the machine via a pendant controller. Depending on the
configuration of the machine, an umbilical link may be used to supply power as well as
transmit control signals. The robot performs a specific, well-defined task and has been
shown to produce productivity savings of a worthwhile order, but adaptation to other
tasks is generally not possible. (iaarc.org, 2004)
42
These robots are usually used within a specific area of the construction process. An
example is mobile robots developed to compact and control the thickness of concrete as
described by Hwang-Bo, You and Oh (1999). The overall control of the KIST floor
robotic trowelling system introduces network-based real-time distribution architecture to
coordinate the fleet of robots. Technion Israel Institute of Technology (Warszawski,
Rosenfeld and Shohet, 1996) has developed several painting robots in the area of interior
assembly, and the WASEDA Construction Robot (WASCOR IV) (Masatoshi et al, 1996)
has obtained significant results in the automation of building interior finishing system.
Miyake and Ishihara (2006) developed a prototype for a small and light-weight window
cleaning robot, consisting of two independently driven wheels and an active suction cup.
The control system which includes travelling direction controller using accelerometer
and travelling distance controller using rotary encoder and edge sensors were installed
for autonomous operation.
Other recent research following comparatively similar development and application

within this category include Robotised System for Interior Wall Painting (Naticchia et al,
2006); Development of Block Transfer Device using Net Chains (Noguchi, 2006);
Mobile Robots with Fork-lift Driving Wheels (Niimi and Douhara, 2006); Four-leg
Locomotion Robot for Heavy Load Transportation (Kuroi and Ishihara, 2006); Limb
Mechanism Robot “ASTERISK” (Fujii et al, 2006) and many more. Examples of task-
specific robots developed at Takenaka Corporation, Japan are shown in Appendix 1.
iii) Category Three: Intelligent (or Cognitive) Machines
According to IAARC (2004), this is the least developed category, with most still under
research. Development of machines of this type specific to construction would be
technologically challenging and is likely that if developed, it would be a convergence of
the technologies from both categories (i) and (ii) described above. Theoretically, these
hybrid forms of robot will be distinctively construction-orientated, supported by a high
degree of autonomy and knowledge-base with which to resolve the wide range of
construction work tasks problems on site. Developments in this category are more
prevalent in other industries compared to construction, in areas such as space exploration
43
and for other hostile environments. Adaptations of robotics technology from these
industries may be possible but, in reality, construction environments need to be much
more structured and controlled before construction robots can really start to take over.
2.3.5 Other Applications: CAD/CAM Technologies
CAD technologies have been discussed at length in previous sections as CAD

implementation is not only confined to the design stage but is also linked to and supports
application in various stages of construction, especially where the technologies have
been expanded to include other functions such as planning, scheduling or project
management. An extension to this is the use of Computer Aided Design/ Manufacturing
(CAD/CAM) in construction. Fundamentally, the core of a computer-aided design and
manufacturing system consists of three major components: a digital interactive design
and analysis environment for making digital geometric models of the object to be
eventually produced (a CAD system); a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software
wherein the user specifies how the digital design model is to be actually manufactured
and creates a series of digital instructions for controlling specific machines; and one or
more computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines and related tools that translate
these digital instructions into actual machine operations that make the object (Schodek et
al, 2005).
The scientific and technological advances in digital technology have radically

transformed the construction industry. Mitchell (1999) discussed the practical
application of CAD/CAM which allowed the timely and economical realisation of
designs that would once have proved impossibly slow and costly with reference to the
Sydney Opera House (1956 – 1967) and Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (1991 - 1997).
The construction of the Sydney Opera House involved Utzon, the designer and Arup, the
construction engineer, finding a feasible structural solution for the curved concrete shell
vaults of the building. Exploration of the design, changes and structural analysis took
place within the primitive environment of the available design tools at the time, causing
substantial time and cost overruns. By 1990s, at the time of Gehry’s free-form curved
Guggenheim design, accurate modelling for analysis and construction purposes was no
44
longer a problem. Digital models were put to many uses in the exploration of visual and
spatial effects, utilisation of rapid prototyping devices to generate physical models
automatically, and in providing the input data needed for structural and other analyses.
Finally, at the construction stage, the digital model was used to control CAD/CAM
fabrication processes that greatly reduced the necessity for shape uniformity and
component repetition. Budget and schedule were kept in control through the effective
use of 3D CAD models and computer visualisation, sophisticated analysis and
simulation algorithms, and by supplementing industrial-era mass production with
CAD/CAM mass-customization to contribute to speedy, accurate and inexpensive
fabrication.
The more comprehensive CAD/CAM systems available today may have a range of
features such as analysis packages (e.g., structural, thermal, tolerance build-up) normally
found in computer-aided engineering (CAE) systems; and sophisticated prototyping
capabilities for the conversion of solid 3D models directly from a computer model.
Furthermore, a fully automated design and production environment might also include
material handling systems, robots for assembling parts, machine vision systems, process
management and control systems, quality assurance systems, and a host of other possible
systems and technologies (Leondes, 2003 and Schodek et al, 2005). All these
components may continually facilitate the industry’s capability in producing buildings
more efficiently with regard to cost, time and quality.
2.4 Characteristics of Construction Technology and Automation and Robotics

Technologies
One area that needs to be investigated in order to evaluate the relevancy and level of
infiltration of automation and robotics technologies on to the work site is the
characteristics of the traditional construction technology in-use today. The obvious
differences or technological gap between traditional construction technology in use and
the available automation and robotics technologies may direct the research to factors on
why automation and robotics are not so readily implemented, especially in some
countries.
45
2.4.1 Construction Technology Characteristics
A building is the relationship of its many parts. It is the result of the complex,
interdependent aspects of meeting a predetermined need, the design process, the
application of current technology to materials and construction methods, and the actual
construction processes. A building is the result of the technology that both restricts and
permits the expansion of the design possibilities. Through the years the technology of
building construction has changed rapidly, and this continues with constant innovations
in materials and methods (Spence, 2006).
The construction of any facility involves different stages of the construction process;
from site preparation and earthworks; construction of substructure and superstructure;
through to painting and finishing works. Within these stages, other works include
concreting works; assembly of frames for beams and columns; construction of wall
enclosures using a variety of materials; installation of doors and windows for openings;
finishing works for walls, ceilings and floors; and installation of services for the
constructed facility.
Traditionally, the construction technologies in use for these construction stages are
mainly labour intensive, with the possible exceptions of earthworks, assembly and lifting
or positioning of components, concreting, and finishing works; where a number of
equipments might be used to mechanise the process such as excavators for earthworks or
cranes for lifting. Also, in some of these areas, other than the heavy and dangerous work,
such as for structural steelwork positioning, the construction tasks performed are usually
repetitive, which could benefit from greater use of mechanisation and automation.
Contractors can also reap the benefits through economies of scale if the machineries are
used many times in different projects. It is within these areas, where a degree of
mechanisation is already in place, that infiltration of automation and robotics
technologies into the construction work-site may be augmented.
Another area that maybe relevant, is the development of a modular building design that
fully utilises off-site prefabrication, transportation and on-site assembly. An example of
this is the FutureHome project, developed as part of the Intelligent Manufacturing
46
Systems (IMS) global programme involving over 250 companies and over 200 research
institutions across Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, Switzerland and
the United States (Balaguer et al, 2002). Modular building development has been
applied extensively across Eastern Europe, Germany, Japan and in some other countries.
However, there are three main problems to modular buildings, including quality of the
modular houses; flexibility in the design; and robotic / automatic on-site assembly of
modules. In the FutureHome project, the Integrated Construction Automation (ICA)
concept is developed, where the design, planning, and on-site robotisation stages of
house-building construction is integrated under common data and concept, to address
these disadvantages.
2.4.2 Construction Automation and Robotics Technologies Characteristics
Slaughter (1997) examined in detail the characteristics of existing automation and

robotics technologies specifically developed for the construction industry. Her research
sample consisted of 85 technologies, collected on approximately 20 attributes. The
emerging patterns highlighted include opportunity to adopt, perceived benefits or costs,
complexity of adoption and complementary changes.
According to her research, for opportunity to adopt, the largest proportion of

technologies in the sample (39%) is applied during the structural phase, which includes
placement of steel, concrete, masonry and timber elements. The second largest
proportion of the technologies (28%) is applied during the phase of interior finish, which
includes constructing interior non load-bearing walls as well as painting, fireproofing,
and other tasks. In addition to the different construction phases, the construction process
utilises many different types of building materials. The technologies in the sample have
been developed to make use of most of the major structural building materials, with the
majority of the technologies working with either concrete (40%) or finish material
(25%).
In perceived cost and benefits, it was found that 85% of the technologies in the sample
perform either dangerous or strenuous task or both; as improved safety is seen as a
benefit. In another area, control systems which guide how the construction task is
47
performed can provide benefits throughout the work performance time, while control
systems for navigation can decrease costs associated with positioning the equipment.
Strong interest exists to reduce the need for human intervention in repetitive tasks or
dangerous conditions, as is evident in the 34 technologies which used computer-based
systems for both navigation and control functions.
In complexity of adoption, some tasks are performed in three-dimensional space, such as

structural work, while others are performed on the vertical and horizontal surfaces of the
structure, such as interior and exterior work. Of the sample, 68% perform geometrically
less complex tasks, working on two-dimensional planes, with the majority (59%)
performed within an orderly environment where the site is more orderly and refined.
Also, the great majority of the technologies (85%) focus on a single task as the
applicability of a technology to multiple tasks greatly increases the complexity of the
machinery, its operation, and its production. The degree of repetition and regularity of
the structural layout and materials are also factors which facilitate the application of
technologies through the simplification and control of the construction site or process.
Almost 73% of the sample use standardised materials which are either modular units,
such as ceiling panels, or regular and consistent in composition, such as concrete or
paint.
The complementary changes that could be required in using a technology include the
design of the facility, and the modification of materials. Although many construction
technologies would benefit from consideration during the design phase, most of the
technologies in the sample (75%) do not require explicit design consideration, with 80%
of the technologies that did influence design used during the structural phase of
construction. The influence of the technologies in terms of modification to materials
might include dimensional change, special connection and application methods, or
increased material tolerances.
2.4.3 Fusion of Traditional and Innovative Technologies
In order for innovation to take place, there is a need to examine how traditional
approaches can be synthesised with new technologies, in order to attain the most
48
efficient way possible of performing tasks. The overlapping can be minimal, in that only
a small percentage of the new technologies are taken on board, to aid or make
employing the traditional process more efficient; or it can be total, in that the whole
approach to the process or system is overhauled to make way for the new technologies.
The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary (2007) defined innovation as the introduction

of something new or a new idea, method or device. Innovation in construction, therefore,
happens when new ideas are developed, and then initiated within the construction
process. The successful exploitation of the new ideas introduced into the construction
process brings about innovation, and can be in the forms of a new product, new method
or new process.
Kim et al (2006) in their research investigated the demands for innovative future
construction technology based on the strategy of technology fusion. For the successive
fusion of different technologies, it is necessary to develop systematic research strategies
that consider variable issues such as how to define the area for technology fusion, how
to estimate the marketability of new technologies, and how to apply the new
technologies.
In their survey of 157 participants of experts from construction companies, academia,

government supported research institutes, and government agencies, the results of the
analysis showed that the evolution of the technology fusion will be driven by the
development of the technology, especially “clean (environmental friendly) construction”
(71.3%) and “new material with nano technique” (61.1%). These technical trends were
sequentially followed by the social and environmental trends such as “adequate
budgeting” (53.5%), “research through strategic planning” (48.4%), and “joint research
by multi-disciplines” (47.1%). Han et al (2006) in their paper discussed in depth various
research planning methodologies for technology fusion-based research in construction,
especially for the interdisciplinary approach of technology development.
Investigating areas where technology fusion is most likely to happen in construction can
assist in identifying the areas where automation and robotics in all probability will be
most relevant. These technology areas may include phases of construction, such as
49
adopting a greater percentage of innovative technologies during the design phase, as

compared to the construction phase; or it can be in terms of the construction process
itself. Some construction processes such as installation of building components are
easier to automate as opposed to, say, substructure or building foundation works. In this
case, the drive to innovate is facilitated by the relatively straightforward technological
process that is already in place within this area.
2.4.4 Review on the Characteristics and Technology Fusion
It can be construed from the characteristics of the technologies discussed above, and the
overlapping of the traditional and new technologies in terms of technology fusion, that
the prospect for implementation of automation and robotics technologies during the on-
site phase of construction may be more widespread for some stages of the construction
process, as compared to others. However, these factors should not be looked at in
isolation as the other phases of construction, such as design, also play an important role
in facilitating the adaptation of these technologies on to the work site.
For on-site construction, the six main stages that have the most potential for automation
and robotics implementation, that have been identified for further investigation are;
earthworks, structural steelwork, concreting, building assembly / lifting and positioning
of components, painting / finishing, and total automation of the construction works
which involves the whole building process. The diagram (Figure 2.4) below summarises
the on-site construction stages investigated under this research.
50
Figure 2.4 On-site Construction Stages Facilitating Automation and Robotics Technologies
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. MODULAR/ STANDARDISED
2. EASE OF COMPONENT ASSEMBLY
3. REGULARITY IN DESIGN/ MATERIALS
4. SIMPLE TASKS
5. REPETITIVE
1. EARTHWORKS
6. TOTAL AUTOMATION
OF CONSTRUCTION
WORKS
ON-SITE
CONSTRUCTION
2. STRUCTURAL PROCESSES
STEELWORK
5. PAINTING /
FINISHING
3. CONCRETING
4. BUILDING ASSEMBLY /
LIFTING AND
POSITIONING OF
COMPONENTS
In relation to this, for the questionnaire survey, participants involved in the use of
automation and robotics technologies for on-site operation were asked to rank level of
usage (from never to highly used) in which they most use the technologies within the six
main stages listed above. This is to gauge which areas has the highest implementation
rate and therefore most relevant to automation and robotics. This can also give an
indication of the technologies most available for the six stages of the construction
processes under study. To provide a more comprehensive overview, the participants
were also requested to rank the construction projects they think are most suited to
automation and robotics, from four categories of residential, non-residential, civil
engineering works and infrastructure, and specialised sub-contracting work.
51
2.5 Construction Industry
The construction industry is generally engaged in all activities relating to building,

maintenance, demolition, landscaping, infrastructure and civil engineering; carried out
within the public and private sectors. It consists of general construction, which broadly
encompasses residential construction, non-residential construction, and civil engineering
and infrastructure construction; and special trade works, which includes earthmoving,
concreting, metal and electrical works, plumbing, sewerage and sanitary works, heating
and air-conditioning works, painting works, carpentry, tiling and flooring works, glazing
and landscaping.
In general construction, residential include the construction of dwellings, such as houses,

flats and apartments, incorporating new, alterations, additions and conversion works;
non-residential include hotels, health facilities, offices, factories, entertainment and
recreational, educational, religious, and other secondary buildings; and civil engineering
and infrastructure include the construction of roads and highways, bridges, rail, harbour,
telecommunications, water and electricity, sewerage, pipelines and heavy industry. The
construction industry usually constitutes an important element of a country’s economy,
as it has extensive linkages with construction related manufacturing industries and the
rest of the economy. In times of an economic crisis, the construction industry is usually
the first to suffer a decline in growth and productivity, and its growth trends generally
follow closely that of the country’s National Gross Domestic Product.
2.5.1 Japan
Construction is the biggest industry in Japan, and the Japanese construction industry is
one of the biggest in the world, consuming close to 10% of Japan’s GDP. The
construction industry employs 10% of Japan’s workforce, and even though the
construction market has shrunk since its peak in the late 1980s, the number of
construction workers has gone up to around 6.5 million in 2001 compared with 5.9
million in 1990. (Sprague and Mutsuko, 2001) In recent years, the market has again
shown signs of slowing down, with the total scale of the construction industry now at
52
JPY50 trillion and the industry employing about 6 million workers (Hasegawa, 2006).
The large and competitive domestic construction market has been an excellent training
ground for Japanese contractors and helped them move up the experience curve.
Competition in the local market necessitated the adoption of advanced technology that in
turn contributed to Japanese contractor’s success in penetrating the international market.
A large global market share also enabled Japanese contractors to achieve some
economies of scale, and more importantly, a track record of projects and learning
experience with further reduction in costs. In addition, Japanese contractors can avail
themselves of cheaper sources of capital through their close connection with the
financial sector. This, along with technological competence nurtured back home, became
an important competitive edge in bidding for international projects. Within the Asian
region alone, Japanese contractors have a 40% share of the US$42.5 billion, compared
to 13% by Americans and 10% by Koreans. (Raftery et al, 1998)
However, in recent years of 2000s, overall construction activity has declined sharply
after the burst of the bubble economy, and many construction companies are in
competition with each other to win contracts. Offering competitive prices is most
instrumental in winning contracts, which severely limits the development and use of
construction automation and robotics due to its lack of cost effectiveness. Applications
in construction are now directed more towards environmental preservation and renewal
projects such as investigative and repair work conducted prior to the renewal of a
building or facility; rather than as an integrative element of new construction projects.
2.5.2 Australia
The construction industry is one of the most significant contributors to the Australian
economy, both in terms of GDP and employment. According to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (2008), the construction industry Gross Value Added (GVA) was $61,644
million in 2005-06, contributing an equivalent of 6.4% of the Australian GDP for that
period. In 2006-07 the construction industry employed an average of 917,600 people,
4.7% higher than 2005-2006. The majority of construction industry employment in
2006-07 was in construction trade services (69%), which includes those engaged in
53
services such as earthmoving, concreting, bricklaying, roofing, plumbing, electrical,

carpentry, painting, glazing and landscaping. Construction businesses are predominantly
small businesses with most (64.7%) earning less than AU$100,000 in income.
Construction activity is carried out by both private and public sectors; and in 2006-07
the value of work done for the public sector was $22,075 million, whilst for the private
sector it was at $84,526 million. The Australian construction industry is mainly involved
in three broad areas of construction activity, residential, non-residential and engineering
construction. Residential building activity which accelerated to a high level prior to the
introduction of the New Tax System in July 2000, was followed by a substantial
downturn in 2000-01. In 2005-06, engineering construction activity surpassed residential
building in value; with the value of engineering work done by the private sector
increasing substantially over the years.
According to Hampson and Brandon (2004), construction is the backbone of the

Australian economy; and if the industry uses its resources more effectively and raises its
efficiency by reducing construction cost and time, and increasing quality, Australian
industry as a whole will be more competitive. The ability of the Australian property and
construction industry to enhance its effectiveness and international competitiveness
through technological advance and management expertise must be supported by research
and innovation. Construction 2020 is an initiative for the direct engagement at a national
level between researchers and industry, targeted at industry research, education and
technology diffusion to deliver and further improve the effectiveness and
competitiveness of the Australian construction industry.
According to Neil, Salomonsson and Sharpe (1991), achieving a sufficiently high

utilisation rate for robots will in many cases be dependent on their use being planned at
the design stage. In Australia, lack of coordination between builders and designers is
presenting problems in terms of utilisation of innovative technologies. One reason for
this lack of coordination is the degree of specialisation in the industry; which creates
difficulties in terms of coordination of the design and building process, which in turn can
hinder technological innovation.
54
2.5.3 Malaysia
The construction industry in Malaysia is generally affected by the state of the economy
and investment environment; government intervention, for example, privatisation of
public services and private finance initiative; state and federal legislation; and
population mobility and social trends. Population mobility and social trends usually
dictates the supply and demand of types of buildings and their locations, for example
commercial construction is usually concentrated in the high-growth area of Kuala
Lumpur.
The construction industry in Malaysia shares 3.3% of the country’s Gross Domestic
Product (2003) and employs over 500 000 workers in some 54 500 local companies
(Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2005). The strength of the construction industry is
closely linked to the state of the economy, and reacts fairly quickly to signs of economic
downturn. Malaysia’s construction sector was amongst the first area to suffer during the
recessions, but has performed better when the government injected RM2.4 billion
(AU$0.8 billion) worth of projects under the 9th Malaysia Plan in 2005.
Malaysia’s industry is actively involved in the construction of residential buildings; with

the construction of low and medium-cost houses remaining to be supported through the
Malaysian Government’s housing programme. Luxurious and high-end landed
residential properties, such as semi-detached and bungalows are also in demand, but on a
selective basis depending on its price, location and accessibility. The construction
industry has also been mainly supported by the development of infrastructure projects
throughout the main high growth areas of cities and towns. (Austrade, 2008) There have
been various road, railway and water-related projects that are under construction or have
been recently completed, such as the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system in Kuala Lumpur
and the main highways connecting the states across Malaysia.
55
2.6 Global Implementation and Development of Construction Automation and

Robotics Technologies
A shortage of labour is one of the factors behind the drive in many countries to
mechanise production in order to increase productivity by replacing labour with
machines. In many developed countries, there has been a shift in recent decades from
traditional craft methods to the production of components in factories and their
subsequent assembly on site. The move to mechanisation and prefabrication makes
sense in economies where full employment is creating upward pressures on wages, or
where labour shortages are acute.
2.6.1 Japan
The Japanese are among the world leaders in construction technology. This has been due
to two interrelated factors: (1) the efforts at technological innovation through research
and development (R&D); and (2) a large domestic market and internalisation of demand
from Japanese investors in foreign countries. Investments in construction research and
development in Japan is quite high; with Japanese firms spending about 3% of their
gross receipts on R&D, i.e. the highest level of R&D spending in the construction sector.
Japanese contractors have invested heavily in R&D for two reasons. First, faced with the
disadvantage of high labour costs, Japan has strived to innovate to reduce dependence on
labour. Second, Japanese business has always focussed on long term market share, and
hence their heavy commitment to R&D. (Raftery et al, 1998) Compared to other
countries, the majority of research and development into automation and robotics
technologies originated from Japan.
The level of Japanese construction technology has increased markedly since the mid-
sixties as an increasing number of major Japanese contractors invested in their own
research and development laboratories. The result is that currently, nearly every major
Japanese contractor has their own Research and Development Institute, which forms part
of an important tool in its marketing strategy. In Japan, the greatest concentration of
R&D and the short-run production of construction robots are found in the construction
companies, with some government-funded agency work and complementary
56
developments within the universities. A feature worth noting regarding the Japanese
R&D into automation and robotics technologies is that there appears to be significant
duplication of research efforts amongst the companies, with each of the major players
having developed its own robots. The likely reason for this is that each has both the
capacity to innovate as well as being expected to do so by its customers. These
technologies have mostly been developed in areas such as concreting, steelwork lifting
and positioning, and finishing works by the “Big Five” Japanese construction companies
that is, Shimizu, Taisei, Obayashi, Kajima and Takenaka. (IAARC, 2004)
Even though more than 200 prototypes have been produced and made trials at Japanese
construction sites since the 1980s, not many have been commercialised and fully utilised
on the construction sites. Several of them are still used but others were ruined and stored
“frozen” in laboratories. Japanese engineers working for construction companies and
construction machine manufacturers paid so much effort for the R&D, and yet failed to
get adequate return from their investment. The peak of the boom for construction robots
development took place in the 1980s through to 1990s in Japan. (Yoshida, 2006)
Although the direction of research into construction automation and robotics in Japan
has changed slightly compared to the early 1990s in terms of areas of research focus, a
number of public institutions are still involved in construction automation research
projects such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Government of Japan
(MLIT); Public Works Research Institute (PWRI); and National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), amongst others. At MLIT research is taking
place on the development of Advanced Construction Technology with Remote Control
Robot and Information Technology (research period: 2003-2007). The research evolves
around the development of construction management skill in utilising 3-D space
information design data; and development of construction automation technology
(control technology of robot construction machinery) accommodating IT based
machines. (MLIT, 2007; PWRI, 2007; and AIST, 2007)
57
At AIST, with its large conglomeration of research centres and institutes, its main aim is
to foster a process to promote technological innovation by implementing “Full
Research”, resulting in a transformation of the industrial structure. This is an example
where linkage between academia and industry is fostered, Japanese style, where AIST
plays a role as a mediator and promotes the creation of innovation through product
realisation. Research here is conducted across the board, involving a large range of areas,
including those focussing on robot technology and information applications (AIST,
2007).
2.6.2 Australia
In Australia, automation and robotics technologies have mostly been developed for other
industries such as mining, forestry and undersea. At University of Sydney’s Australian
Centre for Field Robotics (2005) application of advanced control, sensing and systems
engineering principles to the development of autonomous machines have been
conducted for several applications including construction. The Australian mining and
heavy civil engineering industry is actively involved in driverless construction
machinery technology applications, involving a number of large off-road driverless
trucks. Autonomous machine technology is also applied to more difficult applications
such as the operation of load-haul-dump vehicles (in underground operations) and the
automated operation of hydraulic excavators and draglines (iaarc.com, 2004).
CSIRO also provided to a certain degree, examples of application, including “Virtual

Worlds”, a research project combining game and CAD technology to create three-
dimensional environments in which professionals, working in real time, will be able to
explore and test ideas for new buildings (CSIRO Media Release, 18 August 2005).
Although this is more in the area of design automation rather than on-site robotics
systems, a recent research collaboration between CSIRO and MIT Computer Science
and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, USA may bring about more research into creating
robots that work in harsh and remote environments (CSIRO Media Release, 25 May
2005). Further examples include the use of automation and robotics in physical assets
58
maintenance and infrastructure condition monitoring, and research on the use of high
dexterity robotics arms for on-site construction processes (O’Brien, 1996).
Other related research work taking place in Australia, mostly in the areas of automation
and robotics applications in civil engineering, include bridge maintenance robotic arm
with capacitive sensor for obstacle ranging in particle laden air (Kirchner, 2006);
adaptive sliding mode control for civil structures using magnetorheological dampers
(Nguyen et al, 2006) and particle swarm optimisation-based coordination of a group of
construction vehicles (Kwok et al, 2006).
If robots are demonstrated to be feasible for use in the Australian construction industry,
the Australian government will need to act as a catalyst for encouraging their more
widespread use. One possible course of action, for example, might be adapting incentive
schemes, similar to those operating in Singapore, to encourage the design of products
suitable for automated use in the construction industry. (Neil, Salomonsson and Sharpe,
1991)
2.6.3 Malaysia
Most developing countries have seen a dramatic increase in both output and employment
in the construction industry for the past 30 years. In Malaysia, due to this rapid and
prolonged growth, the construction industry’s demand for labour could not match that of
local supply, and dependency on foreign labour, especially from neighbouring Indonesia,
is high. There is consensus among employers in the industry that it will continue to
depend on imported labour, regularised or otherwise, in the foreseeable future. The
distribution of foreign labours in the Malaysian construction industry has increased from
25100 in 1990 to 269100 in 2004 (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2005). It is within
this area that construction automation and robotics can prove to be most useful in terms
of decreasing labour-intensive work processes and thus reducing the country’s over-
dependency on foreign workers. This will also translate into a long term measure of
ensuring sustainable growth as well as minimising socio-economic implications.
59
One of the greatest opportunities for the Malaysian construction industry in embracing
automation and robotics technologies is the various incentives and encouragement from
the government for adopting innovative technologies. A prime example of this is the
implementation of the Industrialised Building System (IBS) in the construction sector,
with the cabinet endorsing the IBS Roadmap 2003-2010. Early efforts by the
government to promote usage of IBS as an alternative to the conventional and labour
intensive construction method has not been encouraging, so a Roadmap based on the 5-
M strategy (Manpower, Materials-Components-Machines, Management-Processes-
Methods, Monetary and Marketing) was devised by the Construction Industry
Development Board Malaysia, with the target of having an industrialised construction
industry and achieving Open Building by the year 2010. The use of IBS assures valuable
advantages such as the reduction of unskilled workers, less wastage, less volume of
building materials, increased environmental and construction site cleanliness, and better
quality control, among others. (CIDB Malaysia, 2003)
The use of automation and robotics technologies may follow the same route, with
emphasis on the assembly and installation of components using these technologies. The
types that would be most relevant to Malaysia would be category one, enhancements to
existing construction plant and equipment; and to a lesser extent, category two, task-
specific, dedicated robots. Specialist contractors could adopt a number of machines
specifically designed for this purpose, for example, Kajima’s Mighty Hand for the lifting
of heavy elements; Shimizu’s Glazing Robot for lifting and fixing of glazing panels; or
Takenaka’s Welding Robot for steelwork positioning and welding (Kajima Corp,
Shimizu Corp and Takenaka Corp websites, 2004).
2.6.4 North America and Europe
In North America, there is a fairly extensive range of mostly university-based research

into the technologies. There are some pure industry-based developments, but not as
widespread as it is in Japan; with the research pattern being one of cooperation across a
broad front, where academics, researchers and practitioners are brought together.
Examples include Bechtel and Brown & Root and the University of Austin, Texas. In
60
Europe, most of the research efforts in the UK have predominantly been in the
universities, with Reading (design for automation), Imperial College (simulation of
jointing), City (masonry laying), Lancaster (excavation), Portsmouth (wall climbing)
and the West of England (wall climbing) active to varying degrees; whilst German
efforts are mostly on enhancements to plant and equipment used in concreting. (IAARC,
2004)
At the Robotics Lab of Universidad Carlos III De Madrid (2004) in Spain, the R&D
activities in the field of automation and robotics in the construction industry started in
the early 90s.Several industrial projects related to the automation of pre-fabrication of
GRC parts manufacturing were developed, dealing with two areas; the robotic spraying
of panels (1992-1995) and the optimisation and rationalisation of the whole factory,
including panel transportation and storage (2000-2002). Other projects include robot
assembly of big blocks and bricks (1992-1996) and automatic 3D building design and
on-site modular buildings robotics assembly (1999-2002). The Automatic Modular
Buildings Assembly has the main objective of introducing new automation and robotics
processes in the construction sector with the aims of increasing productivity, improving
work safety and hygiene conditions.
Other recent research that has taken place in Europe and North America include the
control system for a semi-automatic façade cleaning robot (Gambao and Hernando, 2006)
and user oriented interactive building design (Martinez et al, 2006) in Spain;
development of a real-time control system architecture for automated steel construction
(Saidi et al, 2006) and wireless sensor-driven intelligent navigation robots for indoor
construction site security and safety (Cho and Youn, 2006) in USA; and an autonomous
robotic system through self-maintained energy (Ngo and Schioler, 2006) in Denmark.
2.6.5 Korea and Taiwan
Taiwan and Korea have also been relatively active in the development and research of
automation and robotics applications in construction; in areas of design and architecture,
sensors and control, automation of heavy equipment, and prefabrication, amongst others.
61
In Taiwan, research on the design architecture, planning, construction information

system and management system related to automation have been more numerous (Wen
and Kao 2005, Chen et al 2006, Wang et al 2006, Feng and Yeh 2006, Yang et al 2006,
Yu et al 2006, Cheng et al 2006 and Chang et al 2006) compared to other areas . Yang et
al (2006) described in their research the development of a comprehensive management
information system (MIS) for schedule delay analysis needed for schedule delay
management. Their research uses the method of IDEFǾ, a structured analysis and design
technique, to portray the contents of an MIS. Other areas of research involving the
development of sensors and control, and prefabrication are interactive circles biosphere
for visual manipulation approach over constructive process management (Liang et al,
2005); and storage and transportation optimisation of prefabricated factory (Shih et al,
2005).
In Korea, research on automation and robotics technologies in areas of building

construction and civil engineering encompasses most areas from design architecture and
information technology, through to heavy equipment and robotics systems (Kim et al,
2005; Lim et al, 2005; Woo et al, 2005; Choi et al, 2005; Lim et al, 2006; Kim et al,
2006; Han et al, 2006; Chae et al, 2006 and Chang et al 2006). Woo et al (2005)
described in their research a robotics system for pavement lane painting operations,
where a single operator is capable of tracking the existing faded line mark and
performing re-painting operations on-site, so that the dangerous and time consuming
manual operations can be eliminated. This is achieved by developing a robot system that
can easily be installed on support commercial truck and image processing algorithms
that can recognise deteriorated lane marks.
Lim et al (2005) developed the hardware in the loop system (HILS) for hydraulic
excavators, while in sensor technology research, Kim et al (2005) developed MEMS-
based vibration sensor for tunnel construction and maintenance monitoring system.
Examples of recent research in Korea for planning, management and information
technology include the development of the Construction Waste Management
Performance Evaluation Tool (WMPET) (Kim et al, 2006); a fully integrated web-based
62
risk management system for highly uncertain global projects (Han et al, 2006); and
bridge condition monitoring system using wireless network (Chae, 2006). In the area of
automation application in civil engineering, Seo et al (2006) described prototyping and
automating a concrete surface grinding machine for improving infrastructure conditions.
In their research, a machine designed to grind the rough concrete surface of bridge decks,
airport runways and road pavement was developed; using remote control to overcome
the hazardous working condition created by the concrete dust. A graphical man-machine
interface (MMI), a path planning system, and sensors including GPS and sonar made the
precise and safe operation of the machine possible; but an automated quality control
system is still currently being developed to ensure the work quality of the machine.
Many of the research on automation and robotics in Korea and Taiwan, as in most other
countries except for Japan, are usually university-based, although a few companies such
as Samsung Engineering and Construction in Korea has been involved in collaborative
university-based research.
2.7 Barriers to Implementation
To gain a better understanding of the technologies implementation in the construction

industry, it is not only important to recognise the willingness of the industry to innovate,
but also its awareness and appreciation of the barriers to be overcome. According to the
Fiatech (2004) group, the construction industry lags behind manufacturing and
transportation industries in terms of field-level automation. Construction requires
information at the field level that is provided by design, engineering, and purchasing
functions. Tools for automated information authoring, transfer, and collection have
propagated into design, engineering, and purchasing areas, but not into construction field
functions. One potential barrier that has been identified by the group, based on their
research into Intelligent and Automated Construction Job Site (IACJS), is that the
construction industry has shown a notable resistance to adopt new technologies. This is
partly because the fragmentation of the industry makes it difficult for a single
organisation to invest in the systems-level technologies being described and for those
doing the investing to reap the benefits of those investments.
63
According to the PATH group, (Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology, 2003)
barriers to automation and robotics implementation in construction are; firstly,
construction is a diverse industry and one that has to cope with an almost unique set of
circumstances on each project and site; secondly, the unstructured, dynamic nature of
the construction site, the hazards and difficulties presented by temporary works, weather
and, sometimes, the shear scale of activity mitigate against greater automation; and
lastly, high investments are needed to incorporate the technologies.
Hewitt and Gambatese (2002) identified design practices that facilitate the
implementation of automated technologies and exposed barriers within both the design
process and overall project development process, to the consideration of automation in
the design. Although their study is focussed on the design rather than the construction
phase, the barriers they listed are still useful and share common traits within both phases.
Some of the barriers they identified include the limitation in automated technology
capabilities that create tremendous costs in implementation. There are also frequent
changes or advances in automated technologies and users have difficulty in keeping up
with the changes, while incurring the high cost of owning and operating these
technologies. Currently there is also the lack of standard design elements which is
important in encouraging the use of automated technologies as repetitious elements are
likely to lead to greater utilisation of these technologies. Another barrier is that
construction sites are usually unique and do not present the same set of problems,
whereas a structured environment and work process is important in automation. They
also identified barriers related to the nature and structure of the construction industry
such as traditional roles and responsibilities and limitation of communication between
designers and constructors. There is a lack of consideration of the construction phase by
the designer, due to the means and methods residing with the constructor.
Construction Industry Institute (2004) has funded a research study investigating how a
project design impacts the use of automation on a construction jobsite. The goal of the
study was to improve the ability to prepare designs that facilitate the use of automated
technologies in construction work. The CII study identified the barriers and limitations
to the use of automated technologies in the construction process as a result of design
64
features, methods and deliverables. The study also included the development of an
implementation resource in the form of an Internet website that can be accesses by
designers. Although this study is related more to design practices and the use of
construction automation in the design phase, it is relevant to this research as part of the
barrier to automation is the difficulty in implementing the technologies due to design
restrictions.
Paulson (1995) discussed defining and classifying the needs for and barriers to
implementation of automated data acquisition, process control, and robotics in several
areas. Categories include large versus small projects; labour-intensive versus capital-
intensive operations; industry sectors (buildings, civil works, process plants, housing);
phases and technologies within projects (site work, foundations, structural, piping,
electrical etc.); and types of firms (design-construction, general contractor, specialty
contractor etc.) It is also important to consider potential industry barriers. In the field of
automated process control and robotics, there are certainly some very real social and
economic problems as well as technical obstacles that must be identified and overcome
or accommodated if research efforts are to succeed eventually in development and
implementation. In brief, the challenges to technological advances are many in
construction and relate as much to institutional problems – like craft, company, and
process fragmentation; risk and liability; codes and standards – as they do to purely
technological or economic concerns.
Brown (1989) discussed design, production and labour implications as possible barriers
to automation and robotics utilisation in construction. Buildings have to be designed
within the limitations of the available construction processes and the application of new
technologies within construction processes presents new parameters and opportunities
for designers. However, machines seldom have the dexterity of their human counterparts
in performing construction tasks, and to facilitate the use of automation and robotics,
there is a need to reduce the complexity of assembly by minimising the number of parts
that compose the product. In terms of production, construction poses problems for
automation and robotics with respect to lack of standardisation, the work place is not
65
static, construction methods can be too complicated for robots and need for more mobile
robots for transportation and lifting of heavy component. In the case of labour
implications, it is seen that by emulating the human skill base, robots are manufactured
to replace human, or at the very least, reduce overheads by eliminating the need for a
larger workforce. Society will have to address itself to the problem of how
technologically superior people deal with those people it seeks to displace, particularly
in the context of the construction industry where there is no formal employment
structure.
2.7.1 Barrier Variables
The barriers to the implementation of automation and robotics in construction can

therefore be summarised into the following categories:
1. Economic and Cost
One of the most obvious barriers is the high cost incurred and the need for substantial
financial commitment for the required investment in R&D and implementation of these
technologies in real terms. The investments are high risk and finding firms willing to
invest in these technologies is a problem. There is also the high cost of owning and using
these technologies on site, and because some of the machines are still not fully
developed, keeping up with the advances in technology can prove costly. The
construction industry is often not willing to put in high risk and costly investment into
the technology.
According to Fiatech (2004), many construction practitioners see no driving need to

adopt and use Intelligent and Automated Construction Job Site (IACJS) technologies so
long as they are not demanded, and thus not agreed to be paid for within the project
budget, by the owners. Those practitioners who have used IACJS technologies complain
that they are not integrated into systems, become obsolete rapidly, use a variety of
standards making the sharing of information nearly impossible, and are still too
expensive for use. On the other hand, those practitioners who are using IACJS
66
technologies are at the bleeding edge and find no guidance as to the best ways to
implement or deploy IACJS technologies on their construction sites. Finally, many
practitioners are concerned about security, reliable storage, and efficient and useful
interpretation of the large quantity of data streaming off the job site.
2. Structure and Organisation of the Construction Industry
The fragmentary nature and the size of the construction industry make it unreceptive to
revolutionary changes. For construction automation and robotics to work, there is a need
for compatibility with the existing design, management capabilities, labour practices and
site operations. Traditionally, construction work is organised following the RIBA Plan
of Work (Appendix 2; from RIBA website, 2005) where the work is divided into
different phases from A (Appraisal) through to L (Practical Completion). In the
construction of a building or facility, the work is usually performed sequentially, where
an architect is approached by the client to design the facility, followed by the
engagement of other consultants, such as the quantity surveyor. Only during the
tendering stage would a contractor be selected to construct the facility. The multi-point
responsibility, where different organisations are responsible for the different phases of
construction, makes it difficult for automation and robotics applications to be effective.
For these technologies to work in construction there is a need for a higher degree of
integration within the phases; to enable the design process to facilitate the use of these
technologies by incorporating repetitiveness and constructability within the design itself,
and to ensure that this is followed through to the construction process. Also, with single
point responsibility, greater research and development commitments can be made, which
will be more economically viable as the technologies investment is taken up by a single
construction firm rather than many. However, automation of a single phase, such as
automation of design through the use of CAD, is quite commonplace, and it is when
automation and robotics is to be applied throughout the construction life-cycle that
multi-point responsibility becomes a hindrance.
67
Nearly every construction product is unique i.e. custom designed and constructed and is
built to last for a long time. The work processes is also complex and non-repetitive,
generally performed over a large area or site and the work performed is peculiar to that
site i.e. each project is site specific. As work is closely related to the site, its execution is
influenced by locational conditions such as weather, labour supply and local building
codes; and the project also requires a long time to complete. The complexity and non
standardisation of the construction product is an inhibitor to greater automation and
robotics applications. The difficulty in control and maintenance if these technologies are
used in the “open” and unstructured environment of the construction site, such as
uncertain terrains in which the machines have to work, also mitigate against greater
automation.
According to the PATH group, (Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology, 2003)
barriers to robots in construction are propagated by the nature of the construction
industry. Construction is a diverse industry and one that has to cope with an almost
unique set of circumstances on each project and site. The unstructured, dynamic nature
of the construction site, the hazards and difficulties presented by temporary works,
weather and, sometimes, the shear scale of activity create barriers to the adoption of
automation. The construction industry is also not willing to put in the high risk and
costly investment into the technology.
For automation and robotics to work in construction, it is necessary to adapt the work
processes by redesigning and by converting ill-structured to well-structured working
conditions. The “culture of the building site” is usually the antithesis of good
organisation and seldom provides an environment conducive to the achievement of high
quality, or the operation of sensitive electronic equipment (Brown, 1989).
4. Technology
Developments of construction robots are technologically difficult because of the nature

of the construction work processes itself. The cheapest option is usually to adapt these
68
technologies from other industries, but the obvious differences between work processes
across the industries form a crucial barrier. To work in construction, the robots need to
be robust, flexible, with high mobility and versatility.
Stein, Gotts and Lahidji (2000) listed the different attributes of the construction robots as
compared to those in other industries. Construction robots must move about the site
because buildings are stationary and of a large size, and these robots require engines,
batteries, or motors and drive for mobility. Construction robots are also faced with
changing sites and must be reprogrammed with each new condition; and therefore
require digital control with manipulators using coordinate systems to direct three-
dimensional motion. Playback control found in most industrial robots does not suffice
for construction applications. Construction robots also have to handle large loads of
variable sizes, function under adverse weather conditions and are constantly exposed to
dust and dirt on site, creating different demands as compared to conventional industrial
robots. To overcome this, there is a need to look at how construction tasks are performed
to encourage repetition, and the construction sites need to be re-configured to provide a
more structured and controlled operating environment.
5. Culture and Human Factor
The different work cultures between countries also play an important role as barriers to
implementation. In some countries there are institutional barriers as well as active
workers unions that look upon these technologies as a way to replace the workers. In
Japan, concern about the aging construction workforce, upgrading of their academic
background and the tendency for young workers to stay away from the industry has
pushed forward the technologies (Obayashi, 1999). Construction robots can take
considerable time to set-up and need to be constantly monitored by skilled workers.
Therefore, for robots to become more commonplace on the work site, a new breed of
workers is needed; who has a strong academic background with special training in areas
of robotics engineering and control.
69
To maintain a high utilisation rate for construction automation and robotics, there is a
need to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately skilled operators to operate the
sophisticated machinery. Training needs to be provided, for formal learning of new
skills (such as programming) and onsite upgrading of skills. However, other than the
cost factors to be considered in re-training, there is also the consideration of workers not
willing to participate, possibly the older generations, who might not be interested or
might not have the aptitude to learn the necessary skills to handle sophisticated
equipment. In countries where the workforce depends on migrants to meet the demand
of the market, there is also the possibility of communication barriers or unwillingness of
employers to spend money on re-training of these workers.
2.7.2 Reducing the Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation
1. Economic and Cost
For the construction industry, the primary motivation in adopting new technologies is
the prospect of gaining a competitive advantage through lower input costs. The
willingness for construction firms to invest in R&D and implementation of these
technologies in real terms will only happen if they feel that there are greater economic
advantages to be gained by using these technologies. These will differ according to the
construction industry climate and practices in different countries. In terms of diffusing
the costs of acquiring and maintaining these technologies, large international
construction companies may have the economic capacity for taking these technologies
on board.
With fewer jobs available locally, the bigger construction companies are tapping the
overseas market. As such, globalisation and participation in international projects is a
niche with which the construction industry can take further advantage of automation and
robotics technologies, as these technologies might be a worthwhile investment if there is
a need to gain the competitive edge by operating more efficiently while reducing
construction time.The economies of scale that can be gained through the widening of the
70
operating market and repetitive use of the technologies will enable higher investments to
be made in acquiring the technologies.
Advantages in the use of construction automation and robotics technologies include

higher productivity, in that higher output can be produced at a lower unit cost; process
improvement, in that the work can be better executed; and product improvement; in that
there is greater consistency in the outcome of the work, and thus higher quality. All
these advantages will improve competitiveness of the construction firm, especially
internationally and this will in turn make the firm more willing to incur the high cost and
substantial financial commitment in taking the technologies on board.
2. Structure and Organisation of the Construction Industry
revolutionary changes. In construction, the responsibility and control is split between
different parties and since no one organisation is in charge, this hinders the innovation
process. According to IAARC (2004), one of the main reasons why construction
automation and robotics is so prevalent in Japan is that the large Japanese construction
companies exemplify the principle of single point of responsibility. By exercising
control over much of the process and its many different contributors, they are able to
undertake R&D at lower risk and with a higher expectation that the results will have
worthwhile application on their construction sites. Additionally, the construction
companies are more inclined to collaborate outside their own specialisation and to fund
and manage R&D jointly with others (IAARC, 2004). In other countries, where single
point responsibility is not the norm for most construction firms, investments in
automation and robotics technologies maybe taken up by large conglomerate firms
operating globally. For these firms, responsibility and control over the firms’ projects
and profits are usually handled under one roof.
There are also opportunities for greater implementation of automation and robotics
technologies within specific areas of construction, such as design or specialist sub-
contracting work. Automation of the design process through CAD is quite commonplace
71
in the construction industry nowadays as design software and products are readily
available with high capacity-to-cost ratio; thus providing designers with the tools needed
to produce designs economically and efficiently. The use of automation and robotics
technologies may be more applicable if emphasis is placed on the assembly and
installation of components. As mentioned before, the types that would be most relevant
that could be adopted by specialist sub-contractors are category one, enhancements to
existing construction plant and equipment; and to a lesser extent, category two, task-
specific, dedicated robots.
The product is unique in construction as compared to other industries, in that it is usually

a one-off design where there is no continuity in production. Greater implementation of
automation and robotics technologies may be possible where repetitious or common
designs is employed, such as for council housing, simple community halls or small
regional train or bus stations, where a design is repeated again and again in different
locations. This is more prevalent in some countries compared to others. In Malaysia, a
common feature of residential construction is its degree of repetitiveness, especially for
low cost housing, as the same designs and features are used repetitively but in different
locations. An example of this is Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor’s (Selangor
State Development Corporation) provision of low cost housing in the Selangor State,
where single storey terraced houses or 5-storey flats are built for the poor in different
locations of the state, but using the same design. This type of project may gain from a
greater application of automation and robotics technologies, especially if the designs and
components are standardised for ease of assembly.
Another area of construction that may be relevant to automation and robotics

technologies is civil engineering and infrastructure works. Infrastructure works such as
the construction of roads and rail, embrace fully the concept of repetitive work
processes, and again, this type of work can and have benefited from the greater use of
automation technologies and mechanisation of the construction works. Greater use of
72
automation and robotics technologies may be possible in these instances as one of the
main criteria for effective use of these technologies is the need for repetitive and
standardised work processes and a structured environment.
The construction environment is “open” and unstructured, with exposure to weather and
uncertain terrains in which machines have to work, mitigating against greater
automation. There are major differences between the construction and manufacturing
industry where automation usage is the norm, and these differences can be categorised
mainly in terms of location and work area, product life, degree of standardisation,
complexity of the work process, the workforce and the ergonomics of the work
environment. In construction, work is usually dispersed over a wide work area and
location changes from project to project. The product life is long, with little
standardisation as most building designs are unique. Construction workers usually need
to be mobile and work a large number of manual tasks, and it is quite common for these
workers to change jobs frequently between projects. The work place is not well adjusted
to automation needs in that it is rugged and unpredictable.
To make automation work in this instance, there is a need to rethink the whole process
of construction and make drastic changes to construction technology itself. This is a
more difficult approach, and can only be done in moderation. Automation technologies
may therefore work best in certain areas of the construction process, such as in
prefabrication and assembly or steelwork positioning, but not applied to the whole
construction phase. This would mean that automated machines or robots would be
brought in at the later stages of construction, where the environment is less hostile.
4. Technology

of the construction work processes itself. To work in construction, the robots need to be
robust, flexible, with high mobility and versatility. To overcome this, there is a need to
look at how construction tasks are performed to encourage repetition, and the
construction environments need to be much more structured and controlled. Technology
73
is therefore very much related to the structure and work process in the construction
industry. That is why in areas of construction where repetition is prevalent, such as
concreting, steelwork positioning, masonry and finishing, automation and robotics is
more highly used compared to other areas.
There are other areas in construction that have the potential to change in terms of
making the work process more repetitious and standardised, and we need to identify and
modify these areas to encourage greater automation. This may include the use of
modular, standardised construction products and greater off-site prefabrication.
Integrated construction automation systems – which effectively turn construction sites
into covered factories – appear to be the way forward. The Obayashi Corporation’s
ABCS system, for example, has cut construction schedules for 40-storey buildings by 6
months and its “Big Canopy” system has reduced labour forces on in-situ reinforced
concrete buildings by 75% (Taylor, Wamuziri and Smith, 2003).
Although the majority of the technologies currently in use in most countries are more
towards one end of the spectrum, that is, mechanisation rather than a fully robotised
construction system, it is encouraging to note that the industry is moving in the right
direction in terms of adopting these technologies. There is also the consideration that for
some countries, full utilisation might be unnecessary due to adequate supply of cheap
labour, or minimising cost is of main priority, especially for developing countries.
5. Culture and Human Factor
The culture and human factor may be the most difficult barrier to overcome. This would
be different from one country to another, but factors to consider include institutional
barriers, government labour policies, labour and safety regulations and workers union. In
most developed countries, the workers union form a very strong and effective barrier
towards automation, as there is resistance from the work force themselves, with general
unwillingness to replace their work skills with machines. According to Brown (1989), in
Australia, any attempt to introduce robots on to a construction site must be based on
74
three-way negotiations between the men, management and the union. Above all else,
building union representatives must be convinced that the use of robots will not threaten
their membership levels, or the jobs of their members. If prior agreement are not reached
about the use of robots on sites, there is a danger that attempts to introduce them may get
caught up in the adversarial form of industrial relations that currently operate in the
industry.
In most developing countries, labour-intensive practices are still commonplace because

of the cost factor, i.e. it is cheaper to hire man rather than invest in a machine. The large
number of small-scale contractors operating in these countries may also be another
reason impeding the infiltration of advanced technologies, as these contractors usually
operate on a relatively small turnover and would not have the revenue to invest in major
cost expenditure, such as acquiring the relatively expensive machineries.
Government policies on labour charter and certain Local Authority regulations can also
hinder automation implementation. These can be overcome by changing the mind-set of
the government and construction industry players alike regarding automation, which can
be very difficult to do. Only when it is universally accepted in the construction
community that automation is an asset and will not threaten jobs or work culture and
ethics, will automation be readily accepted.
2.8 Summary of Literature Review
Positive changes in the work culture and environment of the construction industry today
have brought forward increasing use of innovative technologies, generally implemented
to increase efficiency and competitiveness in terms of its work processes and products.
The construction industry, however, would only adopt these technologies if it can prove
to be economically viable and increase productivity and efficiency in the long term. The
literature review covers automation and robotics applications in most areas of
construction i.e. design; planning, scheduling, estimating and costing; project
management and total construction systems; and on-site operations. It was ascertained
75
from the literature review that there are numerous examples of research and
development within these areas, especially on hardware and software development.
However, literature on the common barriers hindering the infiltration of automation and
robotics into the construction work processes is not as numerous, with some publication
and articles discussed under 2.7 of the thesis. The factors that have been identified which
hinder greater automation application are, economics and cost; structure and
organisation of the construction industry; construction products and work processes;
technology; and culture or human factor. The importance of these factors towards the
adoption of these technologies in construction is seen in the form of current automation
and robotics technologies available and its real time application in construction. These
factors are denoted as the “moderator variables” which will later be applied in the data
acquisition phase of the research.
Also discussed in this chapter are the characteristics of construction technologies for on-
site work processes and the characteristics of construction automation and robotics
technologies in-use. The six main on-site construction processes that facilitate greater
use of automation and robotics technologies are deduced from the literature study of
these characteristics, and are then applied to the research questionnaire for further
investigation. The six processes identified are earthworks; structural steelwork;
concreting; building assembly or lifting and positioning of components; painting and
finishing; and total automation of construction works.
The literature review also looks at the construction industry and the global
implementation of the technologies, specifically for the countries within the scope of the
research, that is, Japan, Malaysia and Australia. The degree of implementation and level
of investments vary across the world from country to country, with the greatest
concentration of robotics application in Japan. The difference can be explained through
the different work cultures, government policies and incentives, and the organisational
point of responsibility. By taking advantage of the positive aspects to be gained in
greater use of automation and robotics technologies, the construction industry may gain
76
a competitive edge in the global market in the future. It should be noted however, the
implementation of a fully-fledged robotics technology might not be practical for all
countries, especially developing countries where as a norm, the majority of contractors
are small-scale companies operating under very tight budget constraints and where
labour is relatively cheap. In this case, improvements to productivity and quality of
construction products can be seen in adopting some level of mechanisation rather than
total automation and robotics system.
77
3.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out the research design and methodology adopted for this research. The
research design directs the research strategy by defining a plan of action, from deriving
the research questions through to answering these questions in the conclusions. It is an
overall framework and configuration of tasks of the research project, and sets out to
specify the methods for the gathering of evidence; investigate where the evidence comes
from; and evaluate how the evidence should be interpreted in order to provide answers
to the research questions. The research instruments selected are described in this chapter,
with details provided on the advantages and disadvantages of using these instruments.
Details of the pilot study that was conducted in August to September 2005 are also
discussed, including its data acquisition and preliminary analysis.
The methodology and data instrument adopted for research need to be capable of
providing in-depth, current, relevant and reliable information; and several methodologies
are available for researchers for collecting data, each with its own strengths and
weaknesses. This research adopts a sequential mixed approach of both quantitative and
qualitative methods in gathering data by using a questionnaire survey and an interview
schedule to investigate respondents’ attitude towards the usage of automation and
robotics in their construction firms. An Attitudinal Scale is developed following the
Summated Rating or Likert Scale of five and seven-point numerical scale. The survey is
on construction firms in Japan, Malaysia and Australia regarding their use of
construction automation and robotics and the practice of addressing its implementation
in construction. Semi-structured interviews surrounding the significant issues of “barrier
variables” are employed in the later stages of the research to further supplement and
strengthen the data collected from the questionnaire survey. This research therefore
employs the mixed methods strategy where data is collected sequentially, with the
78
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
questionnaire survey providing a broad information base, whilst the interview provides
the specific focus on certain characteristics or areas.
3.2 Research Design
In the process of research, the researcher embark on empirical work and collect data
which can initiate, refute or organise theories and then enable her to understand or
explain her observations. Empiricism is principally the theory that experience is the only
source of knowledge, and rejects the perception of the mind being furnished with a range
of concepts or ideas prior to experience. According to Singleton and Straits (2005), the
scientific process of investigation can be described according to Diagram 3.1, with
“knowledge” constantly remodelled to fit the facts. The horizontal line in the diagram
bisecting empirical generalisation and predictions separates the world of theory from the
world of research. Research supports the development of theory through systematic
observation that generates the facts from which theories are inferred and tested.
Figure 3.1 The Scientific Process

Source: Singleton and Straits (2005), Approaches To Social Research 4th Edition: pp23

3.2.1 Purpose of Enquiry
According to Robson (2002) the purposes of enquiry can be classified into 4 categories:
1 Exploratory – to find out what is happening, particularly in little understood situations;

to seek new insights; to ask questions; to assess phenomena in a new light; to generate
ideas and hypotheses for future research; and almost exclusively of flexible design.
79
2 Descriptive – to portray an accurate profile of persons, events or situations; requires

extensive previous knowledge of the situation etc. to be researched or described, so that
appropriate aspects on which to gather information is known; and may be of flexible
and/or fixed design.
3 Explanatory – seeks an explanation of a situation or problem, traditionally but not

necessarily in the form of causal relationships; to explain patterns relating to the
phenomenon being researched; to identify relationships between aspects of the
phenomenon; and maybe of flexible and/or fixed design.
4 Emancipatory – to create opportunities and the will to engage in social action; and is
almost exclusively of flexible design.
This research is a predominantly explanatory research, and seeks to test relationships

between variables set out under the hypothesis or the proposed conceptual model (see
Diagram 3.2).
3.2.2 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an

organised system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to
explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested
hypotheses". A hypothesis is a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is
not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific
hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory". (Wordnet,
2005) A theory, therefore, is a model or idea that has undergone testing or validation
through experiments or observations, and can be used to predict the outcome of certain
events under different sets of circumstances. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is the
tentative answer to research questions and is an expected but unconfirmed relationship
between two or more variables. According to Singleton and Straits (2005), all
hypotheses should speculate about the nature and form of a relationship; and it follows
80
that an adequate hypothesis statement about two variables should indicate which
variable predicts or causes the other and how changes in one variable are related to
changes in the other. Hypotheses that specify the form of the relationship are said to be
testable because it is possible, assuming each variable has been measured adequately, to
determine whether they are true or false, or at least whether they are probably true or
probably false.
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Framework
CONSTRUCTION AUTOMATION AND ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGIES

Independent Variable VI
EXTRANEOUS
VARIABLE VE
1 ECONOMICS
AND COST
Moderator Variable MV1
2 STRUCTURE/
ORGANISATION
CONSTRUCTION
COMPANIES
(SAMPLE)
5 CULTURE / HUMAN 3 PRODUCT AND

FACTORS PROCESSES
Moderator Variable MV5 Moderator Variable MV3
4 TECHNOLOGY
The theory of what is happening and why, within an observed situation or phenomenon,
particularly when expressed in diagrammatic form, is sometimes referred to as a
conceptual framework. A hypothesis is set out to predict the answer to the research
questions being asked concerning the level of automation and robotics implementation
in the construction industry, including its barrier variables; and this includes
investigating and evaluating the possible relationships that exists between the set
variables. The conceptual framework of this research is set out in Diagram 3.2 above.
81
3.2.3 Identification of Variables
Variables can be defined as characteristics of units that vary, taking on different values,
categories, or attributes for different observations (Singleton and Straits, 2005). For any
given research problem, the researcher can observe and measure only a few of the many
potentially relevant properties. Those variables that are the object of study – part of
some specified relationship – are called explanatory variables, and all other variables are
extraneous (Kish, 1959; cited in Singleton and Straits, 2005). There are two types of
explanatory variables: dependent and independent. The dependent variable is the one the
researcher is interested in explaining and predicting. Variation in the dependent variable
is thought to depend on or to be influenced by certain other variables. The explanatory
variables that do the influencing and explaining are called independent variables. In
terms of cause and effect, the independent variable is the presumed cause and the
dependent variable the presumed effect. Independent variables are also called predictor
variables because their values or categories may be used to predict the values or
categories of dependent variables.
A variable can also be quantitative or qualitative. A quantitative variable is when its

values or categories consist of numbers and if differences between its categories can be
expressed numerically. Qualitative variables have discrete categories, usually designated
by words or labels, and non-numerical differences between categories. (Singleton and
Straits, 2005) For this research, the variables ascertained from the survey and interviews
are both quantitative and qualitative.
3.2.4 Unit of Analysis
A unit of analysis is the unit from which information is obtained; it is the unit whose
characteristics are described. Working out the unit of analysis is important in two
aspects. Firstly, being aware of the range of possible units of analysis can help formulate
more useful and interesting research questions and highlight a range of types of relevant
data. Secondly, if data cannot be collected using a particular unit of analysis, the general
82
thrust of the question may be retained simply by changing to a unit of analysis about
which data are available. (De Vaus, 1995)
In this research survey, the unit of analysis is individual i.e. construction companies.
The survey, however also attempts to differentiate the unit of analysis according to the
countries within the scope of the research i.e. Japan, Malaysia and Australia; to compare
the level of implementation of automation and robotics in the construction industries of
the three countries. It is the intention of the researcher to investigate the units of analysis
at a single point of time. This is called a cross-sectional study, where the research will
represent a “snapshot” of one point in time. Acquisition of data will be kept within a
specific time frame in order to avoid changes in conditions; which is important
especially in the case of innovative technologies. However, due to the wide geographical
area of the sample group, for practicality and convenience, the time frame is set to be 10
months. This covers the overall time set for the questionnaire survey (6 months) and
interviews (2 months for each country), whilst allowing for some overlapping between
them.
3.2.5 Sampling
Sampling can provide an efficient and accurate way of obtaining information about a
large number of units. Its efficiency and accuracy usually depends on the type of sample
used, the size of the sample and the method of collecting data from the sample. All
members of a group are called a population. A sample is obtained by collecting
information about only some members of the population. To improve on the accuracy
and reliability of the data acquired, it is important to get samples that reflect accurately
the populations from which they are drawn, and this is called a representative sample.
The required sample size depends on two key factors: the degree of accuracy required
for the sample and the extent to which there is variation in the population with regard to
the key characteristics of the study. Other than the accuracy, cost and time are key
factors in working out the sample size. The final sample size should therefore be a
compromise between cost, accuracy and ensuring sufficient numbers for meaningful
subgroup analysis. (De Vaus, 1995) Following these facts, the sample size for the
83
questionnaire survey of this research is selected to be 80 for each country; with a total
number of 240 construction companies in the sample group. The population is all
construction companies operating in the Japanese, Malaysian and Australian
construction industries, specifically contractors, specialist sub-contractors, developers
and consultants. The sample size for the interview is selected to be 7 for each country,
with a total of 21 participants; taking into consideration the wide geographical area
covered by the research, and the inherent cost and time implications.
3.3 Research Methodology and Instruments
Various research methodologies are available in designing the research strategy, each
with its own advantages and disadvantages. Given the limitations inherent in each of the
methodologies, the best way to do most research is to combine methodological
approaches. This research will adopt the mixed method approach and under this section,
the research instruments that have been selected for this research will be discussed in
greater detail, with the appropriateness of use for this study reiterated.
3.3.1 Literature Review
Information on automation and robotics technologies is collected through a review of

academic and industry literature, and on-line search of internet websites in the research
area to form the broad knowledge base for this research. The majority of the information
was gathered from conference proceedings and journals articles, and especially relevant
is the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC)
conference series and Automation in Construction journal. The literature search includes
all current technologies and those still under development in different parts of the world,
especially the countries within the sample group, Japan, Malaysia and Australia. The
objective is to establish the extent and depth of existing knowledge on the
implementation of automation and robotics in construction and possible barriers to their
usage. The literature review assists in the formulation of the research questions, aims
and objectives; structuring the research design and methodology; and in the selection of
the research instruments to ensure a more efficient data collection and analysis. The
84
literature review for this research has been previously described in-depth in Chapter 2 of
the thesis.
3.3.2 Questionnaire Survey
Surveys are almost always carried out as part of a non-experimental fixed design. With
self-administered questionnaires such as those sent by post, there is a need to ensure
clarity and simplicity in its design so as to avoid confusion and ambiguity. There is also
a need to clearly define the technical terms or terminologies if used in the questionnaire,
to enable all the respondents to understand and answer the questions on the same basis.
In designing the questionnaire, it is usually best to use the simplest language possible,
with the questions kept concise without double-meaning or ambiguity. Negative
questions should also be avoided as these can cause confusion, and there is a need to
ensure that the questions do not artificially create opinions or are leading.
For a questionnaire-based survey, the general advantages and disadvantages are

described by Robson (2002) as follows:
1 Advantages – they provide a relatively simple and straightforward approach to the
study of attitudes, values, beliefs and motives; they may be adapted to collect general
information from almost any human population; and there are high amounts of data
standardisation.
2 Disadvantages – data are affected by the characteristics of the respondents; and
respondents would not necessarily report their beliefs, attitudes etc. accurately.
For this research, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to construction firms of
contractors, specialist sub-contractors, developers and consultants to establish the extent
of usage and related value of automation and robotics technologies within the variable
factors identified in the literature review. These companies were asked to provide input
regarding industry perception, suggested practices, barriers and future trends for
implementing the technologies. The type chosen is a closed questionnaire, divided into
five main sections, that is, demographic information; the level of implementation and
development of automation and robotics technologies; issues and concerns pertaining to
85
the use of automation and robotics technologies; perceived barriers and their impact; and
future trends and opportunities. Details of the questionnaire are further described in
Chapter 4 of the thesis.
There are several advantages to using a closed questionnaire: they are quick to answer
and may encourage participation from respondents; they can be extremely efficient at
providing large amounts of data, at relatively low cost, in a short period of time; they
allow anonymity; they are easier to code and therefore analyse; and lastly, they do not
discriminate against inarticulate respondents. However, their main disadvantages would
be that typically they have a low response rate and questions may be unclear or
ambiguous. A copy of the questionnaire for this research survey is included in Appendix
3 of the thesis.
Due to the large geographical area covered for the questionnaire survey, i.e. involving
the three countries Japan, Malaysia and Australia, it was found that mail only
questionnaire would be impractical and the respondents should be given the option of
either responding by mail, or through the web-site. This was shown by the improved rate
of response received through mail and website, conducted for the actual survey (44%) as
compared to mail only under the pilot study (35%). The increase in response rate is
especially marked for Malaysia (30% as compared to 12% before).
The website was set-up and launched at the following

address http://rohanamahbub.tripod.com; where the background of the research is
provided together with the questionnaires for Japan, Malaysia and Australia. The web
questionnaire was designed to be as user-friendly as possible - respondents were
required to “scroll down, click and point” to select the appropriate responses for each
question; before submitting the completed questionnaire directly via e-mail by clicking
the “submit” button. The questionnaire for each country is separated on different web
pages to facilitate data coding, handling and analysis.
86
3.3.3 Interviews
Interviews have a wide variety of forms and a multiplicity of uses. The most common
type of interviewing is individual, face-to-face verbal interchange, but it can also take
the form of group interviews or telephone surveys. Interviews can be structured, semi-
structured, or unstructured. It can be used for the purpose of measurement or its scope
can be the understanding of an individual or group perspective. Structured Interviews
refers to a situation in which an interviewer asks each respondent a series of pre-
established questions with a limited set of response categories. There is generally little
room for variation in response except where an infrequent open-ended question is used.
The responses are also recorded by the interviewer according to a coding scheme that
has already been established by the researcher. Unstructured Interviews provides greater
breadth, in that questions are mostly open-ended and asks for respondents’ opinions.
(Fontana and Frey, 1994)
According to Robson (2002) the advantages and disadvantages of interviews are:

1 Advantages – the interviewer can clarify questions; and the presence of the interviewer
can encourage participation and involvement.
2 Disadvantages – they can be time consuming; data may be affected by the
characteristics of the interviewers, or there may be interviewer bias; data may be
affected by interactions of interviewer / respondent characteristics; and respondents may
feel their answers are not anonymous and be less forthcoming or open.
The interviews for this research were conducted one-on-one and semi-structured, to
allow some probing and therefore gather more in-depth information on the subject to
supplement the data gathered from the questionnaire. Due to the geographical
distribution of the study population, where the potential respondents are scattered over a
wide geographical area, the sample size is relatively small, of 7 per country, with a total
number of 21, as a larger sample might prove to be expensive and inconvenient. To
ensure better coverage of the topic being investigated, the sample group for the
interview is selected from the management i.e. the decision makers, through to the
87
engineers or users of the technologies. This will enable the researcher to investigate the
questions on why the technologies are adopted in their construction firms i.e. the
decision to take them on board; as well as how it is used in the work processes i.e.
facilitating their use on site or at workers’ level. The interviews were also conducted to
provide an insight into the use of automation and robotics technologies in selected
construction companies; with the characteristics of the company, technologies in use,
and other details investigated to further facilitate understanding on the use of these
technologies and the level of implementation in the construction industry. The results of
the interview are used to support and cross-validate the questionnaire findings.
3.4 Data Management and Analysis
Data management can be defined as the operations needed for a systematic, coherent
process of data collection, storage and retrieval. These operations are aimed at ensuring
(a) high-quality, accessible data; (b) documentation of just what analyses have been
carried out; and (c) retention of data and associated analyses after the study is complete.
Data analysis contains three linked sub-processes: data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing / verification. These processes occur before data collection, during
study design and planning; during data collection as interim and early analyses are
carried out; and after data collection as final products are approached and completed.
(Huberman and Miles, 1994) The components of data analysis as an interactive model
were laid out by Huberman and Miles (1994) as the diagram in Figure 3.3 below.
Figure 3.3 Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model

Source: Huberman A.M. and Miles M.B.(1994), “Data Management and Analysis Methods”:p429

88
The use of computer software can contribute to the data analysis process not only for
managing the data and information acquired but also for constructing and expressing
theories through the manipulation of these data. Software can be used for enhanced
coding, retrieving and analysing of data through a comprehensive investigation of all the
variables. This research uses the SPSS 16.0 for Windows software for analysis of the
questionnaire data and the NUD*IST Vivo 7 (NVivo 7) software for the content analysis
of the interviews.
3.4.1. Questionnaire Analysis: SPSS 16.0 for Windows
The statistical packages most widely used today are SPSS (the Statistical Package for
Social Science), SAS (the Statistical Analysis System) and Stata. Generally, SAS is a
powerful package in terms of its data management and ability to work with numerous
data files at once; and to use it, there is need to write SAS programs that manipulate the
data and perform the data analyses. However, it also has a steep learning curve and is
one of the most difficult to learn. Stata is a package with a good combination of ease of
use and power; and it uses one line commands which can be entered one command at a
time or many at a time in a Stata Program. However, Stata primarily works with one
data file at a time so tasks that involve working with multiple files at once can be
cumbersome. SPSS is the easiest to use and has “point and click” interface that allows
users to use pull down menus to select commands to be performed. (UCLA Academic
Technology Services, 2005)
SPSS is a comprehensive and flexible statistical analysis and data management system;
generally used for conducting statistical analyses, manipulating data, and generating
tables and graphs that summarise data. SPSS can take data from almost any type of file
and use them to generate tabulated reports, charts, and plots of distributions and trends,
descriptive statistics, and conduct complex statistical analyses. Among its features are
modules for statistical data analysis, including descriptive statistics such as plots,
frequencies, charts, and lists, as well as sophisticated inferential and multivariate
statistical procedures like analysis of variance (ANOVA), factor analysis, cluster
analysis, and categorical data analysis. SPSS is particularly well-suited to survey
89
research; and simple menus and dialog box selections make it possible to perform
complex analyses. The built-in SPSS Data Editor has a simple spreadsheet-like utility
for entering data and browsing the working data file; and it is possible to create and edit
high-resolution, presentation-quality charts and plots. SPSS for Windows also reads data
files from a variety of file formats including Excel, dBASE, Lotus, and SAS. (UT
Austin, 2001 and UCLA Academic Technology Services, 2005)
SPSS is chosen for this research as the software is easiest to learn and use, and has a data
editor that resembles Excel which provides familiarity of use to the researcher. It can
also perform most general statistical analyses required, which is well-suited and
adequate for this particular research. Another important reason why SPSS is chosen is
because with SPSS, graphs can be easily created, extensively customised and pasted into
other documents such as Words or Powerpoint, which allows integration between files.
3.4.2 Content Analysis of Interviews: NUD*IST Vivo 7 (NVivo 7)
Content analysis is a quantitatively oriented technique by which standardised

measurements are applied to metrically defined units and these are used to characterise
or compare documents (Berelson, 1952; Kracauer, 1993; cited by Manning and Cullum-
Swan, 1994). Analysis of qualitative data requires sensitivity to detail and context, as
well as accurate access to information. The researcher aims to create new understanding
of the situation by exploring and interpreting complex data from the interviews,
involving the examination of text and recording growing understanding in annotations or
memos; coding and reviewing coded material by topic; rigorously searching for patterns;
building theories or explanation and grounding them in the data; displaying models; and
producing reports. For this purpose, NVivo is designed for researchers working with rich
text documents, who need to combine subtle coding with qualitative linking, shaping,
searching and modelling. (QSR website, 2005)
NVivo can facilitate the importing of pre-existing data direct from interview transcripts
fairly easily from Word files saved in Rich Text Format. As N-Vivo is a text based
system, the documents it can read is limited to word documents (doc, rtf or txt) and as
90
such, it cannot read HTML or pdf files. To work in N-Vivo, a project is created to hold
all the necessary items such as data sources, ideas at nodes, information at attributes, etc.
Qualitative research is usually about cases and the researcher is interested in studying
information about these, especially emerging factors that are central to the research
theme. Cases in N-Vivo are stored at case nodes, where all the segments of sources can
be coded and accessed accordingly. Information about cases is stored as attributes and
their values. Only case nodes can have attributes, so even when each case is represented
by only one source, it should have a case node. Attributes can be assigned to each
document pertaining to the base data (e.g. demographic information) or document status
(e.g. interview transcript); which can be changed if and when necessary. The attributes
can be used to expedite coding and indexing, limit the searching and retrieve data units
from the files created. Memos on the researcher’s ideas can be attached to nodes to
enable the researcher to create reminders about ideas developed at that particular point
as well as tracking the progress throughout data analysis. N-Vivo tools in editor allow
annotation that can be inserted in any source (document, external or memo) and memo
links that tie a memo to any source or node.
Qualitative coding gathers all the material about the category of interest to the researcher
so that she can read, assess and use it. When coding in N-Vivo, data documents are
reviewed line by line, in order to develop or apply codes to represent themes, patterns
and categories. The codes are then saved within the database as nodes that could then be
re-ordered, duplicated, merged or removed, to help visualise and locate patterns or
categories in data pertinent to the research. Types of nodes in N-Vivo include Free
Nodes – free standing nodes that do not have hierarchical relationship with other nodes;
and Tree Nodes - used when there is a need for a hierarchical structure to codes, such as
having sub-categories within the key items identified in the research that need to be
stored in “layers”. In N-Vivo, different coloured coding stripes enables the user to view
the coded source as a complete document, or produce a coding summary report that
breaks the document up according to the nodes to which it has been coded. Data can also
be graphically displayed in NVivo, involving the use of modeller and search tools. The
modeller helps in the creation, labelling and layering of connections made between ideas
91
and concepts, while the search tool enables a variety of searches of the data, coding and
supported material. It is thus possible to isolate only text associated with the searches or
the model, or to return to the wider context to confirm or challenge interpretations and
the direction of the analysis. In addition, as some of the search results are displayed in
matrix form, quantitative interpretations in the data analysis can be considered to
facilitate approaches to pattern identification and testing of qualitative data using
numeric or statistical techniques. (Jemmott, 2002; Richards, 2006) For this research, N-
Vivo is used in producing nodes and patterns, especially of the barrier variables, within
the interview data before frequency counts or percentage distributions are ascertained to
support the emerging factors or themes of interest to the research.
3.5 Pilot Study
Before proceeding with the full-scale questionnaire survey, a comprehensive pilot study
was conducted from August to September 2005, with a sample of 75 respondents
selected from construction companies across all three countries, Japan, Malaysia and
Australia. The reasons why a pilot study was conducted are: to establish the
effectiveness of the sampling frame and techniques; to develop and test the adequacy of
the research instrument; to assess the feasibility of the full-scale study; to identify
logistical problems that might occur in using the proposed methods; and to assess the
proposed data analysis techniques to uncover potential problems. In the case of this
research, it was decided that an extensive and comprehensive pilot study would be done
to take into account the large geographical area covered by the survey and for the
reasons stated above.
According to De Vaus (1995), the evaluation of individual questionnaire items should be

examined according to: variation – e.g. most people giving similar answers to a question;
meaning – ensure that respondents understand the intended meaning of the questions;
redundancy – of two questions measuring virtually the same thing; scalability – the
scales should correspond with the questions they were designed for; non-response – the
refusal of a large number of people in answering one particular question would create
difficulties in analysis later on; and acquiescent response set – questions that ask
92
respondents to agree or disagree with a statement can suffer from the tendency of some
people to agree with the statement, regardless of the question content. One way of
detecting acquiescent response set is to take questions that seem completely
contradictory and see how many people agree with both of them.
Pre-testing and a pilot study can provide valuable information that can lead to the
evaluation of items included in the questionnaire; including its clarity and
comprehension. After a thorough evaluation of questionnaire “items” in the pilot study
for this research, it was concluded that only a few minor changes were needed in
preparation for the full scale survey. However, it was discovered that the response rate
differs significantly from one country to another; which may be due to language barriers,
geographical location or differing cultures of the three countries.
In order to improve the response rate across the three countries for the actual survey, a
need to change the mode of delivery from mail only, to giving respondents a choice of
mail or website, was identified. This is especially relevant for overseas countries like
Japan and Malaysia; where allowing the respondents the choice of response has
significantly increased the response rate. In the “comment on the survey” section of the
pilot study, most respondents (76%) stated that a website questionnaire response would
be most convenient, quicker and cost effective; and this comment was taken on board
when preparing for the full-scale survey.
3.5.1 Pre-testing
It is important to test the research instrument thoroughly prior to being applied. To attest
to this, the questionnaire was firstly pre-tested by presenting it to a few people for
comments and suggestions, including the researcher’s supervisors and an engineer in
Malaysia. Refinements to the questionnaire are then made based on the feedback and
comments received. A pilot study was then conducted for a period of two months, from
1st August to 30th September 2005, to further test the instrument’s relevancy to the
research.
93
3.5.2 Data Acquisition
For the pilot study, data was collected by postal questionnaire with the main aim of
investigating respondents’ attitude towards the usage of automation and robotics in their
construction firms. The pilot study sample consists of construction firms of contractors,
specialist sub-contractors, developers and consultants in Japan, Malaysia and Australia;
and in the selection, careful considerations were made to obtain a wide range of
companies that would embody the sample for the actual survey. These companies were
asked to provide input regarding industry perception, suggested practices, barriers, and
future trends for implementing construction automation and robotics technologies.
Measurement of response is through a combination of nominal, ratio and five or seven-
point ordinal scale.
Total number of questionnaires sent out for the pilot study was 75, i.e. 25 for each
country. The respondents were requested to return the questionnaire within a month of
receiving it. A reminder was sent out a week after the due date of the questionnaire, to
elicit better response. The response rate is illustrated in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 Response Rate for Pilot Study Survey
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED

NUMBER PERCENTAGE
OF RESPONSE
Questionnaires received : AUSTRALIA 14 56%
Questionnaires received : JAPAN 9 36%
Questionnaires received : MALAYSIA 3 12%
TOTAL 26 35%
There were 26 responses out of the 75 sent out, which translates to a response rate of
35%. This is, with the exception of Malaysia, a fairly good response rate, given the data
instrument used. The acceptable useable response rate using a self-administered
questionnaire is normally about 25% to 35% (Fellows and Liu, 2003). Ways to improve
the response rate for the full-scale survey, especially for Malaysia, has been previously
discussed above.
94
3.5.3 Preliminary Data Analysis
3.5.3.1 Coding
To facilitate and simplify the process of data entry, storage, display and analysis, the
items of the questionnaire or variables need to be coded. The preliminary data analysis
performed at this stage is aimed at familiarising the researcher with the proposed
analysis techniques that are to be used later on in the full-scale survey. Its purpose is also
as a learning process; and to check and improve on the data instrument that has been
used.
3.5.3.2 Levels of Measurement
There are usually four levels of measurement used: nominal, ordinal, ratio and interval.
Nominal Variables are variables that simply name different attributes (e.g. gender,
colour) and cannot be measured or ranked. Ordinal Variables arrange attributes and
rank them in some order, e.g. high to low, agree to disagree etc. Ordinal variables share
the nominal variable quality of distinguishing differences among people or subjects, but
they add the quality of rank ordering those differences. Ratio Variables are measurable
variables with a genuine zero point e.g. number of staff, age, income etc; and for this
variable, it is possible to say that $40 is twice as much as $20. Interval Variables are
variables that have the quality of standard intervals of measurement but lack a genuine
zero point e.g. intelligence quotient (IQ). In SPSS, interval and ratio variables are
grouped together under a single category called scale. (Babbie et al, 2003) The variables
for this research are identified as nominal, ordinal and ratio; with no interval variables.
As analysis is done through SPSS, the ratio variables are categorised as scale.
3.5.3.3 Analysis
The reasons for conducting the preliminary data analysis at this stage is to put the
research into perspective, to provide testing of the questionnaire and to ensure that it
would be appropriate for the full-scale survey. The analysis for the pilot study was not as
rigorous as for the full-scale survey, as the purpose of this preliminary analysis is only in
95
improving the research instrument through some “trial runs” of the results; and not for
performing a thorough and comprehensive analysis. Performing the trial runs will also
enable the researcher to evaluate the adequacy and relevancy of the instrument selected
for this research. As the sample group comprises of three sub-groups, the analysis will
be separated into three sample groups; Japan, Malaysia and Australia. Studying the
groups separately will later on facilitate comparison of various categories and variables
between the sub-groups. However, as the response rate for Malaysia is very low, for the
pilot study, the preliminary analysis is only done for Australia and Japan. The results of
the pilot study for Australia and Japan were presented in Mahbub and Humphreys
(2006).
1. Profile of Respondents
The majority of the Japanese respondents (44%) are within the AU$150million to
AU$500million gross annual revenue bracket, and employing more than 1000 full time
staff; whilst the majority of the Australian respondents (29%) are within the
AU$50million to AU$150million bracket, employing 251 to 500 full time staff.
Figure 3.4 Pilot Study – Profile of Respondents
COMPANY'S GROSS ANNUAL

NUMBER OF FULL TIME STAFF
REVENUE
4
4
3
3
2 2
Japan
Australia
1
1
0
$1.5-5M
$5-25M
$25-50M
$50-150M
$150-500M
MORE$500M
0
11to31
51to100
101to250
251to500
500to1000
MORE1000
96
2. Usage Area and Level of Implementation
Construction automation and robotics usage is measured for the following construction
phases: design, scheduling and planning, costing, project management and on-site
construction. It was found that the level of usage differs significantly between the two
countries with higher usage in Japan (89%) compared to Australia (50%). In Australia,
usage is generally low with slightly more prominent usage in the Design and Scheduling
& Planning phases compared to other phases; and minimum application for on-site
construction (more than 85% never uses automation and robotics for on-site
construction). For Japan, there are higher applications across the areas, including on-site
application. The analysis is as illustrated in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5 Pilot Study – Usage Area and Level of Implementation
AUSTRALIA:A&R USAGE JAPAN:A&R USAGE
12 5
4.5
10
4
3.5
8
Design 3
SchePlan
6 Cost 2.5
PM
OnSite 2
4
1.5
1
2
0.5
0 0
Never Sometimes Highly Never Sometimes Highly
97
3. Respondents’ Length of Time of Using Automation and Robotics
In Australia, the majority of respondents (50%) have never used automation and robotics
technologies, whilst 14% have been using the technologies for 1 to 2 years and 3 to 5
years respectively; indicating that the application of automation and robotics
technologies are fairly new in Australia. In Japan, most respondents (88.9%) have used
the technologies for more than 10 years, indicating that the technologies are fairly
established in Japan.
Figure 3.6 Pilot Study – Length of Time of Using Automation and Robotics
5
Australia
4 Japan
0
Never 1-2yrs 2-3yrs 3-5yrs 5-10yrs More10yrs
98
4 On-site Construction Application
On-site application is measured for the following construction areas: earthworks;

structural steelwork; concreting; building assembly / lifting and positioning of
components; painting and finishing; and total automation. In the Australian sample
group, only 14% respondents use automation and robotics technologies for on-site
construction. The level of on-site application is very low in Australia; and minimum
applications can be seen in the areas of earthworks, structural steelwork and concreting.
In Japan, there are greater applications on site across all areas. The on-site usage is as
illustrated in the following bar charts in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7 Pilot Study – On-site Construction Application
AUSTRALIA:ON-SITE A&R USAGE JAPAN:ON-SITE A&R USAGE
14 6
12
5
10
Earthwk 4
StrucSt
8
Concrete
BuildAsb
3
6 PaintFin
TotalAut
2
4
2 1
0 0
Never Sometimes Highly
Never Sometimes Highly
5. Perceived Barriers
Respondents are requested to rate on their perceived barriers to automation and robotics
technologies implementation in the construction industry. The categories are: acquiring
and buying costs; maintenance and updating costs; incompatibility with current practices
and construction operations; fragmentary nature and size of industry; difficult to use and
99
not easily understood; unavailable locally or is difficult to acquire; not easily accepted
by workers and workers’ union; and lastly, low technology literacy of project
participants. The results and analysis are illustrated below in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 Pilot Study – Perceived Barriers
AUSTRALIA : BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION

10
6
Insignificant
5
Minor
4 Moderate
Major
3
TotallySig
2
0
Unavailable
HCostMaint
Incompat
Fragment
HCostBuy
NotAccept
LowTechLit
Difficultuse
JAPAN : BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION

9
5 Insignificant
Minor
4
Moderate
3 Major
TotallySig
2
0
Unavailable
HCostMaint
Incompat
Fragment
HCostBuy
NotAccept
LowTechLit
Difficultuse
100
From the eight perceived barrier factors listed in the questionnaire, it can be concluded
for the pilot study that most respondents is of the opinion that Barrier 1: Cost of Buying,
Barrier 2: Cost of Maintaining; and Barrier 3: Incompatibility are the most significant
barriers; with the least significant barriers being Barrier 6: Unavailable Locally,
Barrier 7: Not Easily Accepted by Workers, and Barrier 8: Low Technology Literacy.
The results indicate that respondents find cost of the technologies and incompatibility
with current practices and construction operations as the main hindrance to adopting
these technologies in their companies. The technology itself, in terms of difficulty in
usage and availability, and acceptance by the workers, is not seen as very significant in
creating barriers to implementation.
3.6 Summary
This chapter outlines and describes the research design and methodology for this study,
from the purpose of enquiry, through to the theoretical and conceptual framework; and
discussions on the selected data instruments. The development of the research
framework provides a roadmap for the progression of this research in terms of the
direction and related information pertaining to the study; whilst the formulation of the
theoretical and conceptual framework assists in clearly laying out the variables that form
the focal point of this research. The data instruments selected, that is the questionnaire
survey and interview, were also discussed and reasons on why they were chosen for this
research are outlined in section 3.3. The literature review facilitates the identification of
knowledge gaps for which this study addresses.
For the pilot study, the preliminary analysis of selected items of the questionnaire has
highlighted a number of important points regarding the implementation of automation
and robotics in the Australian and Japanese construction industries. Generally, it can be
concluded that the usage of automation and robotics in the Australian construction
industry is low, especially for on-site construction works, with some usage in the Design
and Scheduling & Planning phases. There is higher usage in the Japanese construction
industry, with applications in mostly all phases of construction. In Australia, the
application of construction automation and robotics technologies is fairly new whilst in
101
Japan their usage is well established, with most respondent firms having used the
technologies for 10 years or more. The significant barriers to implementation, for both
Japan and Australia, are cost of buying and acquiring, cost of updating and maintaining,
and incompatibility with existing practices and construction operations. These barriers
may be overcome through globalisation and the widening of the construction companies’
operating market, to enable them to gain the economies of scale through the repetitive
use of the technologies; and also by encouraging more repetitive and structured work
processes. The relevancy of implementing these technologies in the construction
industry will differ significantly from country to country, but advantages may be gained
for countries where labour shortages are acute or is expensive.
102
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the data collection phase of the research. Data can be collected in
a variety of ways, in indifferent settings, and from different sources. Generally, data
collection methods include interviews which could be face-to-face, by telephone,
computer-assisted, or through the electronic media; questionnaires which could be
personally administered, sent through the mail, or electronically administered;
observation of individuals and events with or without videotaping or audio recording;
and a variety of other motivational techniques such as projective tests (Sekaran, 2000).
The data collected can be primary or secondary data. Primary data is original data that is
collected, compiled and studied for a specific purpose. In the case of this research, the
raw survey responses from the structured questionnaire survey and the interview
responses that were conducted for the purpose of discovering current attitudes on
automation and robotics implementation in construction form the primary data.
Secondary data is information that has been previously gathered for some purpose other
than the current research. The two basic sources of secondary data are: data available
within the organisation (internal data) and information available from published and
electronic sources originating outside the organisation (external data). (Wilson, 2003)
For this research, the information on automation and robotics technologies collected
through a review of academic and industry literature, and on-line search of internet
websites in the research area form the secondary data.
The research methodology and data instruments adopted for collecting data, as
mentioned in Chapter 3, are questionnaire survey and interviews, involving a sequential
mixed approach of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The survey is targeted for
construction firms in Japan, Malaysia and Australia regarding their use of construction
103
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA COLLECTION – JAPAN, MALAYSIA AND AUSTRALIA
automation and robotics and the practice of addressing its implementation and probable
barriers in construction. Semi-structured interviews surrounding significant issues are
employed in the later stages of the research to further supplement and strengthen the
data collected from the questionnaire survey. Data is therefore collected sequentially,
with the questionnaire survey providing a broad information base, whilst the interview
provides the specific focus on certain characteristics or areas. Care has to be taken in
developing the questionnaire and interviews as data collection involves cross-cultural
communication; and these cultural influences need to be addressed so as to deal with the
validity issues within the research.
4.2 Cross-Cultural Data Collection: Japan, Malaysia and Australia
According to Reynolds and Valentine (2004), each culture creates a worldview, a unique
perspective of reality, a distinctive set of beliefs, values, and attitudes. To develop a
sensitive communication tool that bridges across different cultures, there is a need to see
through a perspective different from one’s own and achieve some understanding of these
unique worlds. Fundamental elements underpinning culture and its impact on
communication, based on Reynolds and Valentine (2004) include:
4.2.1 Relationship and Social Framework
In Australia, people place great importance on individuality, independence and self

reliance; and therefore communication tends to be direct, explicit and personal. In this
case, the social framework of low context cultures place less emphasis on the context of
a communication (such as implied meaning or body language) and rely on explicit
verbal messages.
Collectivism is common in most Asian countries such as Japan and Malaysia, where
children are taught to listen, to defer to elders, and to fit in the family or clan. Here,
communication is intuitive, complex and impressionistic; and relies a lot on “reading
between the lines”. The high context cultures therefore emphasise the context in which a
communication takes place; and they pay a great deal of attention to implicit, non-verbal
104
messages. The order in which information is presented in Japanese sentences is different.

In English, important information tends to be given first, with less important items left
towards the end. In Japanese, less important items are gotten out of the way first, setting
the stage for the important information, which comes at the end. The Japanese hint at
what has to be done, and even the hints are softened by using impersonal statements in
passive construction.
It is important therefore, to take this on board, especially during the interview sessions.
The Australians would mostly answer questions directly and explicitly, and will impose
opinions where they think the situation warrants it. On the other hand, the Japanese and
Malaysians will not directly disagree with whatever topics of discussion that the
interviewer would bring up, and in some cases, there may be a need to rely on body
language and hints given to see whether the respondents truly agree or disagree with the
statements given. To ensure the reliability of the data collected in terms of cultural
differences, there is a need for sensitivity on the part of the interviewer especially in re-
confirming points that have been raised but have not been directly disagreed upon.
4.2.2 Time
Three most common ways cultures define or measure time are: cultures that follow
“linear” (monochromic) time perform one major activity at a time; cultures that are
“flexible” (polychromic) work on several activities simultaneously; and cultures that
view time as “cyclical” (circular, repetitive) allow events to unfold naturally. Cultures
that follow the linear concept of time view it as a precious commodity to be used and not
wasted. (Reynolds and Valentine, 2004) They value schedules, focus on the future, and
measure time in small units. In Australia, for example, appointments are made in
segments and people generally dislike lateness. They dislike interruptions, such as phone
calls, during the interview sessions and expect complete concentration on the task. It is
therefore, common courtesy, when conducting the interviews in Australia, to adhere to
this and keep the interview session within the time allocation of one hour.
105
In contrast, cultures that view time flexibly value relationships over schedule and tend to
focus on the present. In Malaysia, it is expected that there is an average waiting time of
about half an hour beyond the scheduled appointment, as the participant may be running
late or is still in the previous meeting. Time becomes a subjective commodity that can be
manipulated and stretched; and meetings will not be rushed. In this sense, the interview
session may sometimes last up to two hours, to take into account the longer time needed
for the establishment of relationship and familiarity between the interviewer and
participant at the initial start of the session.
In cyclical time cultures, time manages life and humans must adjust to time; focussing
on long term goals and seeking to understand linkages and connections. In Japan, people
have a keen sense of the value of time and respect punctuality; this is dictated by
politeness or by form and will have little impact on the actual speed with which business
is done. In the case of the topics raised during the interview, the Japanese tends to be
more contemplative and looks at the questions in terms of the background, history of
application, and what has been done in Japan more extensively than other cultures.
4.2.3 Power
The view of power varies widely across cultures, affecting communication in many
ways. In the “high power distance” cultures, communication tends to be restricted and
emanates from the top of the hierarchy. In “low power distance” cultures, the distance
between the more powerful and the less powerful is smaller and communication flows
up as well as down. Australia tends to have low power distance where hierarchies are
less rigid; with Japan somewhere in the middle, and Malaysia with high power distance.
According to Hofstede (2001), his research on cultural priorities in 40 countries has
shown that Austria has the lowest power distance index at 11 points, whereas Malaysia
has the highest at 104 points. The English-speaking and Northern European countries all
have a power distance index of less than 40 points. Differences in power are expressed
in many different ways, some obvious and some more hidden. Signs of power include
education and profession; family connections; age; gender; language, dialect and accent;
106
attire; titles and greetings; and office arrangement. An example of this can be
demonstrated in the informal use of first names when greeting a potential participant in
an Australian culture, where such informality convey the flat hierarchical or democratic
structure of the low power distance culture. In Malaysia, the use of the correct title is of
utmost importance when addressing someone in a formal interview session, and care has
to be taken in ensuring that the interviewer is familiar with all the participant’s titles, as
it would be considered discourteous otherwise. A person will usually be referred to by
his title of Professor, Datuk (a title conferred by the Malay King to deserving individuals)
etc rather than his given name. Sensitivity on the part of the interviewer when addressing
the participants, and the way the questions are phrased in view of the participant’s
“status”, has ensured the smooth running and keen involvement of the participant for the
interviews.
4.3 Data Collection Methods
Both the primary data collection procedures were instigated with specific objectives in
mind. The questionnaire survey was conducted with the purpose of obtaining an overall
perspective on the opinions and attitudes of a range of construction industry players on
the level of use, implementation, barriers and future of construction automation and
robotics technologies. The interviews were carried out to provide specific focus on
mainly the core factors affecting levels of usage and the barriers to implementation, with
the aim of using the qualitative results from the interviews in explaining and interpreting
the results and findings of the primary quantitative survey.
4.3.1 Questionnaire Survey
For Phase One, data were collected by postal and internet questionnaires. The selected
participants in the sample group of the three countries were sent a copy of the
questionnaire by post; with an accompanying letter introducing the researcher, stating
the background and objectives of the research, and confidentiality statement. The letter
also directs the participant to the website address where the questionnaire has been set-
107
up; and gives the participant the option of either replying by post through the stamp-
addressed envelope provided or via the website. As expected, it was found that replies
were more prompt, especially for overseas participants, when replying through the
internet. E-mails and letters were used as reminders and in following up the survey
forms. The questionnaire was divided into five main areas. Definitions of terms
predominantly used in the questionnaire were provided on the front page, to avoid
confusion and misinterpretation amongst the participants, especially on the research
definition of “construction automation and robotics”. The front page of the questionnaire
also provided the contact details of the researcher, including the specific website address
according to that particular participant’s country sample group. As mentioned before in
section 3.3.2, the questionnaire for each country is separated on different web pages to
facilitate data coding, handling and analysis.
Section A: Demographic Information sets out questions on background information

regarding the participants; including type of business; sectors of the industry in which
they operate; gross annual revenue and number of full time staff. This part is used for
categorising the data in terms of the demography of the participants, and relating usage
factors of construction automation and robotics technologies to say, the sector in which
the company operates, or the size of the company.
Section B: Level of Implementation and Development comprises of questions on

whether or not the participating company uses the technologies; and if they do, areas of
construction in which they have utilised the technologies, both generally and specific to
on-site application; length of time they have used the technologies; and whether the
technologies that they use are acquired from outside or within the companies.
Section C: Issues and Concerns Pertaining to the Use of Automation and Robotics
Technologies contains questions on why the companies use the technologies more
predominantly in certain areas but not others; what they think are the problems
associated with the use of the technologies; the areas of construction in which they think
the technologies are more suited to compared to others; and their opinions on whether
108
larger companies operating on a global scale predominantly use the technologies

compared to smaller companies.
Section D: Perceived Barriers for On-Site Construction focuses on questions for on-
site application, and seeks the participants’ opinion on barriers to on-site construction
and how they might be minimised or overcome. A Likert Scale of seven-point
numerical scale is provided for each barrier factor, ranging from “Insignificant” to
“Totally Significant”.
Scale for Rating of Impact for Questions 17 and 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Insignificant Little Minor Moderate Major Very Totally
Significant Significant Significant
17 Please rate the following barriers to the Rating of Impact
implementation of automation & robotics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
technologies for on-site construction
(a) High costs / substantial financial
commitment in acquiring the technologies
(b) Automation & robotics technologies are
expensive to update and maintain
(c) Incompatibility of the technologies with
existing practices and current
construction operations.
(d) The fragmentary nature and size of the
construction industry makes the
technologies difficult to implement
(e) Automation & robotics technologies are
difficult to use and not easily understood
(f) Automation & robotics technologies are
unavailable locally or difficult to acquire
(g) The technologies are not easily accepted
by the workers and workers union
(h) Low technology literacy of project
participants / need for re-training of
workers
Others (please specify) :
Section E: Future Trends and Opportunities comprises of a list of statements on future

trends and opportunities for the implementation of construction automation and robotics
technologies that the participants can agree or disagree to. Again, the Likert seven-point
numerical scale is provided for each statement, ranging from “Strongly Agree” to
“Strongly Disagree”. The participants are also invited to provide comments on the
opportunities available to construction companies in terms of increasing the use of
automation and robotics technologies in their construction projects.
109
Scale for Level of Agreement for Question 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Agree
Disagree
19 Future Trends ( for the next 10 years) Level of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) There will be greater awareness of
automation & robotics technologies within
the construction industry community
(b) Automation and robotics technologies will
be cheaper to acquire and operate
(c) There will be a significantly larger range of
automation & robotics technologies
available for use in construction
(d) The use of automation & robotics
technologies will enable firms to operate
more efficiently and competitively
(e) In future, there will be greater
standardisation of the design and
construction processes.
(f) The technologies will be easily available
across the world
(g) The number of construction companies
using automation & robotics technologies
will increase significantly
(h) Automation & robotics technologies will be
easier to install and operate
(i) There will be greater integration within the
construction industry in terms of control
and responsibility for design and
construction.
(j) The technologies will be readily accepted
by the workers and the industry
In addition, Section F: General Comments was included at the end of the questionnaire
to prompt responses from participants with regard to the survey and the use of
construction automation and robotics in general.
The questionnaire survey was conducted for all three countries within a six month period;
Feb to July 2006; with extra time allocated for follow-ups. Responses from Australia
were received relatively promptly, but slight delays were experienced for Japan and
Malaysia, especially for those opting for postal replies.
110
4.3.2 Interviews
Phase Two of the data collection involved conducting semi-structured, one-on-one

interviews with a selected number of participants involved in the construction industry
in Japan, Malaysia and Australia. According to Gorman and Clayton (2005), individual
and group interviewing can obtain detailed, in-depth information from subjects who
know a great deal about their personal perceptions of events, processes and
environments. Interviews also have the potential to offer balance and corroboration
where observed phenomena are complex or involve a number of factors. Interviewing as
used in qualitative research offers two important advantages. First, the person being
interviewed is encouraged, by the use of open-ended questions or by non-directive
listening, to highlight self-perceived issues or relationships of importance. This can be of
inestimable value in understanding contexts and creating links that are such key aspects
of qualitative research. Second, dialogue between researcher and subject allows the
interaction to move in new and perhaps unexpected directions, thereby adding both
depth and breadth to one’s understanding of the issues involved.
In conducting the interviews, the researcher discovered that, especially when the
subject’s command of English is limited, body language plays a very important part in
gauging the subject’s understanding of the question or elements in the discussion. This
enables the researcher to quickly redirect the interview on to the intended topic, or in
some cases, clarify on what is requested of the subject with relation to the questions
being asked. This is especially useful as the interviews involved participants from
overseas, where in the case of Malaysia, English is the second language; and in Japan,
where command of the language for some participants may be limited. Other than the
language itself, a one-on-one interview situation enables the researcher to clarify certain
aspects of the research more fully to the participant, especially in terms of definitions of
certain research terminologies, or where the participant is unreceptive towards the
research topic itself.
111
A total of 21 construction industry practitioners across the three countries were selected
for the interview, i.e. seven from each country. Selection is based on the nature of work
(project managers, company director, consultants, engineers, contractors); the company
they work in (large multi-conglomerate, medium size or local companies); familiarity
with construction automation and robotics technologies (both ends of the spectrum were
selected); and their willingness to participate in the interview. The average length of the
interview was one hour, and the interview was conducted following an interview
schedule prepared earlier so as to provide structure and direction for each interview
session. The total time allocated for the interviews phase was 6 months, which is about
two months for each country. The interviews were transcribed with the important and
relevant points extracted from the data. This data reduction process created condensed
interview texts which facilitates data organisation and analysis.
4.4 Reliability and Validity of Data
In any set of data collected, there will be some amount of error that needs to be
minimised in order for the data to give a more accurate reflection of the truth.
Reliability is the extent to which a measurement procedure yields the same answer
however and whenever it is carried out; and validity is the extent to which it gives the
correct answer (Gorman and Clayton, 2005). There is a need to maintain reliability and
validity throughout the research process so as to ensure that all the components of
research being conducted measures up to the elements under study; and to make certain
that the most suitable methods, instruments, techniques and procedures have been
selected and implemented.
Validity can be categorised and defined (Sekaran, 2000; Ruane, 2005) as the following:
• Internal Validity – refers to the confidence we place in the cause and effect
relationship (E.g. Variable X “High Cost” causes variable Y “Lower Level of
Implementation”). The key to achieving internal validity is a good solid research
plan or strategy. Non-experimental research designs limits the internal validity of a
112
research; but researchers may be compelled to employ this research strategy due to a
number of reasons: limitations imposed by the nature of variables being investigated;
by ethical or political implications; or by the issues of external validity.
• External Validity – refers to the extent of generalisation of the results of a causal

study to other settings, people, or events. Sound sampling strategies are important to
ensure the possibility of generalisation from the survey data.
According to Litwin (1995), validity must be documented when evaluating new or

established survey instruments to new populations; and it is an important measure of a
survey instrument’s accuracy. Types of validity include:
• Face Validity – based on a cursory review of items by untrained judges; and this
might involve a preliminary presentation of the survey to a few untrained
individuals to seek their general understanding on the questions being asked or
clarity of the sentence structure.
• Content Validity – a subjective measure of how appropriate the items seem to a set
of reviewers who have some knowledge on the subject matter. The assessment of
content validity typically involves an organised review of the survey’s content to
ensure that it includes everything it should and excludes anything it should not.
• Criterion Validity – a measure of how well one instrument stacks up against another
instrument or predictor. It provides much more quantitative evidence on the accuracy
of a survey instrument; and may be measured differently, depending on the
availability of published literature in the area of study. Two components of criterion
validity are concurrent (tested against a known standard) and predictive (calculated
as a correlation coefficient between initial test and secondary outcome) validity.
• Construct Validity – a measure of how meaningful the scale or survey instrument is

when in practical use.
113
The steps that were taken to maintain reliability and validity throughout this research
process are as follow:
1. Research topic, problem formulation, research questions and objectives – the state of
implementation of automation and robotics in the construction industry were
established through extensive literature review, with the areas of potential research
identified and investigated by employing the researcher’s personal and professional
background knowledge.
2. Research Variables – a comprehensive literature review on similar researches were

carried out, and the significant variables relating to the barriers to implementation of
construction automation and robotics ascertained. This is then used to formulate the
conceptual and theoretical framework of the research. It is fundamental that the
review performed at this stage addresses the issues of validity by employing accurate
definitions and measures of variables in relation to the literature review conducted.
3. Sampling and Selection of Participants – for the quantitative phase of the

questionnaire survey, random sampling is used so that results could be generalised to
the population; and for the qualitative phase of the interviews, judgement sampling is
chosen to enable information rich industry players to provide the most relevant and
useful information. The sampling strategy chosen deals with external validity.
4. Measuring Instruments – questionnaire surveys and interviews have been used in

numerous similar researchers and has consistently found to be reliable and valid; and
this addresses the internal validity of the research.
5. Pre-testing and Pilot Study – pre-testing addresses the face and content validity of
the research, whilst the pilot study, to a certain extent, addresses the criterion validity
of the research.
6. Data Collection Procedures – there is a need to ensure that a set of procedures is set-
up for managing, organising, coding and categorising data; and this relate to the
construct validity of the research instrument.
114
7. Data Analysis – it is important that the most suitable statistical tests are chosen for
the analysis of the quantitative data and an appropriate indexing and text searching
tool is selected for the processing of the qualitative data, to ensure statistical and
construct validity.
8. Interpretation and findings – these include employing triangulation by using

qualitative findings to support the conclusions drawn from quantitative analysis; as
well as incorporating imperative points from the literature review. There is also the
need to ensure that the scope of the research highlights the limitations or any
biasness inherent in the research.
4.5 Coding and Analysis of Data
In mixed methods research, data analysis relates to the type of research strategy chosen
for the procedures (Creswell, 2003). In the data collection phase of the research, the raw
data collected through the questionnaire survey and interviews were reduced, edited,
transcribed (for interviews), coded and categorised, before they were inputted into the
chosen software for analysis. As this research adopts the sequential explanatory mixed
method strategy, analysis occurs both within the quantitative (descriptive and inferential
statistical analysis) approach and the qualitative (description and thematic text) approach.
The procedures for the analyses of the data in both the quantitative (questionnaire survey)
and qualitative (interviews) phases are explained in this chapter, with the results and
findings presented in the proceeding chapter 5.
Data analysis has the objectives of exploring the relationships and patterns within the
data, examining the effectiveness of data, and testing the hypotheses developed for the
research. Relationships and patterns can be studies by checking the central tendency and
the dispersion, which will give the researcher an indication on how the participants have
responded to the items in the questionnaire and how effective the items and measures
were. Once the data are ready for analysis, appropriate statistical tests should be chosen
for each hypothesis proposed or each data set obtained for the research.
115
4.5.1 Phase One: Quantitative Data Analysis
After data have been obtained through the questionnaires responses, they need to be
edited and coded before the analysis can be performed. The questionnaire data were
checked for incompleteness and inconsistencies. Items may have been left blank or
unanswered, and if a substantial number of questions – say, 25% of the items in the
questionnaire – have been left unanswered, the questionnaire may have to be thrown out
and not included in the data set for analysis (Sekaran, 2000). In the case of this research,
after thorough examination and editing of the questionnaire responses, it was found that
all questions were answered satisfactorily by all participants, with no missing values.
4.5.1.1 Quantitative Coding
As the quantitative data analysis is executed using the SPSS 16.0 software, coding is
done accordingly to facilitate analysis using the chosen software. With SPSS, the
variables are entered into the SPSS Data Editor using an abbreviated code, with the full
variable information available for viewing under Utilities/Variables or File/Display
Data File Information/Working File. In data reduction and editing, a code book is
prepared for all variables and possible responses in the questionnaire, to assist in
entering data into SPSS for display, storage and analysis. An abbreviated version of the
code book for the questionnaire is as shown in Appendix 4 of the thesis.
As explained earlier in Chapter 3, SPSS can take data from almost any type of file and
use them to generate tabulated reports, charts, and plots of distributions and trends; and
perform descriptive and complex statistical analyses. Like most data analysis programs,
SPSS is capable of computing many different statistical procedures with different types
of data. However, due to its generalisation, there is a need to direct the data to be
explored, and select the statistical procedures that is deemed most suitable for the
purpose (Babbie et al, 2007).
116
4.5.1.2 Statistical Tests
In research, choosing the right statistical tests and techniques that are appropriate to the
data collected is an important consideration. The first step is to look at the patterns in
the raw data that has been collected, and together with the patterns or relationship that
may already be expected from the previous review of theory and literature, a hypothesis
can be made. The hypotheses can represent a range of situations that the researcher
wants the chosen tests to be able to diagnose.
Statistics is divided into two main areas: descriptive and inferential. Descriptive
statistics involves arranging, summarising and presenting a set of data using graphical or
tabular techniques and numerical descriptive measures (for example, mean) to yield
useful information about the data. Inferential statistics are used in generalising from a
sample to a wider population, and in testing hypotheses, that is deciding whether the
data is consistent with the research prediction.
The distinction between levels of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio, as

previously discussed in chapter 3) is important as it determines what type of statistical
analysis is appropriate, and whether the parametric or non-parametric tests should be
used. The steps on deciding on which statistical tests should be used, given the set of
data collected, is best described in Diagram 4.1, as extracted from Foster (2002). As
most of the data collected in this research involves ordinal measurements, with mostly
non-normal distribution, the most appropriate statistical tests would be non-parametric
tests; although descriptive statistics in the form of clustered bar charts, frequency tables
and cross-tabulation for bivariate and multivariate analysis of the variables are also
extensively used in the analysis process.
117
Figure 4.1 Deciding Which Statistical Test To Use

Source: Foster J (2002), Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows: pp21

118
As the two most important factors in determining the correct statistical techniques are
the research objectives and the data type, there is a need to identify the broad objectives
of the questionnaire and the type of data collected for the five sections, so that the
appropriate statistical tests can be chosen for analysis purposes.
Table 4.1 Summary of Data Type and Objectives of Questionnaire
SECTIONS TYPE OF OBJECTIVE OF QUESTIONS TREATMENT

DATA1 OF DATA
Understand the characteristics of the • Frequency counts
SECTION A: Qualitative sample for the three countries by • Clustered bar charts;
DEMOGRAPHY Ordinal determining: establish “peaks” or
Quantitative • Business type modes, cited as
• Sector percentages
• Size of company (annual revenue and • Simple numerical
number of staff) statistics for
• Branch offices (local and international) determining central
tendency and
variability
• Determine level of use of automation • Frequency counts
SECTION B: Qualitative and robotics for the three countries • Clustered bar charts
LEVEL OF USE Ordinal within five areas of construction; • Analyse relationship
design, scheduling, costing, project between two
management and on-site construction. variables (cross-
• Determine length of usage tabulation, Χ2-test of
• Establish where technology is acquired a contingency table,
• Link Section A and B by establishing measure strength of
level of usage with variables from correlation using e.g.
Section A lambda, gamma
values)
• Determine areas within construction • Frequency counts
SECTION C: Qualitative where automation and robotics are • Clustered bar charts
ISSUES ON
USAGE
mostly used • Compare the
• List problems associated with usage populations of
• Determine construction sectors where Japan, Malaysia and
automation and robotics are most Australia (crosstab
suited to and Χ2-test of a
• Opinion on whether automation and contingency table)
robotics are most suited to larger or on usage issues
international companies.
• Determine perceived barriers of the Compare the

SECTION D: Ordinal technologies for on-site construction populations of Japan,
PERCEIVED
• Establish how these barriers can be Malaysia and Australia
BARRIERS
minimised (Kruskal-Wallis and
Mann-Whitney) on
barriers and solutions
Compare the
SECTION E: Ordinal Ascertain future trends and opportunities populations of Japan,
FUTURE Malaysia and Australia
TRENDS
(Kruskal-Wallis and
Mann-Whitney) on
future trends
1
Note: Quantitative (Interval): Values are real numbers; all calculations are valid.
Ordinal (Ranked): Values must represent the ranked order of the data.
Qualitative (Nominal): values are the arbitrary numbers that represent categories and
only calculation based on frequencies of occurrences are valid.
119
Most sections of the questionnaire survey use the nominal and ordinal levels of
measurement to categorise and rank items. The earlier sections of the research analysis
mainly employ cross-tabulation with phi coefficient, contingency correlation
coefficient(C), lambda and gamma values applied to assess strength of relationship
between variables; whilst sections D and E use non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and
Mann-Whitney U) for hypotheses testing and in inferring the group samples (Japan,
Malaysia, Australia) to the population.
Cross-tabulation: The simplest way to look at association between two variables is by

using cross-tabulation, and it can be used for any level of measurement. Cross-tabulation
of data requires minimum quantitative knowledge and analysis involves two-way
frequency tabulation utilising percentages. The analysis of a cross-tabulation table for
group differences is referred to as contingency table analysis, and is used for nominal
data that are independent. Examples include: Is there a possible relationship between
level of use of automation and robotics with 1type of business, 2sector of industry, 3size
of company, and 4whether company operates locally or internationally? Cross-tabulation
performed on these variables will provide an association, and if the variables have been
designated as independent and dependent variables, the relationship can be further
interpreted as positive or inverse. Although cross-tabulation indicate that a relationship
exists between two variables, they do not provide a summary indicator of the strength of
relationship, and this is done using phi coefficient or contingency correlation
coefficient(C). Both measures of association, phi and C, have the general interpretation
of showing stronger relationships as they approach 1 (with the range of phi being -1 to 1
and C being 0 to approaching 1).
Kruskal-Wallis: This is a non-parametric test that makes no assumption about the

parameters (for example, mean and variance) of a distribution, and is applied in the
following circumstances:
1. The objective is to compare two or more populations
2. The data are either ranked or quantitative but non-normal.
3. The samples are independent.
120
As the data is ranked, in Kruskal-Wallis, population locations are tested instead of

population means; and in all applications of the test, the null and alternative hypotheses
are:
Ho: The locations of all k populations are the same
Ha: At least two population locations differ
where k represents the number of populations to be compared (for this research, k = 3)
As the conclusion drawn is based on sample data, there is a risk of executing a Type I
error (reject Ho when it is true, probability committing it is α) or Type II error (reject
Ha when it is true, probability committing it is β). As α is inversely related to β, the value
of α is usually selected to be between 1% to 10% [Keller and Warrack (1997) and
Selvanathan (2004)]. The level of significance (α) used to test the hypotheses for this
research is 5%, which is the most common level used. The confidence level refers to the
probability that the estimations are correct which in this case is 95%; p≤0.05.
In addition, the Two-Independent-Samples procedure for pair-wise group comparison

available on the Mann-Whitney U test was chosen as a complementing option as the
Kruskal-Wallis test only indicate that some differences exist, but not how the groups
differ. The two-Independent-Sample procedure tests the null hypothesis that two or more
independent samples come from the same population. It does not assume normality and
can be used to test ordinal variables with similar distribution in both groups. The Mann-
Whitney U-statistic is a measure of the difference between the ranked observations of
the two samples.
4.5.2 Phase Two: Qualitative Data Analysis
The analysis of qualitative data in Phase 2 was facilitated by the use of NUD*IST (Non-
numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorising) Vivo 7 as described in
3.4.2 of the thesis. The document file holds all the documentary data and interview
transcripts, as well as memos about these. The nodes represent categories of data that is
important to the research project, and memos of the researcher’s ideas can be attached to
121
these. NVivo works with text documents, and facilitates the indexing of components of
these documents; is able to search for words and phrases very quickly; and can support
theorising through enabling the retrieval of indexed text segments, related memos, and
text and index searches; and through the construction of a hierarchically structured tree
to order index categories. The program provides a systematic way of organising, keeping
and modifying all data, topics, categories, results, and research notes. (Richards, 2005
and Richards, 2006)
4.5.2.1 Qualitative Coding
Qualitative coding gathers all the material about the topics or category of the interview
text, then assess and use it. When coding in NVivo, it places pointers to the extracts
selected to be coded, according to source, whose content is being coded, and the node, at
which reference is placed to the relevant material (Richards, 2006). For this research, the
categories are mainly coded under Tree Nodes (stored in hierarchical catalogues) and
Cases. The categories that emerge from the code note headings of the interviews form
the basic framework that constitutes core materials for answering this study’s research
questions. The core materials for analysis are formed by the comments and notes
categorised under these headings, which are found to be useful in explaining or
interpreting the findings of the research.
4.5.2.2 Content Analysis
For this research, NVivo is mainly used to facilitate indexing, and studying the patterns
of relationships between set categories, to be used in making comparisons, and
observing differences and similarities between them. The content analysis that was
carried out for the interviews was done to ascertain patterns of responses amongst the
participants relating to barriers to implementation; in support of the quantitative analysis
performed for the questionnaire. The extent or emphasis placed by each participant
within the three sample groups from Japan Malaysia, and Australia for each barrier
category previously defined were studied in terms of the amount of information gathered
122
and frequency of occurrences within the interview text documents. The node headings
and categories for this research can be summarised as shown in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Code Note Headings and Node Categories For NVivo 7 Content Analysis
CODE NOTE HEADINGS: SUB-CATEGORIES NODE

KEY AREAS/ CATEGORIES CATEGORIES
Profile of Interviewees ID (Interview No. according to sample Base Data /
group; e.g., J1 for Interviewee 1 from Demographics
Japan) ( Analysis:
Profession frequency)
Company Details
Impact of Core Factors on Level Type of Business
of Usage Construction Sector
Annual Revenue
Number of Full Time Staff Descriptive and
Barrier Variables Different Construction Areas Usage Conceptual
Cost (Analysis: content
Fragmented Industry “phrases”)
Difficult to Use
Incompatibility
Re-training
Unavailable
Not accepted
Differing Levels of Usage Characteristics
Between Countries Labour
Market Share
Policies
Workers’ Union
Culture
Future trends and Opportunities Aware Accept
Afford Available
Increase Use
Develop Technology
More Integration
Here, the base data containing key characteristics (demographic information) of each
interview were indexed under their own node. The three broad types of coding adopted
are descriptive, conceptual and base data. Descriptive nodes contain the full record of
respondents’ interview transcript and conceptual nodes contain textual segments that
have been identified as having a common meaning that are not apparent within the
transcript. Selected text were also coded as free nodes, with free standing memos created
to highlight on important issues in the transcript that may require further elaboration.
The data were then compared and categories were merged and revised, to allow for an
123
emerging pattern to be captured within a smaller number of categories, so as to facilitate

investigation of the relevant issues without undue complication.
The key categories for this phase of the research are mostly determined by the research
questions and areas that emerge during the conceptual formulation stage of the research.
The key categories analysis involve the main areas of core factors that determine the
level of use of automation and robotics in construction, barriers to the infiltration of
automation and robotics technologies into the construction work processes, the reasons
why there are greater use of automation and robotics in one country compared to another
(Japan, Malaysia and Australia), and future trends and opportunities; including sub-
categories under each item to further support the interpretation of data.
4.5.3 Integration, Synthesising and Interpretation of Data for Phases One and Two
The two data sets analysed under Phase 1: Questionnaire and Phase 2: Interviews, are
then integrated; in that the findings from phase two are used to elaborate and extend the
analysis results of phase one of the research. The process of synthesising and integrating
the results of both phases, is also discussed and placed in context with the literature
review previously described concerning barriers to the implementation of automation
and robotics in construction. This data integration phase, including the results and
findings of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis phases, will be further explained
in chapter 6 of the thesis.
4.6 Ethical Considerations
Ultimately, all research endeavours must abide by standards of professionalism and

honesty; and research ethics relate to protecting the rights of the participants parallel to
facilitating the research process; so that the outcome of the research is not only
beneficial to the community under research and the public, but that it is done in the most
ethical way possible. One of the important elements of ethical research is informed
consent, which is the right of the participants to be fully informed about all aspects of
124
the research that might influence their decision to participate. There is also a need to
consider the participants’ right to privacy, depending on the sensitivity of the
information gathered and the disseminating process of the research findings. The
confidentiality statement provided early on in the research when soliciting responses
from the participants is the researcher’s assurance that the information gathered from
these participants will not be linked to them publicly.
This research was done in accordance with the guidelines provided by the QUT
Research Ethics Committee; which involved the approval and clearance for the research
topic; the data collection methods; the instruments used including the information
required and materials used; the sample population; treatment of the data; confidentiality
issues; dissemination of results and findings; and the intellectual properties and copy
right issues. This is dealt with in the research by the provision of cover letters giving
information about the research, providing assurance of confidentiality, outlining the
possible benefits of the research and soliciting voluntary participation from the sample
group. For the interview phase, the participants were also requested to sign optional
consent forms reinstating their voluntary participation (Appendix 5).
4.7 Summary
This chapter described the data collection phase of the research; specifically the
gathering of primary data through questionnaires and interviews. As the data collection
phase involved three countries, Japan, Malaysia and Australia, cross-cultural issues were
also discussed. These issues include relationship and social framework, time, and power,
which differ from country to country; and sensitivity on the part of the interviewer is
required in order to obtain as accurate and reliable information as possible. The data
collection methods were also examined; including the reliability and validity of the data
gathered in relation to the methods used. This chapter also reiterates the coding,
presentation, and analysis methods of data adopted for the research; and any ethical
considerations pertaining to the research.
125
5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the detailed statistical quantitative, ordinal and qualitative
analysis of the two phases of data collection for the research, which are the questionnaire
survey and interviews. Data analysis is a carefully planned step in the research process
that should take into careful consideration the purpose of the analysis, which in this case
is to provide information for deriving at answers to the research questions set out in
chapter 1 of the thesis.
As mentioned earlier in chapter 4, after data is collected, the pre-analytical process is

conducted, where data is edited to check for clarity, readability, consistency, and
completeness of the collected data, before the data can be transferred to the chosen
storage medium and inputted, with the appropriate data coding, into SPSS for the
questionnaire survey and N-Vivo for the interviews. A pre-analytical check or “data
cleaning” is also done using SPSS as final screening to ensure completeness and
consistency, which involves generating a series of frequency tabulations on sets of
questions to check for inconsistencies and missing data. Frequency tables allow the
researcher to check that there are no values that are outside the permissible range, or in
the case of doing a more elaborate analysis such as cross-tabulations, to assess whether
particular groups within the data set only have values that are valid for them. Some
unusual responses discovered during the data cleaning process are then cross-checked
with the questionnaire received, and corrected by ascribing the appropriate value in the
case of data entry mistake, or missing value in the case of an invalid response.
Data will become meaningful only after analysis has provided a set of descriptions,
relationships, and differences that are of use in addressing the research objectives. In the
case of this research, the purpose of data analysis is both in uncovering phenomenon that
may describe or be related to a situation in some way, such as looking at the possible
126
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS – QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND INTERVIEWS
relationship between level of use of automation and robotics and size of company (cross-
tabulations, bivariate and multivariate analysis) and relating the research sample to the
construction industry population of Japan, Malaysia and Australia (inferential statistics
and hypothesis testing; through tests conducted such as Kruskal-Wallis and Mann
Whitney U test of independent samples).
5.2 Questionnaire Survey Analysis
As mentioned before, the questionnaire survey is divided into five sections, and each
section will be analysed separately depending on the types of data collected and the
intended purpose of the questions in relation to the research and its objectives. To
reiterate, the types of data that has been collected through the questionnaire survey are:
• Quantitative (Interval): Values are real numbers; all calculations are valid; and data
may be treated as ordinal or qualitative.
• Ordinal (Ranked): Values must represent the ranked order of the data, calculations
based on an ordering process are valid; and data may be treated as nominal but not as
quantitative.
• Qualitative (Nominal): values are the arbitrary numbers that represent categories;
only calculation based on frequencies of occurrences are valid; and data may not be
treated as ordinal or quantitative.
[ Selvanathan et al (2004) and Keller and Warrack (1997) ]
Statistically, measuring the central location or average value and variability of the data
will give a clearer indication of the characteristics of the sample data which will then
enable the researcher to better predict its distribution. In calculating the numerical
descriptive measure of the central or average value, the three most commonly used are
mean, median and mode. If the data are qualitative, it is meaningless to use the mean or
the median; the mode should be used. Conversely, if the measurement is quantitative, all
three measures are significant; and for descriptive purposes, it is usually best to look at
all three values, as each conveys fairly different information. Furthermore, the relative
positions of the mean and the median can provide some information about the shape of
127
the distribution of the measurements. The relationship between the three measures and
their effect on the distribution is best described in the diagram below:
Figure 5.1 Relationship Between Mean, Median and Mode
SYMMETRICAL POSITIVELY SKEWED NEGATIVELY SKEWED

DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION (TO THE RIGHT) DISTRIBUTION (TO THE LEFT)
R
E R R
L E E
A L L
T A A
I T T
V I I
E V V
E E
F
R F F
E R R
Q E E
U Q Q
E U U
N E
M E
C N N
Y C M M E C M M
Y O E A E M O
MEAN Y
D D N A E D
MEDIAN E I N D E
MODE A I
N A
N
To summarise, the mean is therefore used to describe the central location of quantitative
data where there are no extreme values; the median used to describe ordinal or
quantitative data with extreme observations; and the mode used to describe quantitative,
qualitative and ordinal data.
The variability of data is important in order to check for the spread and consistency of
the data and can be measured by range, variance, standard deviation and coefficient
of variation. Measure of variability for a distribution can be best summarised in
Diagram 5.2 below.
Figure 5.2 Low and High Variability
HIGH VARIABILITY LOW VARIABILITY
R F
E R R F
L E E R
A Q L E
T U A Q
I E T U
V N I E
E C V N
Y E C
Y
128
For the questionnaires data, numerical measures of location and variability using mean
and standard deviation are only limitedly applied for the analysis of interval variables in
Section A, whereas descriptive statistics in the forms of graphical presentation and tables
(frequency distributions) are employed more extensively, with mode used to measure
their central tendency. Frequency counts are used for univariate analysis of variables
whilst cross-tabulations are used for bivariate or multivariate analysis of the variables
involving nominal or ordinal scales. The other frequently used analysis for this research
is inferential statistics in the form of non-parametric tests such as Kruskal-Wallis as
explained earlier in chapter 4, to take into account that the sample comprises of three
countries, Japan, Malaysia and Australia.
5.2.1 Response Rate
A total of 240 questionnaires, consisting of 80 questionnaires per country, were sent out
to construction companies in Japan, Malaysia and Australia. This is the sample size
selected for the population of all Japanese Malaysian, and Australian construction
companies, specifically contractors, specialist sub-contractors, developers and consultant,
as previously discussed in section 3.2.5 of the thesis.
Table 5.1 Response Rate for Questionnaire Survey
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED

NUMBER PERCENTAGE
OF RESPONSE
Questionnaires received : AUSTRALIA 51 64%
Questionnaires received : JAPAN 30 38%
Questionnaires received : MALAYSIA 24 30%
TOTAL 105 44%
105 responses were received out of the total of 240 sent out, which translates to a
response rate of 44%. This is a fairly good response rate, given the data instrument used.
According to Fellow and Liu (2003), the acceptable useable response rate using a self-
administered questionnaire is normally about 25% to 35%. This is also a vast
improvement in terms of questionnaires received compared to the pilot study, especially
for Malaysia. The majority of Malaysian participants, 71% (17 out of the 24 received)
129
chose to answer using the website option that has been set up for this phase of data
collection, improving the response rate as compared to the pilot study from 12% to 30%.
The highest number of responses received is from Australia, forming 64% of the total 80
sent out for this subset, followed by 38% for Japan and 30% for Malaysia. All in all, the
measures taken on board to improve the response rate after analysing the results of the
pilot study have improved the total response rate by up to 9% overall.
5.2.2 Section A: Demographic Information
The information under this section relates to the profile of respondents of the survey.
Analysis is done separately for the sub-groups Japan, Malaysia and Australia for
comparison purposes and is in the form of frequency counts and percentages. An
understanding and awareness of the characteristics of the sample population assists in
focussing the analysis and putting the results into perspective.
Business type: As illustrated in the bar chart below, for Australia, the majority of
respondents (55%) are contractors, whilst for Japan the majority (43%) are consultants.
Contractors and developers form an equally significant number of respondents (38%
each) for Malaysia. Sub-contractors form the minority of respondents (less than 10%)
for all three countries.
130
Sector of industry that company operates: 60% of companies in Japan operate in all
sectors of construction from residential, non-residential to civil engineering works and
infrastructure. This may be a direct reflection of a fact discovered under literature review
that the majority of construction companies in Japan, especially the larger ones, have
single point responsibility, where control is exercised over much of the process and its
many contributors. These conglomerates are also usually involved across the board in all
sectors of the construction industry in both the domestic and international market.
Annual revenue: All Japanese respondents’ annual revenue is within categories 5, 6 and
7, of AUD50 million to more than AUD500 million (30%, 40% and 30% respectively);
which is skewed to the left and of the higher end of the annual revenue. Australian
companies’ annual revenue peaks at around AUD50 million to AUD150 million
(category 5); whilst the Malaysian sample is made up of smaller companies, peaking at
AUD1.5 million to AUD25 million.
131
Number of full time staff: Another indication of the size of the company, other than
annual revenue, is the number of full time staff working in the company. The majority of
Japanese companies in the sample peaks at around 251 to more than 1000 staff
(categories 5, 6 and 7); whilst the Australian companies peaks at around 101 to 1000
staff (categories 4, 5 and 6). Malaysian companies are more or less evenly distributed
from 1 to 10 people (category 1) at 21%, 251 to 500 people (category 5) at 34% and 501
to 1000 people (category 6) also at 34%.
132
Number of branch offices: More than 60% of the Malaysian companies in the sample
group do not have branch offices within their country (62%) or outside the country
(90%). For Australia, the majority (18%) has 1 to 5 branches within the country and
none outside the country (78%); whilst for Japan, 50% have 6 to 10 branches within
their country and 40% has 1 to 5 branches outside the country. This is an indication that
most of the construction companies in the Japanese sample operate globally as only 30%
do not have overseas branches. However, companies who do not have overseas branches
are sometimes still active in the international market, as denoted by the interviews with
Japanese participants which will be discussed further in section 5.3 of this chapter.
133
Values calculated for central tendency and variability for this variable is illustrated in
the Table 5.2 below. These values are useful for comparison purposes with the
frequency counts.
Table 5.2 Central Tendency and Variability Values of Branch Offices
DESCRIPTIVE JAPAN MALAYSIA AUSTRALIA TOTAL

STATISTICS Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch
within outside within outside within outside within outside
N 30 30 24 24 51 51 105 105
Mean 15.7 4.6 2.6 0.5 6.8 1.7 8.3 2.3
Median 10.0 3.0 0 0 4.0 0 5 0
Mode 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Standard Deviation 14.3 5.4 5.0 1.5 6.7 3.2 10.4 4.0
Variance 204.2 29.6 24.7 2.2 44.7 10.5 108.3 16.2
Skewness 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.1 1.6 2.4 2.2
Range 51 18 16 5 21 10 54 18
134
Here, because of some extreme values, the mean appears to be much larger than the
median and mode. A more accurate measurement of central tendency is therefore the
median and mode, which shows that the distribution for number of branches both within
and outside the country for Japan has a positive skew to the right. For Australia, within
the country there is a positive skew but it shows a very strong indication for none
outside the country. Malaysia shows a strong indication for none within and outside the
country.
5.2.3 Section B: Level of Implementation and Development
Does company use automation and robotics: The majority 90% of Japanese
companies uses automation and robotics, whilst for Australia 65% uses the technology.
In Malaysia, half the number of companies, 50% uses the technology. A more useful
indication of usage is in looking at areas within which the technologies are used, as most
companies may only use automation in the design stage (in the form of design software
such as Computer Aided Design).
Areas most used for companies employing automation and robotics: 1Design,
2
Scheduling and Planning, 3Costing and Tendering, 4Project Management and 5On-
site Construction: The percentages of usage for the five areas in each country are as
illustrated in the diagrams below.
135
136
In Design, the majority of companies in all three countries do not use automation and
robotics, but Japan shows a higher usage at 35% percent compared to other countries
(13% Malaysia and 12% Australia for “Highly”). The frequency distribution also
indicates that most countries also use the technology regularly (21% Japan, 26%
Malaysia and 25% Australia) in design.
In Scheduling and Planning, Japan uses the technology regularly at 50%, whilst the
majority of Malaysian (64%) and Australian (42%) companies do not use the technology
in this area. However, compared to Malaysia, there is a higher regular usage in Australia
at 50%.
In Costing and Tendering, Japan peaks with regular usage at 72%, whilst Malaysia
peaks at 75% for never using the technology in this area. Australia peaks at 54% for
never using the technology but it is interesting to note that a small number of Australian
companies use the technology “highly” at 17%.
In Project Management, Japan peaks at 70% for sometimes using the technology, and
Malaysia and Australia peaks at 75% and 59% respectively for never using the
technology. Again, there are a small number of companies in Australia who highly use
the technology, and this is a reflection of a few conglomerates in the Australian sample
employing the technology highly from design to project management.
For On-site Construction, there is an indication that Japanese companies do use
automation and robotics, but not greatly, at 28% for seldom, 32% for sometimes and
10% for regularly. Most Malaysian and Australian companies in the sample have never
used the technology, at 88% and 78% respectively. There are a small number of
Australian companies sometimes using the technology at 18%.
Overall, Japan uses the technology across the board, with less usage in on-site
construction compared to the other areas. However, there is still a greater percentage of
on-site application for Japan as mentioned earlier (on-site usage: 70% Japan, 12%
Malaysia and 22% Australia), compared to Malaysia and Australia. The prevalent areas
of usage for Malaysia and Australia are in Scheduling/ Planning, Design and Costing/
Tendering, with some applications in Project Management. Australia however, uses the
technology slightly more on-site compared to Malaysia.
137
To provide better clarity to the distribution of usage for the five areas of construction,
the descriptive statistical analysis is performed; firstly a general analysis across the
samples, then secondly, a more specific analysis for each country. The results are as
presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 below.
Table 5.3 Construction Areas Usage for All Countries: Descriptive Statistics
DESCRIPTIVE DESIGN SCHEDULE/ COSTING PROJECT ON-SITE

STATISTICS PLANNING MGMT CONST
N 105 105 105 105 105
Mean 2.11 2.77 2.35 2.10 1.58
Standard Deviation 1.195 1.577 1.481 1.278 0.886
Variance 1.429 2.486 2.192 1.633 0.784
Range 3 4 4 4 3
Mean Ranking 3 1 2 4 5
Table 5.4 Construction Areas Usage for Japan, Malaysia and Australia: Descriptive Statistics
COUNTRY DESCRIPTIVE DESIGN SCHEDULE/ COSTING PROJECT ON-SITE

STATISTICS PLANNING MGMT CONST
JAPAN N 30 30 30 30 30
Mean 2.40 3.30 3.20 2.60 2.23
Variance 1.903 1.666 1.614 1.076 1.013
MALAYSIA N 24 24 24 24 24
Mean 2.00 2.12 1.62 1.62 1.13
Variance 1.304 2.462 1.288 1.288 0.114
AUSTRALIA N 51 51 51 51 51
Mean 2.00 2.76 2.20 2.04 1.41
Variance 1.200 2.704 2.321 1.918 0.607
The descriptive analyses results show that generally, the technologies are mostly used in
the scheduling and planning phase, with a mean of 2.77, followed by costing and design.
The technologies are least used for on-site construction, as mentioned before, with a
mean value of merely 1.58. Specific descriptive statistical analyses for the three
countries have revealed that the mean ranking of usage varies slightly in between
countries, but the top-ranked, scheduling and planning, and the last ranked, on-site
construction, remains consistent. It can therefore be confirmed that the technologies are
commonly least used for on-site construction, but with greater usage in Japan, at a mean
of 2.23 compared to Malaysia (1.13) and Australia (1.41).
138
Length of use: Most companies in Japan (60%) have used automation and robotics
technologies for more than 10 years; whilst most in Malaysia (50%) and Australia (35%)
have never used the technology. In Australia, 18% of companies have used the
technology between 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years and more than 10 years. In Malaysia,
27% of companies have used it for 5 to 10 years.
Are the majority of the automation and robotics technologies used acquired from
outside the company? Of the 90% in Japan, 50% in Malaysia and 65% in Australia
who use the technology, only the Japanese sample has indicated that the technology is
not acquired from outside (20%) but from their own Research and Development
department.
139
Areas of usage for on-site construction: Of the percentage of companies who uses the
technology on site (70% Japan, 12% Malaysia and 22% Australia), areas of on-site
usage investigated include Earthworks, Structural Steelwork, Concreting, Building
Assembly, Painting/ Finishing and Total Automation. For Japan, areas most used are
in structural steelwork, concreting, building assembly and painting/ finishing. For the
Malaysian sample group, there is only limited use in structural steelwork (14% for
sometimes used). For Australia, there is a small percentage of usage across the areas,
again most probably reflecting the few conglomerates in the sample group who uses the
technology for overseas applications (this will be discussed further under the analysis for
interviews).
140
Cross-tabulation for Variables in Section A and B
Cross-tabulation is used to determine whether there is an association between two

variables; including describing their relationship, the strength of the association, and in
some cases, the direction of association. The cross-tabulation generated under SPSS
shows the joint distribution for the two variables under study in rows and columns.
However, direction of association can only be determined if both variables are greater
than nominal. Where the sample size is not equal, it is more appropriate to calculate
relative frequencies rather than frequency counts when comparing variables.
Measure of association is used when studying the strength of relationship between two
variables; that is are they dependent or do they affect each other? There are a number of
measures that can be used including lambda, Goodman and Kruskal tau, Spearman’s rho
141
etc, but as mentioned before, the most suitable measures to be used in this research,
taking into account that the cross-tabs are performed for mostly nominal and ordinal
variables, are lambda, phi coefficient or contingency correlation coefficient(C) and
gamma or Kendall’s tau when both variables are ordinal with many points on the scale.
Question 1: Is there an association between type of business and level of use?
This is investigated by studying the relationship between Type of Business and Usage
of Automation and Robotics. Cross-tabulation of these two variables shows the
following:
Table 5.5 Cross-tab Table for Type of Business and Level of Use
DOES TYPE OF BUSINESS
COMPANY FREQUENCY COUNT AND
1 2 Sub- 3 4
USE A&R? PERCENTAGES
Contractor Contractor Consultant Developer Total
1 Yes Count 34 7 19 12 72
% within Type of Business 69.4% 87.5% 63.3% 66.7% 68.6%
2 No Count 15 1 11 6 33
Total Count 49 8 30 18 105

Examining the cross-tab table, it can be seen that 87.5% of companies using automation
and robotics are sub-contractors, suggesting it is possible that sub-contractors who may
be involved in specialist works are more likely to use the technology. To examine this
further, there is a need to consider the following question:
What is the strength of association between type of business and level of use?
Here, as the researcher is only measuring the strength and not the direction of
association, phi coefficient or contingency correlation coefficient(C) is used. Both
measures have the general interpretation of showing stronger relationships as they
approach 1 (with the range of phi being -1 to 1 and C being 0 to approaching 1). For
these variables, the value of Phi is 0.129 and C is 0.128, showing a fairly weak
association.
142
Question 2: Is there an association between the construction sector in which the

company operates and level of use?
This is investigated by studying the relationship between Construction Sector and

Usage of Automation and Robotics.
Table 5.6 Cross-tab Table for Construction Sector and Level of Use
SECTOR IN WHICH COMPANY OPERATES
DOES FREQUENCY 5
COMPANY COUNT AND 3 Civil Residential
Engineering 4 All of & Non-
USE A&R? PERCENTAGES 1 2 Non- works & the Residential
Residential Residential Infrastructure Above Only Total
1 Yes Count 8 11 12 34 7 72
% within Sector 66.7% 64.7% 66.7% 77.3% 50.0% 68.6%
2 No Count 4 6 6 10 7 33
% within Sector 33.3% 35.3% 33.3% 22.7% 50.0% 31.4%
Total Count 12 17 18 44 14 105

% within Sector 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The cross-tab table shows that 77.3% of companies using automation and robotics are
involved in all sectors of construction, implying that companies with multiple concerns
are most likely to invest in the technology. To test the degree of association, there is a
need to ask:
What is the strength of association between construction sector and level of use?
Here, the value of Phi and C are calculated as 0.194 and 0.191 respectively, again,
showing a fairly weak association.
Question 3: Is there an association between the size of the company and level of use?
This differs slightly from the previous two questions in that size of company may be
related to two variables, specifically Annual Revenue and Number of Staff. It is a
good idea therefore, before looking at the variables in Question 3, to generate the cross-
tab for Annual Revenue and Number of Staff (see Appendix 6 for complete cross-tab
table of these variables) and look at their pattern, strength and direction of association. If
there is a strong correlation between the two variables, then it can be deduced that level
of use may be associated with either annual revenue or number of staff.
143
As these are ordinal variables, gamma, Spearman’s rho or Kendall’s tau can be used to
determine strength and direction of association. Gamma is used in this case, which is a
symmetric measure of association where the value calculated will be the same regardless
of which variable is specified as independent and which is specified as dependent. The
range of possible values is between -1 to 1, where gamma of -1 indicates perfect
negative association and gamma of +1 indicates perfect positive association. A gamma
value of 0 indicates no association. The gamma value calculated for these variables is
0.695, implying a very strong association. As the cross-tab table for these variables
exhibits equal number of rows and columns, it is possible to verify the strong association
indicated by gamma by calculating Kendall’s tau-b (values ranging from -1 to +1). The
value of Kendall’s tau-b is 0.584, again indicating a fairly strong association.
Proceeding to the next step, that is, cross-tabulating Size of Company (using Annual
Revenue) with Level of Use gives the following table:
Table 5.7 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use
DOES FREQUENCY ANNUAL REVENUE*
COMPANY COUNT AND
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
1 Yes Count 3 6 9 5 17 17 15 72
% within
Annual 100.0% 85.7% 64.3% 55.6% 58.6% 77.3% 71.4% 68.6%
Revenue
2 No Count 0 1 5 4 12 5 6 33
% within
Annual .0% 14.3% 35.7% 44.4% 41.4% 22.7% 28.6% 31.4%
Revenue
Total Count 3 7 14 9 29 22 21 105

% within
Annual 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Revenue
*Note: Annual Revenue Categories
1= Less than AUD0.2M/ JPY17M/ RM0.6M
2= AUD0.2M-1.5M/ JPY17M-127.5M/ RM0.6M-4.5M
3= AUD1.5M-25M/ JPY127.5M-2.1B/ RM4.5M-75M
4= AUD25M-50M/ JPY2.1B-4.25B/ RM75M-150M
5= AUD50M-150M/ JPY4.25B-12.75B/ RM150M-450M
6= AUD150M-500M/ JPY12.75B-42.5B/ RM450M-1500M
7= More than AUD500M/ JPY42.5B/ RM1500M
144
When measuring the strength of association, as at least one variable is nominal, lambda
or Goodman and Kruskal tau can be used. Values of lambda can be interpreted (Black,
1993) according to Table 5.8 below.
Table 5.8 Interpreting Values of Lambda
RANGE RELATIVE STRENGTH

0.0 No relationship
0> to 0.2 Very weak, negligible relationship
0.2 to 0.4 Weak, low association
0.4 to 0.7 Moderate association
0.7 to 0.9 Strong, high, marked association
0.9 to <1.0 Very high, very strong relationship
1.0 Perfect association
One property of lambda is that the value can sometimes equal 0 even when there is an
association. The cause of the problem is data that is highly skewed along the dependent
variable. The value of lambda for Annual Revenue and Level of Use here is zero; which
needs further clarification on whether this means that there is no relationship, or the
value is exhibiting the property of lambda as described before. The distribution of the
variable is plotted and shows that it is highly skewed to the left (see previous clustered
bar chart for Annual Revenue). One way to resolve this is to study the cross-tab tables
for the Annual Revenue and Level of Use for individual countries (multivariate analysis
with country identification as third variable) to check for possible association.
Table 5.9 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use for Japan
DOES COMPANY USE ANNUAL REVENUE
A&R? FREQUENCY COUNT AND
PERCENTAGES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
1 Yes Count - - - - 7 11 9 27
% within Annual Revenue - - - - 77.8% 91.7% 100.0% 90.0%
2 No Count - - - - 2 1 0 3
% within Annual Revenue - - - - 22.2% 8.3% .0% 10.0%
Total Count - - - - 9 12 9 30
% within Annual Revenue - - - - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The Japanese sample comprises of larger companies with categories 5, 6 and 7 for
annual revenue. The evidence of the relative frequencies here clearly shows a strong
relationship between size of company and level of usage (100% uses the technology for
category 7, with a strong 90% usage overall).
145
Table 5.10 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use for Malaysia
DOES FREQUENCY ANNUAL REVENUE
COMPANY COUNT AND
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
1 Yes Count 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 12
% within
Annual 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 50.0%
Revenue
2 No Count 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 12
% within
Annual .0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% 50.0%
Revenue
Total Count 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 24
% within
Annual 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Revenue
There is no clear indication of association here for the Malaysia sample. This may be
because the Malaysian companies mostly use the technology during the design stage;
and usage at this stage may involve both smaller and larger companies as the cost
implications are quite moderate.
Table 5.11 Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Level of Use for Australia
DOES ANNUAL REVENUE
COMPANY USE FREQUENCY COUNT
A&R? AND PERCENTAGES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
1 Yes Count - 3 6 5 10 3 6 33
% within Annual
- 75.0% 75.0% 83.3% 58.8% 42.9% 66.7% 64.7%
Revenue
2 No Count - 1 2 1 7 4 3 18
% within Annual
- 25.0% 25.0% 16.7% 41.2% 57.1% 33.3% 35.3%
Revenue
Total Count - 4 8 6 17 7 9 51
% within Annual -
Revenue 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The case for the Australian sample is also similar to that of Malaysia, and may be due to
the same reason stated above.
146
To conclude, it is not possible to state that there is a correlation between size of

company and level of usage, as there are other factors that come into play such as areas
of usage. Smaller companies tend to use automation technologies during the earlier parts
of construction (such as design or scheduling/planning) as readily available software and
products with high capacity-to-cost ratio are vastly available on the market. Further
investigation of the variables will be performed later to specifically study size of
company with level of use for on-site application.
Question 4: Is there an association between the number of international branches and

level of use?
The number of international branches is investigated against the level of use to ascertain
whether companies operating overseas within a global market tend to use more of the
technology compared to those who do not. Cross-tabulating Number of International
Branches and Usage of Automation and Robotics give the following table:
Table 5.12 Cross-tab Table for Number of International Branches and Level of Use
NUMBER OF BRANCHES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY
DOES COMPANY USE A&R? FREQUENCY COUNT AND PERCENTAGES
None 1 to 5 6 to 10 16 to 20 Total
1 Yes Count 39 18 12 3 72
% within Branches Outside 56.5% 100.0% 80.0% 100.0% 68.6%
2 No Count 30 0 3 0 33
% within Branches Outside 43.5% .0% 20.0% .0% 31.4%
Total Count 69 18 15 3 105

The cross-tab table shows a very strong indication that most companies with
international branches use automation and robotics, with 100% using the technology
when they have 16 to 20 branches. This is supported by the fact that inversely, the
majority 43.5% of companies with no overseas branches does not use the technology,
with only 20% of those having 6 to 10 branches overseas not using the technology. To
test this further, there is a need to look at the cross-tab of these variables for individual
countries. As the overall distribution is highly skewed to the right, the value of lambda,
like before, might not give a clear correlation between the variables.
147
Table 5.13 Cross-tab Table for Number of International Branches and Level of Use for Japan,
Malaysia and Australia
JAPAN NUMBER OF BRANCHES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY
DOES COMPANY FREQUENCY COUNT AND

1 Yes Count 6 12 6 3 27
2 No Count 3 0 0 0 3
% within Branches Outside 33.3% .0% .0% .0% 10.0%
Total Count 9 12 6 3 30
MALAYSIA NUMBER OF BRANCHES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY

1 Yes Count 9 3 - - 12
% within Branches Outside 42.9% 100.0% - - 50.0%
2 No Count 12 0 - - 12
% within Branches Outside 57.1% .0% - - 50.0%
Total Count 21 3 - - 24
% within Branches Outside 100.0% 100.0% - - 100.0%
AUSTRALIA NUMBER OF BRANCHES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY

1 Yes Count 24 3 6 - 33
% within Branches Outside 61.5% 100.0% 66.7% - 64.7%
2 No Count 15 0 3 - 18
% within Branches Outside 38.5% .0% 33.3% - 35.3%
Total Count 39 3 9 - 51
% within Branches Outside 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0%
The cross-tab patterns of the individual countries confirm the positive correlation
between the variables as shown before. For Japan, only the companies without an
overseas branch do not use automation and robotics. In Malaysia the number of
companies with overseas branches is smaller, but from that, the majority 57% without
overseas branches does not use the technology. The Australian sample is more spread
out, but also indicates those with overseas branches (100% and 66.7%) use the
technology more than those with none. It can therefore be deduced that companies with
148
a greater number of international branches use more of the technology compared to

those with none.
To further elaborate on Question 3 concerning the relationship between size of company

and level of use, cross-tabs are performed for usage within the different areas of
construction with annual revenue. The question would therefore be:
Question 5: Is there an association between the size of company and level of usage
within areas of construction?
After the entire cross-tab tables have been generated for all the areas of construction
under study, that is design, scheduling/planning, costing/tendering, project management
and on-site construction, the results are studied, and the gamma and Kendall’s tau-c
value is calculated for each area. Kendall’s tau-c is used to confirm the results from the
gamma value in this case as the cross-tab tables for these variables does not exhibit
equal number of rows and columns (thus it is not possible to use Kendall’s tau-b). Only
the cross-tab table for on-site construction will be shown here as this is the main area of
interest for this research; whilst the rest is performed and saved as output files in SPSS.
The values of gamma and Kendall’s tau-c for these variables are tabulated below.
Table 5.14 Values of Gamma and Kendall’s tau-c for Annual Revenue and Usage Areas
AREAS OF USAGE *GAMMA *KENDALL’S COMMENTS

TAU-C
Design - 0.035 - 0.027 Negligible, negative association
Scheduling/Planning 0 0 No association
Costing/Tendering 0.103 0.071 Very weak positive association
Project Management 0.154 0.103 Weak positive association
On-Site Construction 0.296 0.122 Low positive association
*NOTE: Value of -1 indicates perfect negative association and value of +1 indicates perfect
positive association. A value of 0 indicates no association.
149
Table 5.15 Cross-tab Table for On-Site Construction Usage and Annual Revenue
ANNUAL FREQUENCY COUNT ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION USAGE
AND PERCENTAGES
REVENUE
Never Seldom Sometimes Regularly Highly Total
Less than Count
AUD0.2M/ 0 3 0 0 - 3
JPY17M/ RM0.6M % within Annual
Revenue .0% 100.0% .0% .0% - 100.0%
% within On-site
.0% 21.4% .0% .0% - 2.9%
AUD0.2M-1.5M/ Count
JPY17M-127.5M/ 6 1 0 0 - 7
RM0.6M-4.5M % within Annual
Revenue 85.7% 14.3% .0% .0% - 100.0%
% within On-site
8.7% 7.1% .0% .0% - 6.7%
AUD1.5M-25M/ Count
JPY127.5M-2.1B/ 12 0 2 0 - 14
RM4.5M-75M % within Annual
Revenue 85.7% .0% 14.3% .0% - 100.0%
% within On-site
17.4% .0% 10.5% .0% - 13.3%
AUD25M-50M/ Count
JPY2.1B-4.25B/ 7 1 1 0 - 9
RM75M-150M % within Annual
Revenue 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% .0% - 100.0%
% within On-site
10.1% 7.1% 5.3% .0% - 8.6%
AUD50M-150M/ Count
JPY4.25B-12.75B/ 19 2 8 0 - 29
Revenue 65.5% 6.9% 27.6% .0% - 100.0%
% within On-site
27.5% 14.3% 42.1% .0% - 27.6%
AUD150M-500M/ Count
JPY12.75B-42.5B/ 15 1 3 3 - 22
Revenue 68.2% 4.5% 13.6% 13.6% - 100.0%
% within On-site
21.7% 7.1% 15.8% 100.0% - 21.0%
More than Count
AUD500M/ 10 6 5 0 - 21
JPY42.5B/ % within Annual
RM1500M Revenue 47.6% 28.6% 23.8% .0% - 100.0%
% within On-site
14.5% 42.9% 26.3% .0% - 20.0%
Total Count
69 14 19 3 - 105
% within Annual
Revenue 65.7% 13.3% 18.1% 2.9% - 100.0%
% within On-site
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0%
Studying the cross-tab for Annual Revenue and Design, there is no clear indication of
association between these variables, and the gamma value suggests negligible
association. It can be presumed that the decision to use automation during the design
stage, such as in the form of software, is undertaken by most companies, regardless of
their size. The cross-tabs between annual revenue and areas of scheduling/planning,
costing/tendering and project management also show a similar pattern; although larger
150
companies demonstrate a slightly higher tendency to take up the technology (distribution

skewed to the left) in these areas compared to design. The gamma values confirmed that,
at least for project management, there is a fairly weak, positive relationship.
Exploring the cross-tab for on-site construction and annual revenue (Table 5.15), it can
be seen that there is a stronger tendency for companies to use automation and robotics
the larger they are, with 42.1% sometimes using the technology when their annual
revenue is AUD 50million to 150million, 100% regularly using the technology when
their annual revenue is AUD 150million to 500million, and 26.3% sometimes using the
technology when their annual revenue is more than AUD 500million. Most small
companies with less than AUD 0.2million annual revenue do not use the technology,
with only 21.4% at “seldom”. Although the gamma value for these variables does not
really show a very strong association, but at 0.296, it is the highest compared to the other
areas.
5.2.4 Section C: Issues and Concerns Pertaining to Use of Automation and Robotics
Technologies
Why company uses automation and robotics technologies more predominantly in

certain areas of construction: This question involved respondents choosing what, in
their opinion, are the reasons automation and robotics are used more predominantly in
certain areas of construction such as design but not others. As this concern counting the
frequencies of the reasons or statements from the questionnaire list, the only data
treatment that needs to be done is finding the mode to ascertain the most popular reason.
Table 5.16 Frequencies for Reasons Technologies Are Used Predominantly in Certain Areas
WHY USED PREDOMINANTLY IN CERTAIN AREAS? FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
OF USAGE
Type of work done by company reflects areas of usage 48 24%
High costs associated with application in certain areas 30 15%
Availability of technologies differs across the areas 36 18%
Ease of use (easily understood for implementation) 27 14%
The technologies can be used repetitively for a range of projects 27 14%
Differing levels of awareness (exposure) across areas 30 15%
TOTAL 198 100%
151
The most popular reason chosen by respondents at 24% is that the type of work done by
the company reflects areas of usage. The second most popular reason at 18% is the
availability of technologies differs across the areas. These reasons are elaborated further
in the data integration phase of the research.
What are the main problems associated with the use of automation and robotics
technologies in construction: This is an exploratory question examining respondents’
opinion on the main problems associated with automation and robotics. Again, it only
involves the counting of frequencies of the likely problems as listed in the questionnaire,
and the analysis process simply requires finding the mode of the data to ascertain the
most popular choice. The problems, which are closely related to the barriers for
implementation, will be dealt in greater detail within section D of the questionnaire.
Table 5.17 Frequencies for Main Problems Associated With Automation and Robotics
MAIN PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH USAGE OF A&R FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
OF USAGE
The technologies are complex and difficult to implement 57 1%
High costs associated with automation & robotics application 75 18%
Limited resources available to small and medium-sized firms 33 7%
Updating the technologies is difficult and expensive 48 11%
The technologies are not easily available locally 33 7%
Fragmented nature of the construction industry inhibits
innovation 51 12%
Resistance to change by workers and some project participants 36 8%
Tight project timeframes inhibit implementation of new
technologies 45 10%
Relatively low level of awareness (exposure) to the technologies 30 6%
Low technology literacy of the workers / need for re-training 36 8%
TOTAL 444 100%
The most popular problem chosen by respondents at 18% is high costs associated with
automation & robotics application. The second most popular problem at 12% is
fragmented nature of the construction industry inhibits innovation. These will be
elaborated into further details in the second phase of the research analysis.
152
Are some projects more suited to automation and robotics technologies compared
to others: In total, 99 respondents or 94.3% answered the question, with 6 (5.7%)
missing values (those who answered “Don’t Know”). Out of those, respondents who
answered “Yes” comprises of 100% Japanese, 76% Malaysian and 94% Australian. This
obviously indicates that a clear majority agreed some projects are more suited to
automation and robotics compared to others.
State which construction projects automation and robotics technologies are most
suited to: When asked to elaborate on which construction projects automation and
robotics are most suited to, the majority at 37% thinks that Specialised Sub-Contracting
Work is most suited to the technology, followed by Civil Engineering Works and
Infrastructure at 34%. This reinforces some of the points discovered under the literature
review of automation and robotics being more suited to repetitive or large scale work
usually present in Specialised Sub-Contracting or Civil Engineering Works.
Table 5.18 Construction Projects Most Suited to Automation and Robotics

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS MOST SUITED TO A&R FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
OF USAGE
Residential 33 18%
Non-Residential 21 11%
Civil Engineering Works and Infrastructure 63 34%
Specialised Sub-contracting Work 69 37%
TOTAL 186 100%
153
Are automation and robotics technologies more predominantly used in larger

construction companies compared to the smaller ones: In total, 96 respondents or
91.4% answered the question, with 9 (8.6%) missing values (“Don’t Know”). Out of
those, respondents who answered “Yes” consist of 88% Japanese, 86% Malaysian and
83% Australian. This obviously implies that the majority agreed automation and robotics
are more predominantly used in larger companies compared to the smaller ones. The
main reasons, as ascertained under literature review, may be because larger company has
greater capacity to invest in the technology due to their higher turnover and bigger
market share. This however, should be interpreted in view of areas of construction, as
discussed previously in Question 3 and Question 5 of the analysis.
Are companies operating internationally on a global scale more likely to use

automation and robotics technologies compared to those operating locally:
Altogether, 99 respondents or 94.3% answered the question, with 6 (5.7%) missing
values (“Don’t Know”). Out of those, respondents who answered “Yes” consist of 75%
Japanese, 88% Malaysian and 85% Australian; with 81.8% answering “Yes” in total for
all three countries. Relating this fact to the cross-tab patterns of the individual countries
that was performed before under the analysis for Question 4, it can be safely concluded
that companies operating internationally within the global market use more of the
technology compared to those operating locally.
154
5.2.5 Section D: Perceived Barriers for Construction Implementation
Rating of barriers to the implementation of automation and robotics technologies

for on-site construction: A list of eight statements relating to barriers to
implementation was provided and respondents were requested to indicate their opinion
on each statement ranging from Insignificant to Totally Significant. The variable and
value label codes and the frequency distribution are presented in the tables below.
Table 5.19 Variable Codes and Description
CODE VARIABLE DESCRIPTION ON BARRIERS: CODE VALUE LABELS :

QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT RATING OF
BARRIER IMPACT
B1 High costs / substantial financial commitment in 1 Insignificant
acquiring the technologies
B2 Automation & robotics technologies are expensive 2 Little Significance
to update and maintain
B3 Incompatibility of the technologies with existing 3 Minor
practices and current construction operations.
B4 The fragmentary nature and size of the construction 4 Moderate
industry makes the technologies difficult to
implement
B5 Automation & robotics technologies are difficult to 5 Major
use and not easily understood
B6 Automation & robotics technologies are unavailable 6 Very Significant
locally or difficult to acquire
B7 The technologies are not easily accepted by the 7 Totally Significant
workers and workers union
B8 Low technology literacy of project participants / need
for re-training of workers
155
Table 5.20 Frequency and Percentages within Value Labels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ITEM
f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
B1 6 12 0 0 3 3 21 9 24 16 27 17 24 24
B2 3 6 0 0 6 5 33 15 21 15 33 20 9 10
B3 0 0 3 5 12 11 30 13 18 13 24 15 18 18
B4 6 12 6 9 9 8 24 11 21 15 27 17 12 12
B5 6 12 6 9 21 19 36 16 18 13 18 11 18 18
B6 9 18 21 32 21 19 24 11 12 8 6 4 12 12
B7 15 30 12 18 27 24 18 8 15 10 15 9 3 3
B8 6 12 18 27 12 11 39 17 15 10 12 7 3 3
TOTAL
51 100 66 100 111 100 225 100 144 100 162 100 99 100
Impact of Barrier Variables on Automation and Robotics Usage
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8
35
30
25
Frequency (%)
20
15
10
0
Insignificant Little Minor Moderate Major Very significant Totally
Significance Significant
Scale for Rating of Impact
From the frequency distribution and the clustered bar chart above, it can be seen that a
fairly high percentage of respondents (29%) have rated barrier B7, which is acceptance
of the technology by workers as the most insignificant barrier. Barrier B6, technology
unavailable locally or difficult to acquire is also rated low at little significance of 32%.
The barrier that is rated highly is B1 high costs / substantial financial commitment in
acquiring the technologies at 24% of totally significant and 17% of very significant. B4
the fragmentary nature and size of the construction industry makes the technologies
difficult to implement is also rated highly, with higher frequencies towards the
significant scale. However, it is very difficult by just comparing the frequencies to see
156
which one rates higher, B1 or B4. As the frequencies represent ordinal measurement
with many points on the scale, a better approach would be to use rank-order tests of
significance such as Kruskal-Wallis to interpret the data. Cases are ordered from lowest
to highest according to the “score” each case receives on the scale, and then assigned a
rank that indicates where in the order it appears. Here, the descriptive statistics for the
ranking of means is performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test for the three country
sample and the results are presented in Tables 5.21 and 5.22 below.
Table 5.21 Barrier Variables: Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistics and Descriptive Statistics
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS TEST STATISTICS
GROUPING: COUNTRIES
Variable N Mean Rank Std. Min Max Chi- df Asymptotic
Dev. square Significance
(2-tailed)
B1: Cost acquire 105 4.69 1 1.625 1 7 1.800 2 .407
B4: Fragmented 105 4.29 2 1.392 1 6 9.652 2 .008
B5: Difficult to use 105 4.03 3 1.348 1 6 4.499 2 .105

B2: Cost update 105 3.97 4 1.213 1 6 16.374 2 .000
B3: Incompatible 105 3.97 4 1.390 1 6 2.362 2 .307
B8: Low literacy 105 3.83 6 1.471 1 7 17.826 2 .000
B6: Unavailable 105 3.71 7 1.758 1 7 19.439 2 .000
B7: Not accepted 105 3.60 8 1.685 1 7 26.208 2 .000
Table 5.22 Barrier Variables: Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mean Ranks

VARIABLE COUNTRY N MEAN VARIABLE COUNTRY N MEAN
RANK RANK
B1: 1 Japan 30 56.15 B5: 1 Japan
30 60.95
Cost acquire 2 Malaysia 24 57.50 Difficult to 2 Malaysia
use 24 43.81
3 Australia 51 49.03 3 Australia
51 52.65
B2: 1 Japan 30 71.30 B6: 1 Japan
30 32.90
Cost Update 2 Malaysia 24 46.81 Unavailable 2 Malaysia
24 57.31
3 Australia 51 45.15 3 Australia
51 62.79
B3: 1 Japan B7: 1 Japan
30 45.95 30 35.00
Incompatible 2 Malaysia Not accepted 2 Malaysia
24 56.00 24 43.44
3 Australia 3 Australia
51 55.74 51 68.09
B4: 1 Japan B8: 1 Japan
30 51.65 30 34.70
Fragmented 2 Malaysia Low literacy 2 Malaysia
24 38.00 24 53.94
3 Australia 3 Australia
51 60.85 51 63.32
157
The most significant barrier variables that can be ascertained from the rank are B1: High
costs / substantial financial commitment in acquiring the technologies, ranked first, and
B4: The fragmentary nature and size of the construction industry makes the technologies
difficult to implement, ranked second; whilst the least significant are B6: Automation &
robotics technologies are unavailable locally or difficult to acquire and B7: The
technologies are not easily accepted by the workers and workers union. To examine
whether there is a difference between the groups, the null and alternative hypotheses set
out, as in all applications of Kruskal-Wallis test, are:
H0: The locations of all k populations are the same.
H1: At least two population locations differ.
For this research k = 3, that is the number of populations to be compared (Japan,
Malaysia and Australia).
Here, the Kruskal-Wallis test (from Tables 5.21 and 5.22) found five variables that are
significantly different (with significance levels of less than 0.05) among the three
countries. These variables are B4, B2, B8, B6 and B7. The results indicate that for the
five variables with K values (approximated by the chi-square values) greater or equal to
9.652 (lowest value for the five variables that are significantly different) for the three
groups, the probability of occurrence under the null hypothesis of the locations of all
three populations are the same are levels less than 0.05 (corresponding to a larger
discrepancy among rank sums). Thus, the null hypothesis can be rejected as there is
supporting evidence that differences do exist between the groups.
To determine how the group differs, the Two-Independent-Samples procedure for pair-
wise comparison on the Mann-Whitney test is used. The Mann Whitney compares the
scores on a specified variable of two independent groups. The scores of the two groups
are ranked as one set, the sum of the rank values of each subgroup is found and a U
statistic is then calculated. The test can perform an independent check on the results
from Kruskal-Wallis, and the pairs tested are Japan with Malaysia (1-2), Malaysia with
Australia (2-3) and Japan with Australia (1-3). Table 5.23 below summarises the results
for the first pair comparison (1-2) with five variables (B2, B4, B5, B6 and B8) obtaining
values that are less than 0.05 critical significance level. The Mann Whitney U statistic
158
and the Wilcoxon W statistic are very similar in that they sum up to a constant and both
have the same Z value. Negative Z values indicate that both the U and W statistics have
values that are lower than expected. The first pair tested results in five variables (B2, B4,
B5, B6 and B8) identified as having significant values.
Table 5.23 Barriers: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Malaysia (1-2) Pair-Wise Comparison
VARIABLES MANN- WILCOXON Z ASYMPTOTIC
WHITNEY U W SIGNIFICANCE
(2-TAILED)
B1: Cost acquire 337.500 802.500 -0.406 .685
B2: Cost update 220.500 520.500 -2.558 .011

B3: Incompatible 292.500 757.500 -1.201 .230
B4: Fragmented 234.000 534.000 -2.249 .024
B5: Difficult to use 247.500 547.500 -2.008 .045
B6: Unavailable 193.500 658.500 -2.977 .003
B7: Not accepted 333.000 798.000 -0.482 .630
B8: Low literacy 243.000 708.000 -2.090 .037
Table 5.24 presents the results for the second pair-wise comparison (2-3), and two
variables are identified as significant, having values that are less than the critical value
of 0.05. Again, all Z values are negative, indicating U and W statistic values are less
than expected. Here, the two significant results produced by the second grouping are B4
and B7.
Table 5.24 Barriers: Mann-Whitney Test Malaysia and Australia (2-3) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
B1: Cost acquire 526.500 1852.500 -0.995 .320
B2: Cost update 603.000 903.000 -0.107 .915

B3: Incompatible 607.500 1933.500 -0.052 .958
B4: Fragmented 378.000 678.000 -2.716 .007

B6: Unavailable 549.000 849.000 -0.735 .462
B7: Not accepted 355.500 655.500 -2.958 .003
B8: Low literacy 517.500 817.500 -1.116 .265
159
Table 5.25 summarises the results for the third pair-wise comparison (1-3) and for this
one, there are four significant variables (B2, B6, B7 and B8).
Table 5.25 Barriers: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Australia (1-3) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
B1: Cost acquire 648.000 1974.000 -1.183 .237
B2: Cost update 355.500 1681.500 -4.188 .000

B3: Incompatible 621.000 1086.000 -1.446 .148
B4: Fragmented 598.500 1063.500 -1.672 .094

B6: Unavailable 328.500 793.500 -4.342 .000
B7: Not accepted 252.000 717.000 -5.130 .000
B8: Low literacy 333.000 798.000 -4.405 .000
Combining the three pair-wise comparisons results in six variables that are significantly
different amongst the groups, which is one variable more than that obtained from
Kruskal-Wallis. This further supports the hypothesis that the groups are different
(having previously accepted the alternative hypothesis H1 which states at least two
population locations differ).
To interpret the results, the descriptive statistics, the K-test mean ranks and the M-test
pair-wise comparison sum of ranks are used. The descriptive statistics indicate the mean
rating and the combined spread across the groups on each variable (Table 5.21); the
mean ranks indicate the variances between the groups (Table 5.22); and pair-wise sum
of ranks indicate how group differ from each other (Table 5.26).
160
Table 5.26 Barrier Variables: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise Comparisons

V GROUP (1-2) GROUP (2-3) GROUP (1-3)
A
R JAPAN AND MALAYSIA MALAYSIA AND AUSTRALIA JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA
I
A * * *
B Cty N Mean Sum of Cty N Mean Sum of Cty N Mean Sum of
L Ranks
E
Rank Ranks Rank Rank Ranks
B1 1 30 26.75 802.50 2 24 41.56 997.50 1 30 44.90 1347.00
2 24 28.44 682.50 3 51 36.32 1852.50 3 51 38.71 1974.00
B2 1 30 32.15 964.50 2 24 37.62 903.00 1 30 54.65 1639.50
2 24 21.69 520.50 3 51 38.18 1947.00 3 51 32.97 1681.50
B3 1 30 25.25 757.50 2 24 38.19 916.50 1 30 36.20 1086.00
2 24 30.31 727.50 3 51 37.91 1933.50 3 51 43.82 2235.00
B4 1 30 31.70 951.00 2 24 28.25 678.00 1 30 35.45 1063.50
2 24 22.25 534.00 3 51 42.59 2172.00 3 51 44.26 2257.50
B5 1 30 31.25 937.50 2 24 33.50 804.00 1 30 45.20 1356.00
2 24 22.81 547.50 3 51 40.12 2046.00 3 51 38.53 1965.00
B6 1 30 21.95 658.50 2 24 35.38 849.00 1 30 26.45 793.50
2 24 34.44 826.50 3 51 39.24 2001.00 3 51 49.56 2527.50
B7 1 30 26.60 798.00 2 24 27.31 655.50 1 30 23.90 717.00
2 24 28.62 687.00 3 51 43.03 2194.50 3 51 51.06 2604.00
B8 1 30 23.60 708.00 2 24 34.06 817.50 1 30 26.60 798.00
2 24 32.38 777.00 3 51 39.85 2032.50 3 51 49.47 2523.00
* Note: 1=Japan, 2=Malaysia, 3=Australia
From Table 5.21, it can be seen that B1 is ranked first, with a mean of 4.69. It has a
standard deviation of 1.625 on a seven point rating scale. The chi-square value is 1.800
corresponding to a significance level of 0.407 (which is well above the chosen critical
level of 0.05), indicating that the groups are not significantly different on this variable
(having accepted the null hypothesis that states the locations of all three populations
are the same). The mean ranks for this variable is fairly close (at 56.15 Japan, 57.50
Malaysia and 49.03 Australia), indicating that there is a tendency for the three groups to
be strongly in agreement with Barrier 1 statement (High costs / substantial financial
commitment in acquiring the technologies). The mean rank for the pair-wise group
comparisons also shows that they are fairly close with Japan and Malaysia (26.75 &
28.44), Malaysia and Australia (41.56 & 36.32) and Japan and Australia (44.90 and
38.71). This also indicates that not one group within the population of the three countries
is significantly different from the others in this variable and all rate it highly.
161
Repeating this process for all eight barrier variables, the following conclusions are
derived at, as illustrated by Table 5.27.
Table 5.27 Barrier Variables: Summary of Analysis Results
DESCRIPTIVE ACCEPT
VARIABLE STATISTICS COMMENTS
Rank Mean Std. HO HA
Dev.
B1: 1 All countries rate highly, no significant
4.69 1.625 √
Cost acquire difference
B4: 2 Fairly average difference between Malaysia
Fragmented 4.29 1.392 √ and Australia (Mean Rank difference of
42.59-28.25=14.34)
B5: 3
4.03 1.348 √ No significant difference between countries
Difficult to use
B2: Significant difference for Japan and
Cost update 4 3.97 1.213 √ Australia (Mean Rank difference of 54.65-
32.97=21.68)
B3: 4
Incompatible
Low literacy 6 3.83 1.471 √ Australia (Mean Rank difference of 49.47-
26.60=22.87)
Unavailable 7 3.71 1.758 √ Australia (Mean Rank difference of 49.56-
26.45=23.11)
B7: Significant difference for Malaysia and
Not accepted 8 Australia, and Japan and Australia (Mean
3.60 1.685 √
Rank difference of 15.72 and 27.16
respectively)
It can be construed from the table above that there is a marked difference between the
groups for variables B2, B8, B6 and B7. For B2, B8 and B6, the differences are mostly
between Japan and Australia with the mean rank difference ranging from 21.68 to 23.11.
It is interesting to note that for the variable ranked last, that is B7: The technologies are
not easily accepted by the workers and workers union, the difference between the groups
are relatively obvious, indicating that there is less agreement on the responses for this
variable within the three groups.
162
Rating on how the barriers to automation and robotics for on-site construction
operation can be minimised or overcome: A list of eight statements concerning how
the barriers to on-site implementation can be minimised or overcome was provided and
respondents were asked to respond to each statement by choosing a rating on the scale
ranging from Insignificant to Totally Significant. The variable and value label codes are
presented in the table below.
CODE VARIABLE DESCRIPTION ON MINIMISING BARRIERS: CODE VALUE LABELS :

QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT RATING OF
IMPACT
S1 Reducing the costs of acquiring or buying 1 Insignificant
S2 Making automation & robotics technologies cheaper 2 Little Significance
to operate and maintain
S3 Encouraging greater standardisation of construction 3 Minor
products and processes
S4 Making the construction environment more 4 Moderate
structured and controlled
S5 Developing automation & robotics technologies that 5 Major
are easier to use and understand
S6 Improving availability of the technologies 6 Very Significant
S7 Better marketing strategies of the technologies to 7 Totally Significant

encourage acceptance
S8 Better training programmes for workers
The descriptive statistics and test results obtained from performing the Kruskal-Wallis
test are presented as follows in Tables 5.29 and 5.30.
Table 5.29 Minimising Barriers: Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistics and Descriptive Statistics
GROUPING: COUNTRIES
(2-tailed)
S3: Standardisation 105 5.23 1 1.783 1 7 5.416 2 .067
S2: Cheaper to operate 105 4.71 2 1.708 1 7 6.129 2 .047
S5: Easier to use 105 4.49 3 1.636 1 7 16.052 2 .000
S6: Improve avail. 105 4.46 4 1.563 1 7 7.758 2 .021
S4: Structured environ. 105 4.23 5 1.648 1 7 6.085 2 .048
S1: Reduce cost 105 4.11 6 1.311 1 6 5.895 2 .052
S8: Better training 105 4.09 7 1.722 1 7 10.393 2 .006

S7: Better marketing 105 3.94 8 1.764 1 7 8.299 2 .016
163
Table 5.30 Minimising Barriers: Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mean Ranks

RANK RANK
S1: 1 Japan 30 61.85 S5: 1 Japan 30 57.95
Reduce cost 2 Malaysia 24 56.75 Easier to use 2 Malaysia 24 31.81

3 Australia 51 46.03 3 Australia 51 60.06
S2: 1 Japan 30 64.15 S6: 1 Japan 30 43.85
Cheaper to 2 Malaysia 24 46.19 Improve 2 Malaysia 24 47.00
operate 3 Australia 51 49.65 availability 3 Australia 51 61.21
S3: 1 Japan 30 63.35 S7: 1 Japan 30 55.25
Standardisat 2 Malaysia 24 57.00 Better 2 Malaysia 24 37.81
ion 3 Australia 51 61.74 marketing 3 Australia 51 58.82
S4: 1 Japan 30 63.95 S8: 1 Japan 30 49.55
Structured 2 Malaysia 24 51.88 Better 2 Malaysia 24 38.56
environment 3 Australia 51 47.09 training 3 Australia 51 61.82
The most significant barrier variables that can be ascertained from the rank are S3:
Encouraging greater standardisation of construction products and processes and S2:
Making automation & robotics technologies cheaper to operate and maintain; whilst the
least significant are S8: Better training programmes for workers and S7: Better
marketing strategies of the technologies to encourage acceptance. To examine whether
there is a difference between the groups, the null (H0: The locations of all k populations
are the same) and alternative (H1: At least two population locations differ) hypotheses
are again set out and the results from the Kruskal-Wallis test interpreted accordingly.
Here, the Kruskal-Wallis test (from Tables 5.29 and 5.30) found six variables (S2, S5,
S6, S4, S8 and S7) that are significantly different (with significance levels of less than
0.05) among the three countries. The results indicate that for the six variables, the
probability of occurrence under the null hypothesis of “the locations of all three
populations are the same” should be rejected as there is supporting evidence that
differences do exist between the groups. However, it should be noted that for S2 and S4,
the values (0.047 and 0.048 respectively), are very close to the chosen significance level
of 0.05, in that if the values are calculated to 2 decimal points, the null hypothesis would
have been accepted for these variables. These measures are fairly subjective, and thus,
there is equal chance of committing Type I and Type II errors in this case. As it stands,
164
since calculations are all consistently done to three decimal points throughout the test,
the choice is to reject the null hypothesis for these variables and state that there is a
difference within the groups.
To determine how the group differs, the Two-Independent-Samples procedure for pair-
wise comparison on the Mann-Whitney test is again performed for Japan with Malaysia
(1-2), Malaysia with Australia (2-3) and Japan with Australia (1-3). Table 5.31 below
provides the results for the first pair comparison (1-2) with only two variables (S5 and
S7) obtaining values that are less than 0.05 critical significance level; and consequently,
the null hypothesis is rejected for these variables.
Table 5.31 Solutions: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Malaysia (1-2) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
S1: Reduce cost 337.500 802.500 -0.407 .684
S2: Cheaper to operate 259.500 559.500 -1.816 .069

S3: Standardisation 283.500 583.500 -1.412 .158
S4: Structured environment 283.500 583.500 -1.369 .171
S5: Easier to use 189.000 489.000 -3.043 .002
S6: Improve availability 351.000 816.000 -0.160 .873
S7: Better marketing 234.000 534.000 -2.230 .026
S8: Better training 274.500 574.500 -1.516 .129
The following Tables 5.32 and 5.33 summarise the results for the second (2-3) and the
third (1-3) pair-wise comparisons. The second grouping (2-3) produced significant
results of three variables (S5, S7 and S8); and the third grouping produced significant
results of five variables (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S6).
Combining the three pair-wise comparisons results as before, all eight variables are
found to be significantly different amongst the groups, which is more than that obtained
from Kruskal-Wallis. This provides further support of the hypothesis that the groups are
different (having previously accepted the alternative hypothesis H1 which states at least
two population locations differ).
165
Table 5.32 Solutions: Mann-Whitney Test Malaysia and Australia (2-3) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
S1: Reduce cost 544.500 1870.500 -0.789 .430

S5: Easier to use 274.500 574.500 -3.936 .000
Table 5.33 Solutions: Mann-Whitney Test Japan and Australia (1-3) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
S1: Reduce cost 477.000 1803.000 -2.974 .003

S5: Easier to use 742.500 1207.500 -0.230 .818
pair-wise comparison sum of ranks are again used. The descriptive statistics indicate the
mean rating and the combined spread across the groups on each variable (Table 5.29);
the mean ranks indicate the variances between the groups (Table 5.30); and pair-wise
sum of ranks indicate how group differ from each other (Table 5.34).
From the results encapsulated in the three tables, the conclusion and summary of the
analysis on how the barriers to automation and robotics for on-site construction
operation can be minimised or overcome are produced, as presented in Table 5.35.
166
Table 5.34 Minimising Barriers: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise Comparisons

A
I
A * * *
B Cty N Mean Sum of Cty N Mean Sum of Cty N Mean Sum of
L Ranks
E
Rank Ranks Rank Rank Ranks
S1 1 30 26.75 802.50 2 24 40.81 979.50 1 30 50.60 1518.00
2 24 28.44 682.50 3 51 36.68 1870.50 3 51 45.35 1803.00
S2 1 30 30.85 925.50 2 24 35.38 849.00 1 30 48.80 1464.00
2 24 23.31 559.50 3 51 39.24 2001.00 3 51 36.41 1857.00
S3 1 30 30.05 901.50 2 24 35.19 844.50 1 30 47.80 1464.00
2 24 24.31 583.50 3 51 39.32 2005.50 3 51 39.41 1857.00
S4 1 30 30.05 901.50 2 24 40.06 961.50 1 30 49.40 1482.00
2 24 24.31 583.50 3 51 37.03 1888.50 3 51 36.06 1839.00
S5 1 30 33.20 996.00 2 24 23.94 574.50 1 30 40.25 1207.50
2 24 20.38 489.00 3 51 44.62 2275.50 3 51 41.44 2113.50
S6 1 30 27.20 816.00 2 24 31.62 759.00 1 30 32.15 964.50
2 24 27.88 669.00 3 51 41.00 2091.00 3 51 46.21 2356.50
S7 1 30 31.70 951.00 2 24 28.06 673.50 1 30 39.05 1171.50
2 24 22.25 534.00 3 51 42.68 2176.50 3 51 42.15 2149.50
S8 1 30 30.35 910.50 2 24 27.12 651.00 1 30 34.70 1041.00
2 24 23.94 574.50 3 51 43.12 2199.00 3 51 44.71 2280.00
Table 5.35 Minimising Barriers: Summary of Analysis Results

DESCRIPTIVE ACCEPT
Dev.
S3: 5.23 1.783 √ No significant difference between countries
Standardisation 1
S2: Cheaper to 4.71 1.708 Fairly average difference between (1-3) at
operate 2 √
mean rank difference (MRD) of 12.39
S5: Easier to Fairly substantial differences between (1-2)
use 3 4.49 1.636 √ and (2-3) at MRD of 12.82 and 20.68
respectively
S6: Improve
availability 4 4.46 1.563 √ Average difference (1-3) at MRD of 14.06
S4: Structured
environment 5 4.23 1.648 √ Average difference (1-3) at MRD of 13.34
S1: Reduce
cost 6 4.11 1.311 √ No significant difference between countries
S8: Better
training 7 4.09 1.722 √ Average difference for (2-3) at MRD of 16.0
S7: Better Average difference for (2-3) at MRD of

marketing 8 3.94 1.764 √ 14.62
167
It can be seen from Table 5.35 above that there is a significant difference between the
groups for variables S2, S5, S6, S4, S8 and S7. For S2, S6 and S4, the differences are
mostly between Japan and Australia with the mean rank difference ranging from 14.06
to 12.39. Variables S8 and S7 show a fairly average difference of 16.0 and 14.62; whilst
variable S5 shows fairly substantial differences for both groups Japan and Malaysia (1-
2) and Malaysia and Australia (2-3).
It is fairly conclusive that overall, all countries rate S3: Encouraging greater
standardisation of construction products and processes as the most important solution
for minimising barriers to automation and robotics implementation. This result
corresponds with the literature review finding that the complexity and non-
standardisation of construction products and processes is a great inhibitor of technology
application due to the difficulty in developing cheap automation and robotics
technologies that takes this construction characteristic into account.
5.2.6 Section E: Future Trends and Opportunities
Rating on future trends of construction automation and robotics technologies

implementation for the next ten years: Respondents were requested to indicate their
opinion, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, on the future trends and
opportunities in the implementation of automation and robotics technologies in the
construction industry, from a list of ten statements. The statements relate to a number of
possible scenarios in the future regarding the technologies, and the scale for level of
agreement is set out on a seven-point Likert scale. The variable and value label codes are
presented in Table 5.36 below.
168

C VARIABLE DESCRIPTION ON FUTURE TRENDS: C VALUE LABELS :
O QUESTIONNAIRE STATEMENT O RATING FOR
D D LEVEL OF
E E AGREEMENT
F1 There will be greater awareness of automation & robotics 1 Strongly
technologies within the construction industry community Disagree
F2 Automation and robotics technologies will be cheaper to 2 Moderately
acquire and operate Disagree
F3 There will be a significantly larger range of automation & 3 Slightly Disagree
robotics technologies available for use in construction
F4 The use of automation & robotics technologies will enable 4 Neither Agree
firms to operate more efficiently and competitively nor Disagree
F5 In future, there will be greater standardisation of the design 5 Slightly Agree
and construction processes
F6 The technologies will be easily available across the world 6 Moderately
Agree
F7 The number of construction companies using automation & 7 Strongly Agree
robotics technologies will increase significantly
F8 Automation & robotics technologies will be easier to install and
operate
F9 There will be greater integration within the construction
industry in terms of control and responsibility for design and
construction
F10 The technologies will be readily accepted by the workers and
the industry
The descriptive statistics and test results for this section obtained from performing the
Kruskal-Wallis test are presented as follows in Table 5.37 and 5.38.
Table 5.37 Future Trends: Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistics and Descriptive Statistics
GROUPING: COUNTRIES
(2-tailed)
F1: Awareness 105 5.27 1 1.558 1 7 0.852 2 .653
F7: Increased number 105 4.83 2 1.566 1 7 5.732 2 .057
F2: Cheaper 105 4.68 3 1.566 1 7 4.927 2 .085
F3: Larger range 105 4.57 4 1.865 1 7 3.927 2 .140
F5: Standardisation 105 4.51 5 1.705 1 7 4.932 2 .085
F4: More efficient use 105 4.37 6 1.227 1 6 10.771 2 .005
F6: Available 105 4.37 6 1.463 1 7 3.416 2 .181
F10: Readily accepted 105 3.83 8 1.620 1 7 22.397 2 .000
F8: Easier to install 105 3.80 10 1.220 1 6 12.253 2 .002
F9: Integration 105 3.80 10 1.354 1 6 2.673 2 .263
169
Table 5.38 Future Trends: Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mean Ranks

RANK RANK
F1: 1 Japan 30 56.45 F6: 1 Japan 30 45.20
Awareness 2 Malaysia 24 49.00 Available 2 Malaysia 24 52.44
F2: 1 Japan 30 60.05 F7: 1 Japan 30 58.55
Cheaper 2 Malaysia 24 42.31 Increased 2 Malaysia 24 40.44
3 Australia 51 53.88 number 3 Australia 51 55.65
F3: 1 Japan 30 45.50 F8: 1 Japan 30 68.60
Larger range 2 Malaysia 24 50.38 Easier to install 2 Malaysia 24 50.19
F4: 1 Japan 30 67.85 F9: 1 Japan 30 51.35
More efficient 2 Malaysia 24 46.62 Integration 2 Malaysia 24 45.69
use 3 Australia 51 47.26 3 Australia 51 57.41
F5: 1 Japan 30 59.30 F10: 1 Japan 30 73.55
Standardisatio 2 Malaysia 24 41.75 Readily 2 Malaysia 24 53.00
n 3 Australia 51 54.59 accepted 3 Australia 51 40.91
The most significant barrier variables that can be ascertained from the rank are F1:
There will be greater awareness of automation & robotics technologies within the
construction industry community and F7: The number of construction companies using
automation & robotics technologies will increase significantly; whilst the least
significant are F8: Automation & robotics technologies will be easier to install and
operate and F9: There will be greater integration within the construction industry in
terms of control and responsibility for design and construction. To examine whether
there is a difference between the groups, the null (H0: The locations of all k populations
are the same) and alternative (H1: At least two population locations differ) hypotheses
are again set out and the results from the Kruskal-Wallis test interpreted accordingly.
Here, the Kruskal-Wallis test (from Tables 5.37 and 5.38) found three variables (F4, F10
and F8) that are significantly different among the three countries. The results indicate
that for the three variables, the probability of occurrence under the null hypothesis
should be rejected and affirm that differences do exist between the groups. The one
obvious distinction of the Kruskal-Wallis analysis results of this section relating to
170
future trends, compared to that of the “barrier variables” and “minimising barriers”
analysed in the previous section, is that the majority of variables for future trends (seven
out of ten) does not differ between groups, thus suggesting that the groups are, at most
times, in agreement with each other when responding to the list of statements. To
determine how the group differs, the Two-Independent-Samples procedure for pair-wise
comparison on the Mann-Whitney test is again performed and Tables 5.39, 5.40 and
5.41 below present the results for the first (1-2), second (2-3) and third (1-3) pair
comparison.
Table 5.39 Future Trends: Mann-Whitney Test Japan & Malaysia (1-2) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
F1: Awareness 306.000 606.000 -0.969 .332
F2: Cheaper 247.500 547.500 -2.015 .044
F3: Larger range 319.500 784.500 -0.725 .468
F4: More efficient use 225.000 525.000 -2.528 .011
F5: Standardisation 234.000 534.000 -2.269 .023
F6: Available 315.000 780.000 -0.801 .423
F7: Increased number 243.000 543.000 -2.089 .037
F8: Easier to install 243.000 543.000 -2.129 .033
F9: Integration 319.500 619.500 -0.730 .465
F10: Readily accepted 238.500 538.500 -2.161 .031
Table 5.40 Future Trends: Mann-Whitney Test Malaysia & Australia (2-3) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
F1: Awareness 570.000 870.000 -0.497 .619
F2: Cheaper 468.000 768.000 -1.685 .092
F3: Larger range 508.500 808.500 -1.207 .228
F6: Available 553.500 853.500 -0.681 .496
F9: Integration 477.000 777.000 -1.565 .118
171
Table 5.41 Future Trends: Mann-Whitney Test Japan & Australia (1-3) Pair-Wise Comparison
(2-TAILED)
F1: Awareness 715.500 2041.500 -0.499 .618
F2: Cheaper 666.000 1992.000 -1.023 .306
F3: Larger range 580.500 1045.500 -1.842 .065
F6: Available 576.000 1041.000 -1.890 .059
F9: Integration 675.000 1140.000 -0.906 .365
The first grouping (1-2) results in six variables (F2, F4, F5, F7, F8 and F10) obtaining
values that are less than 0.05 critical significance level; the second grouping (2-3)
produced significant results of only one variable (F7); and the third grouping produced
significant results of three variables (F4, F8 and F10). Combining the three pair-wise
comparisons results as before, there are six variables that are significantly different
amongst the groups, which are considerably more than the three obtained from Kruskal-
Wallis. The alternative hypothesis can therefore be accepted, concluding that the groups
are again different in this case.
pair-wise comparison sum of ranks are again used. The descriptive statistics indicating
the mean rating and the combined spread across the groups on each variable are
presented in Table 5.37; the mean ranks indicating the variances between the groups are
presented in Table 5.38; and pair-wise sum of ranks indicating how group differ from
each other are presented in Table 5.42.
From the results encapsulated in the three tables, the conclusion and summary of the
analysis on future trends of construction automation and robotics technologies
implementation for the next ten years are produced, as presented in Table 5.43.
172
Table 5.42 Future Trends: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise Comparisons

A
I
A * * *
B Sum of
L Cty N Mean Sum of Cty N Mean Cty N Mean Sum of
E Rank Ranks Rank Ranks Rank Ranks
F1 1 30 29.30 879.00 2 24 36.25 870.00 1 30 42.65 1279.50

2 24 25.25 606.00 3 51 38.82 1980.00 3 51 40.03 2041.50
F2 1 30 31.25 937.50 2 24 32.00 768.00 1 30 44.30 1329.00
2 24 22.81 547.50 3 51 40.82 2082.00 3 51 39.06 1992.00
F3 1 30 26.15 784.50 2 24 33.69 808.50 1 30 34.85 1045.50
2 24 29.19 700.50 3 51 40.03 2041.50 3 51 44.62 2275.50
F4 1 30 32.00 960.00 2 24 37.25 894.00 1 30 51.35 1540.50
2 24 21.88 525.00 3 51 38.35 1956.00 3 51 34.91 1780.50
F5 1 30 31.70 951.00 2 24 32.00 768.00 1 30 43.10 1293.00
2 24 22.25 534.00 3 51 40.82 2082.00 3 51 39.76 2028.00
F6 1 30 26.00 780.00 2 24 35.56 853.50 1 30 34.70 1041.00
2 24 29.38 705.00 3 51 39.15 1996.50 3 51 44.71 2280.00
F7 1 30 31.40 942.00 2 24 30.31 727.50 1 30 42.65 1279.50
2 24 22.62 543.00 3 51 41.62 2122.50 3 51 40.03 2041.50
F8 1 30 31.40 942.00 2 24 40.06 961.50 1 30 52.70 1581.00
2 24 22.62 543.00 3 51 37.03 1888.50 3 51 34.12 1740.00
F9 1 30 28.85 865.50 2 24 32.38 777.00 1 30 38.00 1140.00
2 24 25.81 619.50 3 51 40.65 2073.00 3 51 42.76 2181.00
F 1 30 31.55 946.50 2 24 43.06 1033.50 1 30 57.50 1725.00
10 2 24 22.44 538.50 3 51 35.62 1816.50 3 51 31.29 1596.00
It can be observed from Table 5.43 below that there are no significant differences
between the groups for all variables except three. For F4, F10 and F8, the differences are
entirely between Japan and Australia with the mean rank difference ranging from 26.21
to 16.44. For these three variables, there are no marked differences between (1-2) and
(2-3), with these groups only exhibiting mean rank differences within the small range of
1.1 to 10.12. It is therefore fairly conclusive that overall, all countries rate F1: There will
be greater awareness of automation & robotics technologies within the construction
industry community as the most important future trend for construction automation and
robotics technologies implementation for the next ten years. All three groups also agreed
that the second most important trend is F7: The number of construction companies using
automation & robotics technologies will increase significantly, followed by F2:
Automation and robotics technologies will be cheaper to acquire and operate and F3:
There will be a significantly larger range of automation & robotics technologies
173
available for use in construction. The most insignificant trend as agreed by all groups is
F9: There will be greater integration within the construction industry in terms of control
and responsibility for design and construction. It seems obvious that most respondents
see further development of the technologies as a more likely scenario in the near future
as compared to inherent changes within the construction process and construction
industry itself.
Table 5.43 Future Trends: Summary of Analysis Results
DESCRIPTIVE ACCEPT
Dev.
F1: 1 5.27 1.558 √ No significant difference between countries
Awareness
F7: 2
Increased 4.83 1.566 √ No significant difference between countries
number
Cheaper
Larger range
Standardisation
F4: 6
4.37 1.227 Marked difference between (1-3) at mean
More efficient √
rank difference (MRD) of 16.44
use
F6: 6
Available
F10:
3.83 1.620 Substantial difference between (1-3) at
Readily 8 √
MRD of 26.21
accepted
F8: 10 3.80 1.220 Fairly substantial difference between (1-3)
√
Easier to install at MRD of 18.58
Integration
5.2.7 Summary of Questionnaire Analysis
In general, the questionnaire analysis has provided salient points regarding some of the
variables under investigation. Patterns have emerged concerning relationships between
variables that concur, to a certain extent, with the facts discovered under the literature
review. These include factors that have an impact on the level of automation and
robotics implementation such as type of business, construction sector, size of company
and number of international branches (Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively under Section
174
B). Results from the analysis of variables in Section C, regarding respondents’ opinions
on these factors, were used to further reinforce the cross-tabulation results. Significant
variables influencing barriers to automation and robotics implementation, minimising
these barriers and future trends have also been highlighted and ranked accordingly under
the analysis, and this will later be used in data integration to compare with the interview
analysis and findings from the literature review.
5.3 Interview Analysis
The data instrument and software utilised in the analysis of data for the interview phase
of the research have been fully described previously in sub-sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.2 of
chapter 3 and sub-sections 4.3.2 and 4.5.2 of chapter 4 of the thesis. Consequently, the
focus of this section will be primarily in the results or outcomes of the analysis process,
which will be employed later in facilitating data integration and in answering the
research questions.
5.3.1 Profile of Interviewees
The descriptive data on the interviewees are presented here to provide focus in context
with the sample group characteristics and its possible impact on the research findings.
As in the questionnaire analysis, they may also provide an indication on the possible
influence of respondents’ demographic for the way in which they respond to questions
presented to them.
Profession: As mentioned before in the previous chapters, as far as possible, to ensure

better coverage of the topic being investigated, attempts were made to include a wide
range of construction industry players, from the management i.e. the decision makers,
through to the engineers or uses of the technology. Attempts were also made to include
researchers of the technology, specifically those involved within the construction
industry itself. However, this was only possible in the case of Japan, as most of the large
construction companies there have a separate Research and Development Institute
attached to their company, thus making it easier to find a likely interview candidate
175
willing to participate in the research. The interviewees’ profession distribution according

to country is illustrated in Table 5.44 below.
Table 5.44 Interview Sample Distribution: Profession
COUNTRY PROFESSION NO OF
INTERVIEWEES
Company Director 1
JAPAN Engineer 2
Site Manager 1
Project Manager 1
Administrative Manager 1
Head of Research Institute 1
(within company)
TOTAL 7
Company Director 2
MALAYSIA Engineer 2
Site Manager 1
Project Manager 1
Administrative (Office) Manager 1
TOTAL 7
Company Director 1
AUSTRALIA Site Engineer 2
Project Manager 2
Administrative Manager 2
TOTAL 7
OVERALL TOTAL 21
Company details: Certain background details, especially those pertaining to the

interviewees’ company, were gathered to provide the setting of the interviews.
Interviewees were requested to provide brief information on the type of business,
construction sector in which they operate, gross annual revenue, number of full time
staff and whether they have their own Research and Development Department within
their company. 94% of interviewees have also volunteered information on their
experience, in terms of number of working years, in the construction industry. Of those
94%, almost all have worked in the industry for more than 15 years. As the research is
on barriers to implementation, it was felt that to provide balance to the topic, it would be
important to include both technology users and non-users in the interview participants
list. Consequently, of the total 21 interviewees, 6 do not use automation and robotics
technologies in their company. Of the 6, one is from Japan, three are from Malaysia and
two are from Australia. As most Malaysian companies do not use the technology,
176
finding those that do proved to be more difficult compared to Japan, hence the higher
number of non-users for the Malaysian participants. The company background details of
the interviewees are presented in Table 5.45 below.
Table 5.45 Interview Sample Distribution: Company Details
TYPE OF CONST. ANNUAL FULL-TIME COMPANY

BUSINESS SECTOR REVENUE STAFF HAS R&D
DEPT?
RESIDENTIAL & NON-R
MORE THAN AUD500M

AUD150M – AUD500M
AUD50M – AUD150M
SUB-CONTRACTOR
501 – 1000 PEOPLE

AUD25M – AUD50M
CIVIL ENG WORKS
101 – 250 PEOPLE
251 – 500 PEOPLE
MORE THAN 1000

CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPER
ALL AREAS
COUNTRY
YES
NO
JAPAN 3 1 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 2 3 0 2 3 2 3 4
MALAYSIA 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 7
AUSTRALIA 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 0 3 1 2 1 3 0 7
TOTAL 8 3 7 3 2 3 8 8 4 7 3 7 3 6 6 6 3 18
5.3.2 Contents Analysis of Key Areas
Patterns emerging from a preliminary thematic analysis of the interview transcripts

evolving around the research’s main topic were classified into key areas, which were
then further investigated through contents analysis. The emphasis placed by each
participant on key “phrases” previously identified through the preliminary analysis is
studied in terms of the frequency of occurrence in the interview text document, and
within context of the information gathered. The salient concepts are then ranked
according to importance and cross-referenced with extracts from the interview
containing the relevant phrases; to enable the significant points to be extracted
accordingly.
The analysis of the interview data are framed around four identified key areas, namely,
level of usage and related factors; barrier variables; identifying the reasons behind
differing levels of usage between countries; and future trends and opportunities. The first
area is mainly concerned with looking at general factors that affect usage for all groups
whilst the third area looks specifically at discovering the reasons behind differing levels
177
of usage between samples. These areas are further expanded to include relevant sub-
categories, which are subsequently ranked according to their frequency of occurrence
within the transcripts and the amount of significant information gathered, as mentioned
before.
Key Area One – Impact of Core Factors on Level of Usage

The core factors examined are those identified as having a probable impact on the level
of use of construction automation and robotics technologies, and are sub-categorised
according to the type of business (business type), the construction sector in which the
company operates (sector), the size of company according to annual revenue (size), and
the company’s market share both internationally and locally (market share). The results
of the analysis are summarised in Table 5.46 below.
Table 5.46 Summary of Content Analysis: Impact of Core Factors on Level of Usage
% OF RESPONSE
FREQUENCY OF POSITIVE NEGATIVE
RANK CORE FACTORS
OCCURENCE
1 Size 18 89.6 10.4
2 Business Type 15 72.2 27.8
3 Market Share 11 82.0 18.0
4 Sector 8 47.4 52.6
The content analysis results show that the level of usage of automation and robotics
technologies in construction is, to a certain extent, influenced by the core factors, with
size of company having the highest frequency of 18, and construction sector having the
lowest frequency of 8. Within the amount of information provided overall by all
participants, the Japanese are shown to have provided most information on size (40%)
and sector (36%); whilst the Australians and Malaysians provided the most information
on business type and market share (55% and 45% respectively). The itemised
percentages for each country in terms of ranking of information provided regarding the
core factors are presented in Table 5.47 below.
178
Table 5.47 Impact of Core Factors on Level of Usage: Country Group Distribution
RANKING OF COUNTRIES ACCORDING TO % AMOUNT OF
CORE INFORMATION OBTAINED
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3
FACTORS
Country % Country % Country %
Size Japan 40.0 Australia 34.7 Malaysia 25.3
Business Type Australia 55.0 Japan 23.1 Malaysia 21.9
Market Share Malaysia 45.0 Australia 40.4 Japan 14.6
Sector Japan 36.0 Malaysia 33.0 Australia 31.0
Extracts of typical comments made by interviewees within each sub-category are

presented below, with the purpose of providing an indication on the emphasis placed by
top ranked interviewees on each of the core factors; and the substance that have emerged
from the contents analysis.
Core Factor Ranked 1: Size (of Company)

The majority of participants commented on the positive impact, that is, the larger the
company, the more likely they are to take on automation and robotics technologies.
J3: “The bigger companies usually have the monetary capacity to acquire the
technology, they can afford it as their profit base is much greater compared to a
smaller company. Size of company matters as usually the bigger the company, the
greater its turnover.”
J2: “Larger companies, especially those with many branch offices, can afford to spread
the cost of acquiring the technologies. In fact, they may even get return for the
technology acquired if it is used many times. Their bigger size would enable them to
get economies of scale from the acquired technology, thus continually reducing the
buying cost.”
M6:“I think size of company is an important factor to consider in any company’s
decision to buy the technology, not only because of the cost of buying the technology,
but one has to consider the cost of updating it as well. Does a small company have
the money to do this? Yes and no, depending on how much profit it is raking in, I
suppose.”
179
There are a small number of negative impact statements made on this core factor; and
one example is provided below:
A3: “I don’t think it matters how big or small a company is; the decision on whether or
not to take up the technology would depend on what we want to use the technology
for. If we are talking about small “pockets” of technology application, rather than a
total system, a small company specialising in design might feel that it would be
useful to automate their design aspects and bring in the technology accordingly.”
Core Factor Ranked 2: Business Type

Most participants emphasised on the positive impact, in the sense that level of usage is
very much correlated to type of business. However, it should be noted that a number of
participants qualified their statement with comments on the construction area being
closely linked with business type, and both are important considerations in terms of the
level of implementation of the technologies.
A2:“As a construction company working mostly in the area of planning and project
management, we would classify ourselves as Consultants, in terms of business type.
We do use a lot of automation technologies, namely software for the phases of
construction we specialise in, but not on-site construction.”
J1: “Business type is an important factor in determining level of usage as it is very much
linked to usage within the construction area … say a consultant whose work is
mainly involved in the design aspect of construction might use a lot of software
specifically for this area, thus an increase in the use of automation, but principally
within the design stage, not other areas.”
M4:”We are primarily involved in the construction of new townships and residential
buildings in Kuala Lumpur, that is, we do mostly on-site construction. I don’t think
our field is much suited to automation and robotics technologies as on-site work
processes are difficult to automate because of its complexity and working
environment. And yes, I do think business type matters in deciding whether or not to
take up the technologies; it would be more suited to, for instance, consultants
involved in design work compared to us”.
180
Core Factor Ranked 3: Market Share

The majority of participants feel that market share plays an important role in
determining level of usage, especially in terms of global market share.
M5:“Global market share is one determining factor for construction companies to take
up innovative technologies, as apart from gaining the competitive edge, it can also
form part of a great marketing strategy for the company. If one is competing with
companies from all over the world, wouldn’t the use of an efficient technology be a
plus point for the company? However, this needs also be linked to how the
technology can help lower production time and cost, for, at the end of the day,
business is really about profit-making.”
A6:“Having a larger market share, not just locally but globally, would mean that the
company can afford to acquire the technologies; gaining economies of scale by
using it repetitively throughout its numerous construction projects. However, if it
involves a global market, the logistics of transporting a piece of high-tech equipment
has to be taken into account, what if the machine can only be repaired by certain
manufacturers in a fixed location? On the other hand, if the automation technology
we are talking about is of relatively small size and mobile, that shouldn’t be a
problem.”
J3:“Our company is involved in many construction projects in the Asia Pacific region,
and we also have branch offices in Europe and America. We do use automation and
robotics technologies for all stages of construction, but especially for design,
planning and project management, as usage within these stages are easily
transferable throughout our global network of companies. The usage of special
automated equipment for on-site construction is relatively rare as it is expensive to
transport between projects, but some equipment are acquired and used in special
circumstances.”
J5:“Market share is an important deciding factor in automation and robotics usage,
especially global market share. This, however, does not mean that companies have
to have branch offices in the countries within their market, some companies operate
quite well in partnership with local companies; it might work for the better this way
181
as local companies usually have a better understanding of the politics or regulations

within their own country.”
Core Factor Ranked 4: (Construction) Sector

This core factor attracts nearly equal numbers of positive and negative impact
statements, and extracts of both are included below:
M1:“I think those involved in the civil engineering and infrastructure sector might use
the technology more as there is a degree of repetitiveness to the construction process
in this sector compared to say, non-residential buildings. When we were
constructing the LRT (Light Rail Transport) System in K.L. (Kuala Lumpur), a lot of
the work involved building in built-up and congested traffic areas, and there is a
need to get the work done quickly and efficiently to minimise disruption. High-tech
equipment was brought in to do exactly that, even though it was not cheap.”
A1:“I don’t think it matters what sector of construction you are in; the decision on
whether or not to use the technology is influenced by other factors such as financial
commitment and availability; so it doesn’t matter whether you are building houses
or roads, if the technologies can be shown to improve work processes and is
affordable, then it will be purchased.”
Key Area Two – Barrier Variables

The barriers to automation and robotics implementation in construction are
interconnected to a number of factors, including the main problems associated with the
technology use and areas of usage within the construction phases. There is a need,
therefore, to also consider the barriers within different phases of construction; as barriers
to automation implementation into the on-site work processes could prove to be greater
than that of design automation. Further analysis will enable us to confirm or refute this.
Taking these factors into account, the barrier variables’ sub-categories identified for key
area two contents analysis are, high costs / substantial financial commitment in acquiring
and maintaining the technologies (cost), incompatibility of the technologies with
existing practices and current construction operations (incompatibility), fragmented
182
nature of the construction industry inhibits the implementation of new technologies

(fragmented industry), automation and robotics technologies are difficult to use and not
easily understood (difficult to use), automation and robotics technologies are unavailable
locally or difficult to acquire (unavailable), the technologies are not easily accepted by
workers (not accepted), and lastly, there is low technology literacy of project
participants / need for re-training of workers (re-training). An additional factor included
in the content analysis of this key area, in order to gauge the strength of the barriers
between different phases of construction is, “are the technologies used more
predominantly in certain areas of construction (different construction areas usage).” The
results of the analysis are summarised in Table 5.48 below.
Table 5.48 Summary of Content Analysis: Barrier Variables
FREQUENCY OF % OF RESPONSE
RANK BARRIER VARIABLES OCCURENCE POSITIVE NEGATIVE
1 Different Construction Areas Usage 43 92.1 7.9

2 Cost 39 87.7 12.3
3 Fragmented Industry 28 72.6 27.4
4 Difficult to Use 23 58.5 41.5
5 Incompatibility 18 57.3 42.7
6 Re-training 15 48.0 52.0
7 Unavailable 11 50.3 49.7
8 Not accepted 8 32.9 67.1
The content analysis results show that for barriers to automation and robotics
implementation in construction, different construction areas usage are ranked first with
a frequency of 43, followed by cost at a frequency of 39. There is an indication,
therefore, of most participants agreeing that barriers to the technology implementation is
highly dependent on the construction phases. The barrier variable ranked last is not
accepted with a frequency of 8. Within the amount of information provided overall by
all participants, the Japanese are shown to have provided most information on different
construction areas usage (58%); the Australians on cost (47.1%) and the Malaysians on
fragmented industry (42%). The percentages for each country in terms of ranking of
information provided regarding the barrier variables are presented in Table 5.49 below.
183
Table 5.49 Barrier Variables: Country Group Distribution

RANKING OF COUNTRIES
BARRIER VARIABLES ACCORDING TO % AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
OBTAINED
Different Construction Areas Usage Japan 58.0 Australia 26.7 Malaysia 15.3
Cost Australia 47.1 Japan 28.0 Malaysia 24.9
Fragmented Industry Malaysia 42.0 Australia 37.7 Japan 20.3
Difficult to Use Japan 50.3 Malaysia 26.8 Australia 22.9
Incompatibility Japan 38.9 Malaysia 36.5 Australia 24.6
Re-training Malaysia 38.4 Australia 37.0 Japan 24.6
Unavailable Australia 36.4 Malaysia 34.3 Japan 29.3
Not accepted Australia 35.0 Malaysia 34.5 Japan 30.5
As before, extracts of typical comments made by interviewees within each sub-category

are presented below.
Barrier Variable Ranked 1: Different Construction Areas Usage

Almost all participants (92.1%) commented on the positive impact, that is, the barriers
are very much influenced by the different phases of construction, with the majority
agreeing that barriers to automation and robotics technologies being implemented within
on-site construction being much greater compared to barriers to implementation during
the design phase.
J3:“In my opinion, barriers to the technology being implemented in the construction
industry would very much depend on the phases of construction we are concerned
with. I mentioned before that we use automation and robotics technologies within all
stages of construction, but a high percentage of it is in design, planning and project
management. Automation technologies such as software used within these earlier
stages of construction are fairly cheap and readily available; and have proven to
improve efficiency.”
A5:“As we are mostly involved in the design aspect of construction, we use automation
only within the design phase; and we find that the technology has allowed us to
produce designs economically and efficiently. There is also the advantage of having
readily available design software and products on the market with high capacity-to-
cost ratio; even the smaller firms can afford to acquire the technology. I wouldn’t
184
say the same about on-site construction though, the technologies are just not
available and if they are, it is usually too expensive or impractical.”
M2:“I totally agree with the fact that barriers to automation and robotics technologies
being greater for on-site construction compared to other construction phases. On-
site work processes are just not made for automation; for one thing there’s the
unpredictable environment or worksite. It must be really difficult to develop a
technology that takes this into account, compared to say, design products used in an
office environment.”
J4: “People tend to underestimate the advantages of utilising automation and robotics
for on-site construction. Granted, it would not be suitable for all projects, but if you
are building tract houses, where the contractor builds a significant number of
standardised houses on adjacent blocks, then the technology would be relevant.
Having said that, I think barriers are more numerous for on-site application
compared to other phases.”
Barrier Variable Ranked 2: Cost

The majority of participants (87.7%) highlighted the positive impact, which is, the more
expensive the technology, the greater the barriers to implementation. Negative
comments were only made in terms of participants emphasising on the importance of
factors other than cost, especially for larger companies with a higher capacity to invest
in the technologies.
A7:“Of course, cost would be a major factor in deciding on whether or not to take on a
technology. Cost considerations should include not only the purchasing cost, but
also the cost of maintaining the technologies and how far it can improve overall
efficiency and productivity. As it is now, emerging technologies of this kind are very
expensive and their widespread use will only be possible if the price of acquiring
and using those technologies falls significantly. In other words, the construction
industry is very price sensitive towards technology utilisation.”
J4: “Most of the automation and robotics technologies that have been developed here in
Japan never made it to the work-site because it is too expensive to produce
185
commercially. Nobody wants to invest in an expensive technology, especially the

smaller companies; and this is a real barrier, mostly for on-site technologies.”
M5:“Construction companies involved in the global market sometimes invest in
expensive technologies as part of their marketing strategy to gain the competitive
edge. For example, if there are numerous companies vying for an overseas project, if
you have a niche, that identifies you as a firm who can work efficiently using the
latest technologies, or you can complete your work faster because of these
technologies, wouldn’t that be an advantage? My point is that, depending on your
turnover and the market you are competing in, cost might not be the most important
factor. Then again, this would only apply to a minority of firms, I suppose.”
Barrier Variable Ranked 3: Fragmented Industry

Most participants feel that the fragmented nature of the construction industry does
inhibit the implementation of new technologies, especially in terms of the many layers
of responsibilities and control within the different construction phases.
M3:“One of the main reasons why it is extremely difficult to introduce innovative
technologies to construction is because the industry is very large and fragmented.
The rewards gained from a technology acquired during the design phase, must only
be kept within this stage as the next stage usually involves another firm with its own
set of responsibility and control. There are conglomerates out there that are involved
in all stages of construction, where everything is kept under one roof, but they are
not as numerous.”
J6:“In Japan, it is quite usual for construction companies to be involved in all stages of
construction, so for the majority, the industry here is not as fragmented as compared
to other countries. Most of the big companies also have their own Research and
Development Institute, in direct competition with each other; to produce
technologies that can make their companies more efficient. It is not so much a
problem here in Japan, but I think if the industry is more fragmented, then it would
be difficult to bring in new technologies as you cannot apply it throughout
construction.”
186
Barrier Variable Ranked 4: Difficult To Use

This barrier variable, “automation and robotics technologies are difficult to use and not
easily understood” has a slightly higher percentage of positive impact statements
(58.5%) compared to the negative (41.5%).
A1:“It is too high an expectation if we think that most industry players have the
knowledge for automation and robotics in all areas of construction; yet this is
important if we want to take the technology on board. The decision-makers in the
company have to be aware of the technology and know what would be appropriate
for them; the end-users need to make full use of it, if acquired, to make work
processes more efficient. Sometimes barriers can be psychological as well, you
wouldn’t want to use what you don’t understand, and most people think that the
technologies are difficult to use.”
M7:“Automation and robotics technologies are not easily understood, especially if we
are talking about on-site application. How do we expect the general workers on site
to use the technologies if even the academically inclined professionals within the
company itself may not understand or is unfamiliar with the technology?”
Barrier Variable Ranked 5: Incompatibility

Incompatibility of the technologies with existing practices and current construction
operations ranked 5 here with positive impact at 57.3% and negative impact statements
at 42.7%.
A7:“The nature of construction worksite does not lend itself to automation. In my
opinion, automation would suit repetitive works or areas where standard
components or layouts are used, maybe in the case of precast components or
prefabricated housing. But these are only application within certain areas, as the
common nature of construction is that it is complex and non-standardised, which is
the complete opposite of the technology.”
M6:“It is difficult to implement the technologies in the construction industry because the
nature of the work processes and environment in construction is totally different to
the requirements of any technology; technology needs a work process that is simple
and repetitive, and an environment that is clean and controlled.”
187
Barrier Variable Ranked 6: Re-training

This barrier variable attracts nearly equal numbers of positive (48%) and negative (52%)
impact statements.
J7:“Workers within the company may be provided with training if they are unfamiliar or
do not know how to use the technology. This need not involve major training
sessions, maybe workshops or some technical lectures.”
Barrier Variable Ranked 7: Unavailable

This barrier variable also attracts nearly equal numbers of positive and negative impact
statements, at 50.3% and 49.7% respectively.
M1:“It may be a problem if the technology is not readily available commercially or is
difficult to acquire because of some restrictions or other. People would be looking
for alternatives if that is the case, but it wouldn’t be a problem if the technology is
not available locally but you can get it from somewhere. I mean, in this internet and
global age, buying a product from anywhere in the world would be as easy as a click
of the mouse button.”
Barrier Variable Ranked 8: Not Accepted

Most participants feel that “the technologies are not easily accepted by workers” is the
least important barrier, with the frequency of 8. It has a higher percentage of negative
impact statements at 67.1%.
A5:“I feel that workers’ acceptance of the technologies, if it is implemented at the work
place, is not as important as other barriers. Usually, if the technology is
appropriately introduced and it can assist in increasing the efficiency of work
processes, it will be accepted with minimal problems.”
Key Area Three – Differing Levels of Usage between Countries

This third area looks specifically at discovering the reasons behind differing levels of
usage between samples. Factors examined are those identified as having a possible
impact on the level of usage between the sample countries, Japan, Malaysia and
Australia; and are sub-categorised according to the individual countries’ construction
characteristics (characteristics), whether construction labour is expensive or lacking
188
(labour), how accepting the countries’ culture and society is to technology in general
(culture), how large the market share is for the majority of the countries’ construction
companies (market share), government and company policies in place concerning
approach to technologies adoption (policies), and the countries’ construction
management and workers’ union (workers’ union). The results of the analysis are
summarised in Table 5.50 below.
Table 5.50 Summary of Content Analysis: Differing Levels of Usage Between Countries
% OF RESPONSE
RANK CORE FACTORS
OCCURENCE
1 Characteristics 25 84.0 16.0
2 Labour 21 69.2 30.8
3 Market Share 18 71.8 28.2
4 Policies 13 51.1 48.9
5 Workers’ Union 12 49.3 50.7
6 Culture 6 50.8 49.2
The content analysis results show that the level of usage of automation and robotics
technologies in the sample countries is influenced by a number of factors, with
(construction company) characteristics having the highest frequency of 25, and culture
having the lowest frequency of 6. Within the amount of information provided overall by
all participants, the Japanese are shown to have provided most information on
characteristics at 45%; the Australians on workers’ union at 48.9% and Malaysians on
policies at 39.7%. The percentages for each country in terms of ranking of information
provided regarding the differing levels of usage are presented in Table 5.51 below.
Table 5.51 Differing Levels of Usage Between Countries: Country Group Distribution
CORE INFORMATION OBTAINED
FACTORS
Characteristics Japan 45.0 Australia 35.8 Malaysia 19.2
Labour Australia 42.3 Japan 30.6 Malaysia 27.1
Market Share Malaysia 36.5 Australia 34.5 Japan 29.0
Policies Malaysia 39.7 Japan 30.5 Australia 29.8
Workers’ Union Australia 48.9 Japan 26.9 Malaysia 24.2
Culture Japan 36.0 Malaysia 35.7 Australia 28.3
189

presented below as before.
Core Factor Ranked 1: (Construction Industry) Characteristics

This core factor attempts to find the correlation between level of usage and the
individual countries’ construction industry characteristics so that comparisons between
countries can be made.
J5:“In Japan, there is no resistance to the use of robots, that is, labour saving
automated processes in construction. This is because of the unique characteristics of
the Japanese construction industry, and maybe also, the Japanese culture, where
technology is viewed as a positive thing. The Japanese industry is also made up of
mostly companies that are involved in all stages of construction, so the decision on
whether or not to use the technology is made at one point, from design through to
construction. Thus, all cost savings from using the technology during say, the design
phase is filtered through to the next phase, and the rewards are reaped by the same
company.”
A4:“The construction industry in Australia is made-up of a huge number of small
companies, maybe earning less than AUD100000 annually. Because of this
characteristic, you might find it quite difficult to find companies willing to invest in
the technology, as they are not willing to take the financial risk of acquiring an
“unproven” technology. The technology might be more relevant to the minority of
conglomerates that make up the industry, but then again, level of usage might not be
as high as in Japan, as there are not as many of these companies in Australia
compared to Japan.”
M6:“In Malaysia, decisions on the utilisation of innovative technologies depends very
much on upper management policies and decision-making process, especially for a
publicly run company like ours. The characteristic of the industry here in Malaysia
dictates that cost is very much a driving factor in any decisions made, as the industry
is made up of fairly small companies.”
J1:”The Japanese construction industry is made up of fairly big companies, the most
famous what we call the “Big Five”, and they are usually involved within all stages
190
of construction projects across the globe. The environment is very competitive, so

consequently, they are willing to invest in cutting edge technologies that otherwise
might have been too expensive. These companies usually exercise control overall
throughout the projects, enabling them to undertake R&D at a lower risk and in
direct competition with one another. You will see that one feature of the construction
industry here that might be different from others is that most companies have their
own Research and Development Institute, undertaking research for the company.”
Core Factor Ranked 2: Labour

The majority of participants commented on the positive impact, that is, in countries
where the labour situation is acute or expensive, the likelihood that the technologies will
be used is higher.
A3:“The use of the technologies would be more relevant to countries where the labour
situation is acute and there are not enough workers to fill in available jobs. We
might have that problem here, but since the Australian construction industry is made
up of smaller companies, bringing in expensive technologies is not seen as the most
practical solution. We need to consider which is more expensive, and the decisions
made are usually based on short-term solutions.”
M2:“Labour is fairly cheap in Malaysia, and it stands to reason that this would inhibit a
widespread use of the technologies. But then again, even though labour is cheap
here, we are mostly relying on foreign labour, which brings in its own socio-
economic problems, so maybe a way forward for the technologies is if the use of
foreign labour is more regulated compared to now.”
J6:“In Japan, the aging workforce and the reluctance of the younger generation to enter
into the construction industry are creating a situation where there are not enough
workers coming into the industry. Technology is seen as a way to attract these
younger people, and raise their views on the industry’s status.”
Core Factor Ranked 3: Market Share

Most participants emphasised on the positive impact, and feel that market share plays an
important role in determining level of usage between countries, especially in terms of
how large their market share is and whether they are involved in projects globally.
191
M5:“Companies involved in international projects usually have a larger market share;

and the competition is different compared to a more local company. I think quite a
number of Japanese companies are international players; I mean even if we just look
at construction projects here in Malaysia, we can see many of them are contracted to
Japanese contractors. Companies that have built up their reputation on handling
large, complex projects; they can afford to take these technologies on board. I
suppose, they can also employ the best people to handle the technologies if need be.”
A6:“Companies can afford to acquire the technologies if they have a larger market
share. Here in Australia, since the industry is made up of smaller companies, the
market is usually fairly localised for these companies. The technologies are not
embraced by the industry as many doubt that it would be very cost effective. Even if
the technologies are proven to improve efficiency, if it is too expensive, the
companies might not be able to afford it as economies of scale do not come into play
in such a small market.”
Core Factor Ranked 4: Policies

The fourth ranked factor is the government and company policies in place in the three
sample countries concerning their approach to innovative technologies adoption; which
drew nearly equal 51.1% positive impact and 48.9% negative impact statements.
M4:“Opportunities are limited because usage is contingent on acceptance by many
parties in the industry; and it is too cost prohibitive for one company to go at it
alone. With the Malaysian CIDB going for modularity and repetitiveness in the built
elements, then the usage of automation and robotics might become feasible. The
government endorsed Industrialised Building System Roadmap 2003-2010,
promoting usage of IBS as an alternative to the conventional and labour intensive
construction method, could also help advance the use of these technologies in
Malaysia.”
M7:“In Malaysia, problems brought upon by the use of unregularised foreign labour,
mostly from our neighbouring country, Indonesia, is well-known. There have been a
number of crack-downs from the government and immigration department to stop
the unlawful entry of foreign workers into the country. With the impending shortage
192
of labour, the tougher laws set up by the government on employing unregularised

foreign workers might push employers to find alternatives. One of the alternatives
might just be adopting some form of automation and robotics technologies.”
J2:“The construction companies in Japan usually view technology adoption as a
necessary thing in order to consistently improve efficiency and maintain their
competitive edge; it is common policy to encourage research and innovation,
especially the larger construction companies with their own Research and
Development Institutes. Duplication of research efforts across companies is very
common in Japan.”
A4:“I doubt if there are any policies in place concerning innovative technologies
implementation for most of construction companies here in Australia, especially the
smaller ones. The reason for adopting it would very much be influenced by cost.”
Core Factor Ranked 5: Workers’ Union

This core factor on the countries’ construction management and workers’ union also
attracted nearly equal numbers of positive (49.3%) and negative (50.7%) impact
statements.
J7:“Workers’ union would not be a very important consideration when making the
decision on whether or not to take up the technologies in Japan. The work culture
and ethics in Japan is different compared to that of a western country, I think. Here,
the company is like a big family, with the management as parents and the employees,
the children. Respect is of utmost importance and should be afforded to those higher
up on the company’s hierarchy.”
Core Factor Ranked 6: Culture

The core factor ranked last is on how accepting the countries’ culture and society is to
technology in general.
J1:“Japan is a very technology driven society, and technology is part of everyday life.
Having experienced the Japanese culture, I think you already know how much we
love gadgets, not to mention robots. So introducing automation and robotics
technologies is not as difficult in Japan because the society understands and is
193
accepting of it. The only reason companies might not take it on might be because of
other factors I have mentioned before such as cost.”
Key Area Four – Future Trends and Opportunities

This fourth area examines the future trends and opportunities of automation and robotics
technologies for the next ten years. It is sub-categorised according to the technologies’
affordability and availability (afford available), further development of the technologies
in terms of making it more flexible and easier to use (develop technology), a change in
the industry itself with greater integration and more standardisation of design and work
processes (more integration), whether there is a significant increase in the range and use
of the technologies (increase use), and lastly, whether there is greater awareness and
acceptance of the technologies by the industry (aware accept). The results of the
analysis are presented in Table 5.52 below.
Table 5.52 Summary of Content Analysis: Future Trends and Opportunities

% OF RESPONSE
RANK FUTURE TRENDS
OCCURENCE
1 Aware Accept 20 53.8 46.2
2 Afford Available 18 57.6 42.4
3 Increase Use 17 46.5 53.5
4 Develop Technology 14 39.4 60.6
5 More Integration 9 38.5 61.5
The content analysis results illustrate that in terms of future trends and opportunities for
the technologies, the majority of participants commented on there being greater
awareness and acceptance of the technologies by the construction industry community in
the future, with aware accept having the highest frequency of 20, and more integration
having the lowest frequency of 9. Within the amount of information provided overall by
all participants, the Australians are shown to have provided most information on aware
accept at 58%; the Japanese on afford available at 39.9% and Malaysians on develop
technology at 43.7%. The percentages for each country in terms of ranking of
information provided regarding the differing levels of usage are presented in Table 5.53
below.
194
Table 5.53 Future Trends and Opportunities: Country Group Distribution

FUTURE TRENDS INFORMATION OBTAINED
Aware Accept Australia 58.0 Japan 30.1 Malaysia 11.9
Afford Available Japan 39.9 Malaysia 33.8 Australia 26.3
Increase Use Malaysia 35.8 Australia 34.0 Japan 30.2
Develop Technology Malaysia 43.7 Japan 37.4 Australia 18.9
More Integration Japan 34.9 Malaysia 33.5 Australia 31.6

presented below as before.
Future Trend Ranked 1: Aware Accept

This trend investigates the future level of awareness and acceptance of the technologies
by the construction community in general.
A4:“In terms of current awareness of the technologies in Australia, I would say that the
construction industry here is not as informed about the technologies compared to
say, Japan. But in ten years time, that might change. The world is getting more
technology savvy as we speak, so who knows? This (technology) might even filter
through to the construction industry. ”
J6:“The most popular era of the automation and robotics technologies was during the
late 1980s to mid 1990s, where a lot of research work was published. The
International Association of Automation and Robotics in Construction was also set
up; with the annually organised conferences becoming the platform for
disseminating information and knowledge regarding the technologies. This year (the
interview took place in 2006), it would be the 23rd time the conference is organised
for this purpose, and it is hopeful that after all that time, there is still a future for the
technologies and people are becoming more aware of it.”
Future Trend Ranked 2: Afford Available

The majority of participants (57.6%) commented on the positive impact, expressing their
view that, in the future, the technologies’ affordability and availability might improve.
195
J3:“We developed many types of construction robots during the 1985 to 1995 period; but
these days we do not utilise almost all of the construction robots. Unfortunately,
because of the current Japanese economic recession, these expensive robots are not
often used, but I believe a shortage of skilled workers on site will have a huge impact
on the demand for robots on construction sites in the near future. With further
development, affordability of the robots could greatly improve. ”
M4:“Technology needs to be affordable and easily available for it to gain greater
acceptance. I do believe that in ten years time, we might see an improvement in this
area regarding construction automation and robotics technologies; may be not for
all areas of construction, but for most. Technology grows at an unbelievably fast
rate; just imagine the mobile phone of ten years ago and how cumbersome they are.
But then again, for development to take place, there need to be interest and a
demand for it.”
Future Trend Ranked 3: Increase Use

There are a slightly higher percentage of negative impact statements (53.5%) for this
future trend as most participants believe that the range and use of the technologies might
not increase significantly in the near future.
M6:“There will be a substantial increase in the use of automation and robotics
technologies in construction, but not for all areas, I think. On-site application might
not see a significant change, as the barriers are too numerous and might be
insurmountable. There is a possibility that construction projects in Malaysia will see
greater use of the technologies, if industry players are to take into account the IBS
(Industrialised Building System) Roadmap endorsed by our government.”
A2:“I don’t think there will be much change in the level of use compared to now,
although there might be some increase of use in certain areas of construction such
as design and planning. Other than the difficulty of introducing innovative
technologies into the construction work processes, I don’t think the technology will
get much cheaper than it is currently.”
196
Future Trend Ranked 4: Develop Technology

The future trend on further development of the technologies in terms of making it more
flexible and easier to use has also drawn more negative impact (60.6%) than positive
impact (39.4%) statements.
M3:“I assume the opportunities in making the technologies more flexible and easier to
use would be less for on-site application compared to other areas of construction.
There need to be a fundamental change in the construction work processes of today
to allow for the development of technology that is more flexible and user-friendly. I
think that in the future, if research and development continues in the line of making
“robots”, there might never be a time when the technologies are such that anyone
can use it.”
J2:”The challenge here is not so much developing technologies for labour saving
automated processes in construction, but developing technologies that is flexible
enough, so as to allow greater integration between the technologies and
construction work processes. However, many attempts have proven insufficiently
flexible, and have ended up gathering dusts. The future is, I think, in developing
technologies that are simple but practical, that can be applied to certain areas of
construction.”
Future Trend Ranked 5: More Integration

The future trend ranked last is on the prospect of a change in the industry itself with
greater integration and more standardisation of design and work processes in the near
future.
J3:“Even though greater integration within the construction industry itself is quite
common in Japan, as most are very large and involved throughout all stages of
construction, further integration is not seen as very likely in the near future.
Infiltration of these technologies onto the construction processes in Japan was not as
difficult compared to other countries because of this existing greater integration and
standardisation of work processes. But I think, in the future, the industry will very
much remain as it is right now.”
197
A7: “Integration within the industry itself is almost an improbable concept; it just
doesn’t work that way in construction. We have our architects who design, quantity
surveyors who do the costing, contractors who build and so on. Expecting these
groups of people to integrate would be extremely difficult as it would involve the
merging of different sets of work ethics and values, most probably operating under
different companies.”
5.3.3 Summary of Interview Analysis
On the whole, this section has highlighted some important aspects regarding patterns
that have emerged from the contents analysis of the interview transcripts. The analysis
evolving around the research’s main topic were classified into four key areas or
headings, which were further divided into relevant sub-categories, before being ranked
according to importance and frequency of occurrences within the transcripts. It can be
construed from the ranking of the sub-categories under the key areas that those ranked
first were given a higher emphasis by participants, and thus are of more significance.
The factors ranked first are, size of company for key area one: core factors on levels of
usage; different construction areas usage for key area two: barrier variables;
construction industry characteristics for key area three: differing levels of usage between
countries; and greater awareness and acceptance of the technologies by the industry for
key area four: future trends and opportunities.
5.4 Summary
This chapter described the data analysis phase of the research; specifically the statistical
analysis of the questionnaire data and the contents analysis of the interview data. In
phase one of the analysis, correlations between variables and relationships between
samples were investigated through appropriately chosen statistical tests and procedures;
including the use of descriptive and inferential statistics in the form of cross-tabulations
for bivariate and multivariate analyses; and hypothesis testing under Kruskal-Wallis and
Mann-Whitney. The first phase highlighted and ranked accordingly variables that
198
influence the level of use of automation and robotics in construction; significant

variables that influence barriers to automation and robotics implementation; measures
for minimising these barriers; and future trends. In phase two, the analysis of the
interview data were framed around four identified key areas, namely, level of usage and
related factors; barrier variables; identifying the reasons behind differing levels of usage
between countries; and future trends and opportunities. These areas were further
expanded to include relevant sub-categories, which were subsequently ranked according
to their frequency of occurrence within the interview transcripts and the amount of
significant information gathered. The results of the analyses from both phases will be
compared and integrated in the next chapter, to be cross-referenced with findings from
the literature review.
199
6.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the analysis and test results of both the quantitative and
qualitative phases previously presented in Chapter 5. The two data sets analysed under
Phase 1: Questionnaire and Phase 2: Interviews are synthesised and integrated, with the
findings from phase two used to elaborate and extend the analysis results for phase one
of the research. Significant findings from Phase 1 that will be further discussed evolves
around seven central themes that have emerged, including the demographic factors, level
of implementation in different stages of construction, areas of usage on-site, association
between levels of usage and demographic factors, barriers to implementation,
minimising or overcoming those barriers, and future trends and opportunities. To
provide further support and collaboration to these findings, the results of Phase 2 will be
discussed and cross-referenced within four key areas, that is, impact of core factors (size,
business type, market share, sector) on level of usage; barrier variables (different
construction areas usage, cost, fragmented industry, difficult to use, incompatibility, re-
training, unavailable, not accepted); differing levels of usage between countries
(characteristics, labour, market share, policies, workers’ union, culture); and future
trends and opportunities (aware accept, afford available, increase use, develop
technology, more integration).
The process of synthesising and integrating the results of both phases is also discussed
and placed in context with the literature review as previously described in Chapter 2;
with regard to pertinent points raised within the research’s central theme of automation
and robotics technologies implementation in construction. This data integration phase,
incorporating the triangulation of results and findings of the quantitative and qualitative
data analysis phases with the literature review, will focus on the emerging patterns and
relationships between variables. Significant findings are highlighted and then discussed
200
CHAPTER SIX: INTEGRATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON FINDINGS
in greater depth in context with the research questions set out in Chapter 1. The data
integration process is best summarised in Figure 6.1 below.
Figure 6.1 Flowchart for Data Integration Phases
PHASE 1: QUESTIONNAIRE LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Demography of Companies FINDINGS
2. Level of Implementation in Different
Stages of Construction
3. Areas of Usage On-Site
4. Association between Levels of Usage PHASE 3: DATA INTEGRATION
and Demographic Factors 1. Discussions on Effects of
5. Barriers to Implementation Demography
6. Minimising or Overcoming Barriers 2. Levels of Implementation:
7. Future Trends and Opportunities Correlation with Demographic/
Core Factors
3. Barrier Variables: Synthesising
Questionnaire and Interview
Analysis Results
PHASE 2: INTERVIEWS 4. Differing Levels of Usage in
Between Countries
1. Impact of Core Factors on Level 5. Future Trends and
Of Usage Opportunities: Synthesising
2. Barrier Variables Questionnaire and Interview
3. Differing Levels of Usage Between Analysis Results
Countries
4. Future Trends and Opportunities
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
AND ISSUES
As far as possible, data treatment within all phases, from data collection through to
coding and analysis, was carried out as objectively and scientifically as the systematic
research procedures allowed them to be. However, it should be noted that the
interpretation of the data is based on the researcher’s own views, and, to a certain extent,
may be subjective and influenced by the researchers’ background, experience and
culture.
201
6.2 Questionnaire and Interview Data Integration
In Phase 3 of data integration, the data analyses results from the previous two phases
(questionnaire and interviews) are synthesised towards five principal areas; including
discussions on effects of demography; levels of implementation: correlation with
demographic/ core factors; barrier variables; differing levels of usage in between
countries; and future trends and opportunities.
6.2.1 Demography Effects
This section provides a brief summary of respondents’ demographic details for both
phases and discusses the possible effects this might have on the way that respondents
approach the questions. From sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.1 of the previous chapter, it can be
ascertained that the samples for all three countries consists of a wide range of
construction industry professionals, from management (company director, administrative
manager) through to users on site (engineers, site managers); working in a range of small
(less than AUD0.2million) to large companies (more than AUD500million). The sample
also covers a wide range of business types (contractors, consultants) and construction
sectors (residential, civil engineering works and infrastructure). The distribution varies
from sample to sample, with some countries having a larger proportion of certain
categories compared to others. This reflects, to a certain extent, the population of the
construction industry in those countries, especially where random samples are used
(questionnaire).
It was the intention of the research for the sample to consist of a wide range of
respondents, so as to better reflect the different perspectives of the construction
community regarding automation and robotics technologies. As the fundamental theme
of the research is on barriers to implementation, both users’ and non-users’ viewpoints
are of equal importance, so as to better gauge the difference in technology
implementation across countries. In this sense, differences in opinions regarding the
technologies, caused by the differing backgrounds and outlooks, are dealt with and
balanced out through having a wider range of participants.
202
6.2.2 Levels of Implementation: Correlation with Core Factors
This section describes the relationship between variables that was ascertained through
statistical procedures and contents analysis performed for the two phases. The variables
that have been identified as core factors include Size of Company, Type of Business,
Number of International Branches (or Market Share) and Construction Sector. These
core factors can be related to a number of other ancillary factors such as companies’
length of use of the technologies, whether the technology is acquired from outside the
company and areas of usage within the construction phases. These additional factors will
be taken into account when synthesising the two phases, and are cross-referenced with
the core factors under investigation.
Cross-tabulations results from Questions 1 to 5 and contents analysis of key area one
have indicated that some factors are ranked higher than others with regard to the usage
of the technologies. From the statistical analysis in phase 1, it can be observed that size
of company shows a fairly strong correlation with level of usage, especially for the
Japanese sample. However, there was no clear indication of association for the
Malaysian and Australian sample, so there is a need to further study this with regard to
areas of construction. The cross-tabulation results of areas of usage for all three
countries have suggested that there is a stronger correlation between size of company
and level of usage for on-site construction, compared to other areas. The design phase
has shown negative association, indicating that size of company is not at all related to
levels of usage within the design phase. This reflects the fact that smaller companies
tend to use automation technologies during the earlier parts of construction (such as
design) because of the availability of fairly cheap design software on the market.
Under the contents analysis, size of company was ranked first, in terms of its impact on
level of usage, and 89.6% is of the opinion that the larger the company, the more likely
they are to take on automation and robotics technologies. Cross-referencing this result
with the analysis in Section C of “are automation and robotics technologies more
predominantly used in larger construction companies compared to smaller ones” gives a
clear indication of a correlation in the participants’ opinion, where 85.7% answered
203
“yes”; obviously implying that the majority agreed automation and robotics are more
predominantly used in larger companies. The main reasons given by participants under
contents analysis, is that larger companies usually have the greater capacity to invest due
to their higher turnover and market share. This also tallies with the findings under
literature review which will be discussed later.
The second core factor under consideration is type of business, where the results of the
cross-tabulation show a correlation with level of usage, but with a fairly weak strength
of association at Phi value of 0.129 and C value of 0.128. To further elaborate on this,
there is also a need to look at the results of the contents analysis, where business type is
ranked second. Here, most participants emphasised on the positive impact, in the sense
that level of usage is very much correlated to type of business. It should be noted
however that a number of participants qualified their statement with comments on the
construction area being closely linked with business type, and both are important
considerations in terms of level of implementation of the technologies. Examples given
by participants include the fact that consultants involved in the design phase might use
more automation (such as incorporating design software in their work processes)
compared to a contractor involved in on-site construction (as on-site technologies are not
as readily available and can be fairly expensive).
Further examination of the areas of usage for on-site construction under the analysis in
phase one has indicated that the majority of technology users on-site are the Japanese
company at 70%, and areas of use include earthworks, structural steelwork, concreting,
building assembly, painting / finishing and total automation. Higher levels of usage for
on-site construction in Japan may be linked to the fact that a number of Japanese
companies have their own in-house Research and Development Institutes (20%
compared to none for Malaysia and Australia) and that most Japanese companies (60%)
have used the technologies for more than 10 years, compared to 50% Malaysian and
35% Australian never having used the technologies.
204
The third core factor is the number of international branches or market share. In the
analysis for Question 4 of Phase 1, the cross-tabulation results have shown a very strong
indication that most companies with international branches use automation and robotics,
with 100% using the technologies when they have 16 to 20 branches. The cross-
tabulation patterns of individual countries also confirms this positive correlation, as well
as the analysis results of Section C: “are companies operating internationally on a
global scale more likely to use automation and robotics technologies compared to those
operating locally”, where 81.8% answered “yes”. The results of the contents analysis
also confirm that the majority of participants (82%) believe market share plays an
important role in determining level of usage, especially in terms of global market share.
The reasons given by most participants on why include using the technologies as part of
a marketing strategy and in gaining economies of scale.
The fourth core factor is construction sector, where the cross-tabulation results of
Question 2 shows 77.3% of companies using automation and robotics are involved in all
sectors of construction, which may imply that companies with multiple concerns are
most likely to invest in the technologies. However, the strength of association is fairly
weak, with values of Phi and C calculated as 0.194 and 0.191 respectively. This could
indicate that the results might just be the consequence of a positive correlation between
size of companies and their involvement in all sectors of construction, in the sense that
larger companies are usually conglomerates involved in a range of projects; and might
not be a true measure of association between construction sector and levels of usage
after all. There is a need, therefore, to further investigate this by cross-referencing with
the results of Section C and the contents analysis. Section C: “are some projects more
suited to automation and robotics technologies compared to others” gives a clear
majority of 90% answering “yes”. To better direct this result onto construction sector,
an additional question “state which construction projects automation and robotics
technologies are most suited to” was included. The majority of respondents at 37% think
Specialised Sub-Contracting Work is more suited to the technologies, followed by 34%
for Civil Engineering Works and Infrastructure. In contents analysis, construction sector
is ranked last, and participants are of the opinion that sector does not really influence
205
level of usage. Some agreed that with the degree of repetitiveness inherent in civil
engineering works, it might be more suited to the technologies; but comments were also
made of the fact that the technologies can also be utilised for standardised, prefabricated
housing in the residential sector. There is therefore, no clear evidence from the analyses,
to indicate that there are higher levels of automation and robotics usage in certain sectors
of construction.
This section elaborates on the barriers to the implementation of automation and robotics
in construction, and interprets and discusses the results of not only the barriers
themselves but also related issues such as main problems associated with usage, areas of
construction, and minimising or overcoming those barriers. The barrier variables were
analysed within the following categories: high costs/ financial commitments in acquiring
and maintaining the technologies; fragmented nature of the construction industry inhibits
the implementation of new technologies; automation and robotics technologies are
difficult to use and not easily understood; incompatibility of the technologies with
existing practices and current construction operations; there is low technology literacy of
project participants/ need for re-training of workers; automation and robotics
technologies are unavailable locally and difficult to acquire; and lastly, the technologies
are not easily accepted by workers. Additional factors that were identified and analysed
under phase one, such as areas of construction, will also be taken into account when
synthesising the two phases, and are cross-referenced with the main barrier variables
under investigation.
From the results of the Kruskal-Wallis descriptive and test statistics performed for the
barrier variables in phase 1, it was established that cost of acquiring the technologies
was ranked first, with no significant difference between the samples. Cost of
maintaining and updating the technologies was ranked fourth, with a mean value of
3.97 compared to 4.69 for the first one. However, these results need also be studied in
context with the analysis in Section C of “why company uses automation and robotics
technologies more predominantly in certain areas of construction” as barriers to
206
implementation is closely linked to areas of construction (as signified by the interview

analysis). Here, 15% of respondents think that high costs associated with application in
certain areas is the reason why the technologies are used more predominantly in some
areas; making it the third most popular choice. Linking this with an additional question
on the topic in Section C; which is, “what are the main problems associated with the use
of automation and robotics in construction”; “high costs associated with automation and
robotics application” is the most popular choice at 18%. To collaborate on this, these
results are cross-referenced with that of the contents analysis in phase 2.
The contents analysis ranks cost as the second highest, but as it takes into account
different construction areas usage as well, which is ranked first; cost can be considered
the most important factor here if compared only with the barrier variables of phase 1.
For cost, the majority of participants (87.7%) thinks that the more expensive the
technology, the greater the barriers to implementation. Here, cost considerations were
discussed by participants not only in terms of purchasing costs, but maintenance and
updating costs as well; and the construction industry is seen to be fairly price sensitive
towards technology utilisation.
It should be noted that, in interpreting and discussing the barriers to implementation, a

very important factor that should be taken into account is the different construction
areas usage. This has been mentioned numerous times by participants, and in the
contents analysis, it is ranked highest, with almost all participants (92.1%) agreeing that
the barriers are very much influenced by the different phases of construction. The
majority also agreed that barriers to automation and robotics technologies being
implemented within on-site construction is much greater compared to barriers for the
earlier phases of construction, such as design. This can be further consolidated by the
results of “areas most used for companies employing automation and robotics in
construction” in phase 1, which shows that the majority of companies does not use the
technologies for on-site construction (65%) compared to design (48%) and scheduling/
planning (42%). For those companies who use the technologies on-site, rating of usage
mostly range within seldom and sometimes used, as opposed to regularly and highly
207
used for the design phase. Therefore, in the interpretation of results and discussions on
the other barrier variables that follows, different construction areas usage should
always be taken into consideration.
The second barrier variable to be examined is fragmented nature of the construction

industry inhibits the implementation of new technologies, which is ranked second in
phase 1 analysis, in agreement with the comparable ranking for the contents analysis.
With a mean value of 4.29, the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests performed for
this variable has shown significant difference between the population of Malaysia and
Australia, hence we accept the alternative hypothesis of there being a difference between
the groups. This implies that ranking of this barrier variable is different between samples,
and are not in agreement with each other; with the existing ranking being more of a
general ranking across samples. In the contents analysis, most participants felt that the
fragmented nature of the construction industry does inhibit the implementation of new
technologies, especially in terms of the many layers of responsibilities and control
within the different construction phases. A large number of participants are of the
opinion that the barrier would be less for conglomerates involved in many stages of
construction, and operating under one roof.
The third barrier variable is automation and robotics technologies are difficult to use
and not easily understood, ranked third in phase 1 analysis, and again, in accord with
the comparable ranking for the contents analysis. With a mean value of 4.03, the
Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests has confirmed no significant difference exists
between the samples, indicating all groups are in agreement with each other regarding
this barrier variable. In the contents analysis, most participants felt that the technologies
are not easily understood, especially for on-site construction.
The fourth barrier variable explored is incompatibility of the technologies with existing
practices and current construction operations, which again, has the same ranking for
both the statistical and contents analyses. The statistical tests performed have also
confirmed that there is no significant difference between the samples. In the contents
208
analysis, comments are mostly on the fact that construction worksite and processes do
not lend itself to automation due to its complexity and non-standardisation; and
technology applications may only be appropriate within certain areas of construction
such as repetitive works or areas where standard components and layouts are used.
The next barrier variable is low technology literacy of project participants/ need for re-
training of workers, with again, the same ranking for both phases of the analyses.
Statistical tests show significant difference for Japan and Australia regarding this
variable. The contents analysis attracted nearly equal numbers of positive (48%) and
negative (52%) impact statements, with participants mentioning that training may be
required within the company in the form of workshops or technical lectures. The next
variable to be considered is automation and robotics technologies are unavailable
locally and difficult to acquire; where participants noted that this might not be a very
significant barrier due to the fact that in this internet age, buying a product in a world-
wide market should be relatively easy. The least significant barrier is the technologies
are not easily accepted by workers, with participants stating that if the technology can
prove to increase efficiency of work processes, it would ordinarily be accepted by
workers.
One common aspect that can be deduced from all seven barrier variables examined
above is that, the ranking for both phases, through the statistical and contents analyses,
both corresponds with each other. This demonstrates a fairly strong evidence of the
barrier variables under investigation being appropriately ranked; and could assist later on,
in deriving the conclusions for the research in terms of ranking of barriers to
implementation.
Additional analysis carried out in phase 1 in minimising or overcoming the barriers is

discussed here to provide further proof of association with the barrier variables
previously examined. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests performed for this
group of variables have provided the following ranking, from most to least important;
encourage greater standardisation of construction products and processes; making
209
automation and robotics technologies cheaper to operate and maintain; developing

automation and robotics technologies that are easier to use and understand; improving
availability of the technologies; making the construction environment more structured
and controlled; reducing the costs of acquiring or buying the technologies; better
training programmes for workers; and lastly, better marketing strategies of the
technologies to encourage acceptance.
The first ranked variable here tallies with the barrier variable: fragmented nature of the
construction industry inhibits the implementation of new technologies, which was
ranked second previously. Cost, comparatively ranked as first previously, is split up into
two here, that is, making automation and robotics technologies cheaper to operate and
maintain (ranked second), and reducing the costs of acquiring or buying the technologies
(ranked sixth). Cost is still placed at a high ranking here, although the emphasis is more
on operating and maintenance costs, rather than buying cost. In minimising or
overcoming barriers, participants are of the opinion that fragmented industry is of
slightly higher significance than cost. The least important variable is better marketing
strategies of the technologies to encourage acceptance, which corresponds with the
barrier variable previously ranked last the technologies are not easily accepted by
workers.
6.2.4 Differing Levels of Usage between Countries
This section describes the relationship between variables that has been previously
described for phase 1 statistical analysis under section 6.2.2, but the focus here is
specifically more on facilitating comparison between the samples; so as to gauge the
different levels of usage between countries. The contents analysis of phase 2 will further
direct these variables towards comparison between countries within six aspects, that is,
the individual countries’ construction characteristics (characteristics), whether
construction labour is expensive or lacking (labour), how accepting the countries’
culture and society is to technology in general (culture), how large the market share is
for the majority of the countries’ construction companies (market share), government
210
and company policies in place concerning approach to technologies adoption (policies),

and the countries’ construction management and workers’ union (workers’ union).
Previous discussions on cross-tabulation results from Questions 1 to 5 have indicated

that size of company shows a fairly strong correlation with level of usage, especially for
the Japanese sample, but with no clear indication of association for the Malaysian and
Australian sample. Further examination of the cross-tabulation results for areas of usage
for all three countries have implied that there is a stronger correlation between size of
company and level of usage for on-site construction, compared to other areas.
Reviewing these facts in terms of individual countries’ level of usage in each area, that
is, the descriptive statistics results of Section B: “areas most used by companies
employing automation and robotics”, it can be established that the majority of
companies in all three countries do use the technologies in the earlier phases of
construction, with greater usage overall in the scheduling/ planning, costing and design
stages (ranked first, second and third respectively). From the mean ranking for
individual countries (Table 5.4), Japan is shown to consistently use more of the
technologies in all stages of construction compared to the other two countries; with the
mean value for Japan constantly remaining much higher than Malaysia and Australia.
Characteristics of the construction industry can also be linked to type of business and
construction sector, and the frequency distributions for all three countries in phase 1
analysis has revealed that for Japan, the majority of respondents are consultants (43%)
involved in all sectors of the industry (60%); for Australia, the majority are contractors
(55%) involved in equal percentages of non-residential and all sectors (34%); and for
Malaysia, the majority are contractors and developers (38% each) involved in all sectors
(38%). Statistically, the evidence is not conclusive to assume that higher levels of usage
in Japan is due to the fact that the Japanese population is made up of a greater
percentage of companies involved in all stages of construction. Previous discussions in
section 6.2.2 have also found no clear evidence to indicate that there are higher levels of
automation and robotics usage in certain sectors of construction.
211
In terms of market share, the cross-tabulation results of Question 4 in Phase 1 have

shown a very strong indication that most companies with international branches use
automation and robotics, with 100% using the technologies when they have 16 to 20
branch offices. The cross-tabulation patterns of individual countries also confirm this
positive correlation. For Japan, only the companies without an overseas branch do not
use automation and robotics. In Malaysia the number of companies with overseas
branches is smaller, but from that, the majority 57% without overseas branches does not
use the technologies. The Australian sample is more spread out, but also indicates those
with overseas branches (100% and 66.7%) use the technologies more than those with
none. It can be construed from these facts that companies with a greater number of
international branches in all three countries use more of the technologies compared to
those with none; although there is stronger evidence in this for Japan compared to
Australia.
In the contents analysis for this area, the individual countries’ construction industry
characteristics were ranked first, with 84% positive impact statements. The majority of
participants have commented on the unique characteristics of the Japanese construction
industry, in that it is not as fragmented as compared to other countries; and is usually
made up of conglomerates involved in a fairly large and competitive market. The
construction industry in Australia and Malaysia operates within a more localised market
compared to Japan, and is made up of relatively small companies. Previous discussions
above have established that Japan is shown to consistently use more of the technologies
in all stages of construction compared to the other two countries; which may be an
indication that the technologies are embraced more fully by the Japanese due to these
characteristics. However, it should be noted that there are no statistical evidence to link
business type and construction sector to levels of usage in individual countries. It might
well be that the measure in the contents analysis here, on construction characteristics, is
the sum of all the factors (size, business type and construction sector) rather than each
factor being mutually exclusive and treated as such. In other words, the Japanese
companies are generally large conglomerates with multiple concerns involved in all
stages of construction; and hence they use more of the technologies.
212
The core factor ranked second is labour; in that the majority of participants (69.2%)
concur that for countries where the labour situation is acute or expensive, the likelihood
the technologies will be used is higher. However, some participants believed that
bringing in expensive technologies might be an impractical answer to the problem; as
decisions are usually based on short-term solutions of comparing which options are
more expensive. This brings us back to the cost of the technologies; and if the costs
remain at a ceiling that is deemed too high for the majority of construction industry
players, they will resort to other alternatives, such as employing cheaper foreign labour.
The labour situation in all three sample countries is relatively critical; but approaches to
solving the situation are different for each country. Japan tackles the problem by
bringing in more technologies to reduce labour dependency; whilst Malaysia brings in
foreign labour from neighbouring countries.
The third-ranked core factor is market share, where 71.8% of participants emphasised
on the positive impact; that is, the larger the market share, the higher the probability
companies will use the technologies. Most participants felt that companies involved in
international projects usually have a larger market share hence they can afford to acquire
the technologies due to economies of scale. The technologies are seen to be not as cost
effective for smaller companies operating in a fairly localised market. Statistically, there
is a fairly strong evidence, especially for Japan, to show that companies with a larger
number of overseas branches (thus it is assumed that they are more involved in the
global market) use more of the technologies compared to those with none.
The fourth-ranked factor is policies, which drew an almost equal number of positive and
negative impact statements at 51.1% and 48.9% respectively. Most participants is of the
opinion that the government and company policies if in place might influence level of
usage to a certain degree; in that if by endorsing the technologies there are advantageous
to be gained by the industry, then it might influence the companies’ decision on whether
to use it or not. An example mentioned by most Malaysian participants is the
government endorsed Industrialised Building System (IBS) Roadmap, where the IBS
system is promoted as an alternative to conventional and labour intensive methods.
213
Here, the level of usage might increase due to greater acceptance of the many parties in
the industry; with further government incentives and group-buying of the technologies
having the potential to drive the costs of the technologies down.
The fifth-ranked factor is workers’ union and the last is culture. These two factors drew
comparatively equal positive and negative impact statements, in that participants is of
the opinion that the two factors’ influences on levels of usage is fairly balanced out. In
Japan and Malaysia, workers’ union is not seen as a very important consideration when
making the decision on whether or not to take up the technologies, but it is placed at a
greater importance in Australia. In terms of culture and how accepting the countries’
culture and society is to technology in general, this is considered the least important
factor. People worldwide is generally more accepting of technologies compared to ten or
twenty years ago, but some countries like Japan is more advanced in terms of technology
development and its integration within their society compared to others.
6.2.5 Future Trends and Opportunities
This section expands on the future trends and opportunities of automation and robotics
implementation in construction, and interprets and discusses the results of the statistical
and contents analyses of both phases. Under the statistical analysis, the future trends
were analysed within a broader group of ten categories; whilst the contents analysis
provides focus by directing the topic area to a smaller group of five categories. The
categories for both phases are summarised in Table 6.1 below.
214
Table 6.1 Future Trends Categories for Phase 1 and Phase 2

PHASE ONE: QUESTIONNAIRE PHASE TWO: INTERVIEWS
There will be greater awareness of automation & robotics There is greater awareness
technologies within the construction industry community and acceptance of the
The technologies will be readily accepted by the workers and technologies by the
the industry industry (aware accept)
Automation and robotics technologies will be cheaper to Improved technologies’
acquire and operate affordability and availability
The technologies will be easily available across the world (afford available)
The number of construction companies using automation & There is a significant
robotics technologies will increase significantly increase in the range and
There will be a significantly larger range of automation & use of the technologies
robotics technologies available for use in construction (increase use)
The use of automation & robotics technologies will enable firms Further development of the
to operate more efficiently and competitively technologies in terms of
Automation & robotics technologies will be easier to install and making it more flexible and
operate easier to use
(develop technology)
There will be greater integration within the construction industry A change in the industry
in terms of control and responsibility for design and construction itself with greater
integration and more
In future, there will be greater standardisation of the design and standardisation of design
construction processes and work processes
(more integration)
From the results of the Kruskal-Wallis descriptive and test statistics performed for the
future trends in phase 1, it was established that awareness of automation & robotics
technologies within the construction industry community was ranked first at a
relatively high mean value of 5.97, with no significant difference between the samples.
However, the technologies will be readily accepted by the workers and the industry
was ranked eighth, with fairly substantial difference between the Japanese and
Australian sample regarding this trend. Examining these statistical results in context
with the contents analysis, here, aware accept was ranked first, with 53.8% positive
impact statements. Most of the participants believe that the construction industry are
getting more aware of new technologies and are continually becoming more knowledge-
based through annually organised construction conferences and the younger, more
technology savvy professionals entering the industry. To provide a more diverse
examination of the subject and explain the low ranking of the technologies being readily
accepted under the statistical analysis, this fact is cross-referenced with the barrier
variable ranked last in the previous section. Here, it can be seen that not accepted is the
least important barrier of all. It can be deduced from this that there might not be a higher
215
level of acceptance of the technologies by the workers and the industry in the near future
because the barrier in place now is less to begin with anyway. Hence, there is fairly
conclusive evidence from the mean ranking of both phases that the majority of
participants in the sample consider there to be greater awareness and acceptance of the
technologies in the near future.
In Phase 1 analysis, automation and robotics technologies will be cheaper to acquire

and operate is ranked third with a mean value of 4.68, whilst the technologies will be
easily available across the world was ranked sixth with a mean value of 4.37. There
were no significant differences between countries for both trends, indicating that the
participants within the sample groups are in agreement with each other regarding these
two trends. In the contents analysis, afford available was ranked second, with 57.6%
positive impact statements. Participants commented on the fact that a lot of the
technologies previously developed are not making their way into the commercial market,
and most are gathering dusts in the laboratories. Judging from the patterns from twenty
years ago, when a lot of automation and robotics technologies were developed during
the mid 1980s to mid 1990s in Japan, it can be seen that the majority of the technologies
cannot be produced cheaply enough, thus making them unavailable for commercial use.
Unless there is a drastic change within the construction industry itself, it can be foreseen
that the patterns will repeat; and it is unlikely that the technologies’ affordability or
availability will be very much different in ten years time. However, some participants
noted that although it might not happen in all areas of construction, there is a possibility
of some changes in certain areas, in terms of the production of cheaper and more
available technologies.
In the statistical analysis, the number of construction companies using automation &
robotics technologies will increase significantly was ranked second at a mean value of
4.83; whereas there will be a significantly larger range of automation & robotics
technologies available for use in construction was ranked fourth at a mean value of
4.57; again, with no significant differences between samples. The mean values are fairly
close for these two trends, indicating that respondents are in agreement of the trends’
216
importance in terms of ranking. In the contents analysis, increase use was ranked third
with a slightly higher negative impact statement at 53.5%. Most participants believe that
the range and use of the technologies will not increase significantly in the near future,
with the exception of certain areas such as design and planning. Most participants agreed
that increased use and range is highly unlikely for on-site application.
The use of automation & robotics technologies will enable firms to operate more
efficiently and competitively and automation & robotics technologies will be easier to
install and operate are ranked sixth (mean value 4.37) and tenth (mean value 3.80)
respectively. Both trends show fairly marked differences between the Japanese and
Australian samples, with corresponding mean ranking difference values of 16.44 and
18.58. For develop technology in phase 2, this future trend on further development of the
technologies in terms of making it more flexible and easier to use has drawn more
negative impact (60.6%) than positive impact (39.4%) statements. Again, most
participants believe that further development is more likely in certain areas such as
design, compared to on-site construction. It is predicted that automation technologies in
design or planning, involving mainly software developments is more likely to increase
rather than complicated or awkward “construction robots” for on-site construction. The
future in on-site construction would be more in the development of technologies to
support off-site prefabrication or repetitive construction processes.
Lastly, there will be greater standardisation of the design and construction processes
and there will be greater integration within the construction industry in terms of
control and responsibility for design and construction are ranked fifth and tenth
respectively, with no significant difference between samples. It can be deduced from
here that participants have more faith in there being greater standardisation, maybe in
the use of more repetitive and regularised work processes, rather than there being greater
integration within the construction industry. However, it should be noted that
standardisation of work processes is the first step towards better integration, because if
work is standardised, it would be easier to channel the information through between
different stages of construction. For example, the drawings produced using computer-
217
aided technology in the design stage; if compatible with the software used for costing or
planning, could be easily directed for use in other stages of construction without much
modification. This in a way, allow for better integration between phases, but perhaps
more in terms of work processes, rather than responsibility and control. In the contents
analysis for more integration, the prospect of a change in the industry itself with greater
integration and more standardisation in the near future was ranked last. Participants feel
that it is highly improbable for there to be more integration in the construction industry
as there are too many groups of professionals with differing work ethics, involved in
various areas of construction, and most probably working in different companies.
6.3 Linking Data Integration Phase with Literature Review Findings
In this section, the main issues arising from the previous phase of data integration is
discussed in context with the findings of the literature review previously described in
chapter 2 of the thesis. The data analyses results from phase 1: questionnaire and phase 2:
interviews were synthesised and integrated in the previous section, with the emerging
correlation between variables under examination highlighted and discussed methodically.
Based on the discussions, a framework can be formulated for the ranking of variables in
the four principal areas, which are: levels of implementation: correlation with
demographic/ core factors; barrier variables; differing levels of usage in between
countries; and future trends and opportunities. Conclusions drawn from the triangulation
of results from the quantitative and qualitative data analyses and relevant literature
review findings is further discussed in relation to the research questions; which will then
be summarised and presented in chapter 7.
6.3.1 Levels of Implementation: Correlation with Demographic/ Core Factors
This section centres around discussions on the variables that have been identified as core
factors influencing the levels of automation and robotics implementation, which are: size
of company, type of business, number of international branches (or market share) and
construction sector. These factors are also considered in relation to a number of other
218
relevant factors such as areas of usage within the construction phases and extent of
research and development of the technologies.
The literature review has revealed that there are numerous technologies being developed
or in use for the earlier stages of construction (Kim, Liebich and Maver, 1997; Campbell,
2000; Miyagawa, 1997; Ma et al, 2005; Huang and Sun, 2005; Alshawi and Ingirige,
2003 etc) but examples of application on site is not as many (Yamazaki, 2004; Wakisaka,
2000). The few instances of on-site application are usually undertaken by large,
Japanese companies operating in a global market. In Japan, the greatest concentration of
research and development of the technologies and short-run production of construction
robots are to be found in construction companies, with each of the major players having
developed their own robots. These “Big Five” Japanese construction companies are
Shimizu, Taisei, Obayashi, Kajima and Takenaka (IAARC, 2004).
From the literature review, it can be deduced that, at least for Japan, automation and
robotics technologies is used and developed by the bigger companies, involved in a
range of projects within a large and competitive market. As it is fairly uncommon to find
non-Japanese companies involved in the development, production and use of the
technologies on-site; there is a need to consider applications by non-Japanese companies
in terms of usage in other areas of construction. In Malaysia and Australia, research and
development of the technologies are usually university-based, with some industry
cooperation across certain areas. Pure industry-based work is far less evident than in
Japan. (iaarc.org, 2004) Usage of the technologies is mostly in the earlier stages of
construction, and is usually not related to company size, type of business, market share
or construction sector.
In phase 3 of data integration, there was conclusive evidence to show that areas of
construction play a significant role in influencing levels of usage. Size of company was
shown to have a stronger correlation with level of usage when the variables were
investigated for on-site construction, compared to other stages, such as design. From
this, it can be concluded that for on-site construction, level of implementation is
219
correlated to the core factors, listed from most to least significant, size of company, type
of business, market share and construction sector. For the least significant factor,
construction sector, there was very little statistical evidence to suggest a correlation.
However, it was found that there is no significant relationship between level of
implementation and the core factors for the earlier stages of construction, especially
design and planning/ scheduling.
Relating these findings to the first research question “What are the key factors that
determine the level of implementation of automation and robotics in construction”, the
key factors that determine level of implementation of automation and robotics in
construction can be listed and ranked as firstly, size of company, second, type of
business, third, market share, and lastly, construction sector. One significant finding that
should be highlighted here is that these key factors are very much influenced by areas of
usage, with the most significant area being on-site construction, followed by project
management and costing/ tendering. Scheduling and planning show no association at all;
and design shows a negative correlation. Automation and robotics technologies
implementation therefore are influenced by size of company, type of business and
market share mainly for on-site construction but never for design.
This section highlights and brings together barrier variables that have been previously
discussed in section 6.2.3 with the findings of the literature review concerning the
subject matter described in 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. These barrier variables include: high costs/
financial commitments in acquiring and maintaining the technologies; fragmented nature
of the construction industry inhibits the implementation of new technologies; automation
and robotics technologies are difficult to use and develop; incompatibility of the
technologies with existing practices and current construction operations; there is low
technology literacy of project participants/ need for re-training of workers; automation
and robotics technologies are unavailable locally and difficult to acquire; and lastly, the
technologies are not easily accepted by workers.
220
One of the most obvious barriers is the high cost incurred and the need for substantial
financial commitment for the required investment in R&D and implementation of these
technologies in real terms. There are frequent changes or advances in automation
technologies and users have difficulty in keeping up with the changes, while incurring
the high cost of owning and operating these technologies (Hewitt and Gambatese, 2002;
Fiatech 2004; Yoshida, 2006). The phase 3 data integration results show that cost is
quite highly ranked in that the higher the cost, the greater the barriers to implementation.
Costs considerations were discussed by participants not only in terms of buying costs,
but maintenance and updating costs as well. In fact, in phase 1 where analysis was
separated for buying cost and maintenance and updating costs, there was a clear
indication that participants believe buying cost (ranked first) was more important than
costs of maintenance and updating (ranked fourth).
revolutionary changes; with the responsibility and control usually split between different
parties. Construction is a diverse industry and the shear scale of activity mitigate against
greater automation (Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology, 2003). One of the
main reasons why construction automation and robotics is so prevalent in Japan is that
the large Japanese construction companies exemplify the principle of single point of
responsibility. By exercising control over much of the process and its many different
contributors, they are able to undertake R&D at lower risk and with a higher expectation
that the results will have worthwhile application on their construction sites. (IAARC,
2004) Fragmented nature of the construction industry was ranked second (based on
comparable ranking) in the phase 3 data integration; with a large number of participants
indicating that the barrier would be less for conglomerates involved in many stages of
construction, and operating under one roof.

of the construction work processes itself; and to work in construction, the robots need to
be robust, flexible, with high mobility and versatility. Machines seldom have the
dexterity of their human counterparts in performing construction tasks, and to facilitate
the use of automation and robotics, there is a need to reduce the complexity of assembly
221
by minimising the number of parts that compose the product (Brown, 1989). Stein, Gotts
and Lahidji (2000) listed the different attributes of construction robots; including they
must move about the site because buildings are stationary and of a large size; handle
large loads of variable sizes; function under adverse weather conditions; and are
constantly exposed to dust and dirt on site. To overcome this, there is a need to look at
how construction tasks are performed to encourage repetition, and the construction sites
need to be re-configured to provide a more structured and controlled operating
environment. Other than development, the technologies are also difficult to produce
commercially in terms of cost and flexibility of use (Paulson, 1995; Yoshida, 2006).
Usage would be appropriate and the technologies more easily understood in certain areas
of construction compared to others (Yamazaki, 2004; iaarc.org; 2004). According to
Slaughter (1997), 68% of the automation and robotics technologies within her sample
perform geometrically less complex task, with the majority (59%) performing within an
orderly environment where the site is more orderly and refined. Also, the majority of the
technologies focus on a single task as the applicability of a technology to multiple tasks
greatly increases the complexity of the machinery, its operation, and its production.
Automation and robotics technologies are difficult to use was ranked third in data
integration, and participants felt that the technologies were not easily understood,
especially for on-site construction. The literature review findings have also confirmed
this, with supporting evidence regarding the technological difficulty in development and
production.
Incompatibility of the technologies with existing practices and current construction

operations was ranked fourth in the data integration; with comments mostly made on the
fact that construction worksite and processes do not lend itself to automation due to its
complexity and non-standardisation. This is substantiated by the literature review
findings of the “culture of the building site” being usually the antithesis of good
organisation and seldom providing an environment conducive to the achievement of
high quality, or the operation of sensitive electronic equipment (Brown, 1989). In
Australia, lack of coordination between builders and designers is presenting problems in
terms of utilisation of innovative technologies. One reason for this lack of coordination
is the degree of specialisation in the industry; which creates difficulties in terms of
222
coordination of the design and building process, which in turn can hinder technological
innovation (Neil, Salomonsson and Sharpe, 1991).
Low technology literacy of project participants/ need for re-training of workers

(comparable ranking fifth) and the technologies are not easily accepted by workers
(comparable ranking seventh) were discussed under culture/ human factor in the
literature review. In Japan, concern about the aging construction workforce, upgrading
of their academic background and the tendency for young workers to stay away from the
industry has pushed forward the technologies (Obayashi, 1999). In some countries there
are institutional barriers as well as active workers unions that look upon these
technologies as a way to replace the workers. According to Brown (1989), in Australia,
any attempt to introduce robots on to a construction site must be based on three-way
negotiations between the men, management and the union. Above all else, building
union representatives must be convinced that the use of robots will not threaten their
membership levels, or the jobs of their members.
The barrier variable ranked sixth in the data integration is automation and robotics
technologies are unavailable locally and difficult to acquire; with participant
commenting that this might not be a very significant barrier due to the fact that in this
internet age, buying a product from a worldwide market should be relatively easy. In the
literature review, availability was discussed in context with the commercialisation of the
technologies being developed; as the more technologies there are making their way to
production, hence to the market, the more available they become (IAARC, 2004;
Yoshida, 2006). According to literature review (Yoshida, 2006), although more than 200
prototypes have been produced and made trials at Japanese construction sites since the
1980s, not many have been commercialised and fully utilised on the construction sites.
Relating these findings to the second research question “What are the barriers to the
infiltration of automation and robotics technologies into the construction work
processes?”, the barriers to the implementation of automation and robotics in
construction can be listed and ranked as, from most to least significant, high costs/
financial commitments in acquiring and maintaining the technologies; fragmented nature
223
of the construction industry inhibits the implementation of new technologies; automation

and robotics technologies are difficult to use and develop; incompatibility of the
technologies with existing practices and current construction operations; there is low
technology literacy of project participants/ need for re-training of workers; automation
and robotics technologies are unavailable locally and difficult to acquire; and lastly, the
technologies are not easily accepted by workers. These barrier variables are ranked
according to the comparable ranking between phases 1 and 2; in that phase 2 takes into
account the different construction areas usage. Again, these barrier variables are found
to be very much influenced by areas of usage, as discussed previously in section 6.3.1.
As far as possible, the barrier variables here are discussed in context with barriers to
implementation for on-site construction, as this is the principal area of interest within
the scope of the research.
6.3.3 Differing Levels of Usage between Countries
This section attempts to explain why there are differing levels of automation and
technologies usage in Japan, Malaysia and Australia; and will do this by relating the
phase 3 data integration results with the characteristics of the construction industry in
these three countries, as previously described in section 2.5. The issues discussed
evolves around six core factors including: the individual countries’ construction
characteristics (characteristics), whether construction labour is expensive or lacking
(labour), how accepting the countries’ culture and society is to technology in general
(culture), how large the market share is for the majority of the countries’ construction
companies (market share), government and company policies in place concerning
approach to technologies adoption (policies), and the countries’ construction
management and workers’ union (workers’ union).
Construction is the biggest industry in Japan, and the Japanese construction industry is
one of the biggest in the world, consuming close to 10% of Japan’s GDP. Japan has a
large and competitive domestic construction market, which necessitated the adoption of
advanced technology that in turn contributed to Japanese contractors’ success in
penetrating the international market. A large global market share also enabled Japanese
224
contractors to achieve some economies of scale, and more importantly, a track record of
projects and learning experience with further reduction in costs. Even though in recent
years, the market has shown signs of slowing down, the total scale of the construction
industry is still at JPY50 trillion with the industry employing about 6 million workers.
The construction industry in Japan is also largely made up of big companies involved in
a large range of project operating within the global market; with the responsibility and
control over the companies’ projects and profits handled under one roof. (Sprague and
Mutsuko, 2001; Raftery et al, 1998; Hasegawa, 2006; IAARC, 2004)
In Australia, construction businesses are predominantly small businesses with most

(64.7%) earning less than AU$100,000 in income; and the majority of construction
industry employment is in construction trade services (69%). There is a high degree of
specialisation in the industry; which creates difficulties in terms of coordination of the
design and building process, which in turn can hinder greater utilisation of innovative
technologies. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008; Neil, Salomonsson and Sharpe,
1991)
The construction industry in Malaysia shares 3.3% of the country’s Gross Domestic
Product and employs over 500 000 workers in some 54 500 local companies; and has
been mainly supported by the development of infrastructure projects executed under the
government’s 9th Malaysia Plan. In Malaysia, due to rapid and prolonged growth, the
construction industry’s demand for labour could not match that of local supply, and
dependency on foreign labour, especially from neighbouring Indonesia, is high. The
distribution of foreign labours in the Malaysian construction industry has increased from
25100 in 1990 to 269100 in 2004. To address this problem, the Malaysian government
has endorsed the Industrialised Building System (IBS) Roadmap 2003-2010 in the
construction sector, to promote usage of IBS as an alternative to the conventional and
labour intensive construction method. The target is to have an industrialised construction
industry and achieve Open Building by the year 2010. (Department of Statistics
Malaysia, 2005; CIDB Malaysia, 2003)
225
Relating these literature research findings on the individual countries’ characteristics, it

can be perceived that there are vast differences in terms of the composition of companies
making up the construction industry in these three countries. In Japan, because of the
relatively larger size of companies with single-point responsibility operating in a large
market, the implementation of automation and robotics technologies is not as significant
a hindrance as compared to the other countries, hence we can observe the higher levels
of usage in Japan. In Australia and Malaysia, since the construction industry is made up
of smaller companies, the market is usually fairly localised for these companies; and the
technologies are not embraced as it is not very cost effective when used in situations
where there are little economies of scale to be gained.
This, however, is just one of the reasons; and another factor that needs to be looked at is
the labour situation in each country. In Japan, the labour situation is fairly acute, with
great concerns about the aging construction workforce and the tendency for young
workers to stay away from the industry (Obayashi, 1999). The technologies are brought
into the construction worksite as a way of reducing labour-dependency and to attract the
younger generation into the industry. In Malaysia, the labour situation is also critical,
but the current solution is to adopt the cheaper option of employing foreign workers
from neighbouring countries, rather than introducing the more expensive technologies.
However, the government has now began to realise that the high levels of unregularised
foreign labour entering the country is bringing in its own set of socio-economic
problems, and the way forward is seen in the adoption of more industrialised
construction technologies through the IBS Roadmap 2003-2010. Resolving the labour
situation in Australia is usually based on short-term solutions; which rarely involved the
use of expensive and “unproven” innovative technologies.
In Japan and Malaysia, workers’ union is not seen as a very important consideration
when making the decision to adopt the technologies, but it is of greater importance in
Australia. According to Brown (1989), in Australia, any attempt to introduce robots on
to a construction site must be based on three-way negotiations between the men,
management and the union; and building union representatives must be convinced that
the use of robots will not threaten their membership levels, nor the jobs of their members.
226
Linking these discussions to the third research question “Why is there greater use of
construction automation and robotics technologies in one country compared to
another?(Japan, Malaysia and Australia)”, this question can be considered with respect
to the factors previously described above. As the research is attempting to answer “why”
certain phenomenon occurs rather than “what” they are; it might be more appropriate
here to answer the question by providing a list of reasons, rather than ranking them as it
was done for the previous two research questions. The reasons on why levels of usage
are different for these countries are therefore related to six core factors, which are: the
individual countries’ construction characteristics; construction labour situation; the
countries’ culture and society; the size of market share of the majority of the countries’
construction companies; government and company policies; and lastly, the countries’
construction management and workers’ union.
6.3.4 Future Trends and Opportunities
This section considers the future trends and opportunities of greater implementation of
automation and robotics in the construction industry. Discussions on this topic in terms
of correlation to the literature review findings evolve around the five central themes that
have been previously highlighted; which have been identified as having the most impact
from the results of the data integration. These are: greater awareness and acceptance of
the technologies; improved technologies’ affordability and availability; significant
increase in the range and use of the technologies; further development of the
technologies in terms of making it more flexible and easier to use; and change within the
industry itself with greater integration and more standardisation of design and work
processes. However, for ranking purposes, only the statistical analysis from phase 1 will
be used, to provide better clarity in terms of the significance placed by participants for
each trend stated.
In context of greater awareness of the technologies; there are currently organisations,

annually organised conferences and journals specifically on automation and robotics
application in construction; but for countries other than Japan, these might be of more
interest to academia with an interest in the subject, rather than construction industry
227
players in general. From literature review findings, it has been ascertained that industry-
based research are more common in Japan, as opposed to university-based research
elsewhere in the world; although in some countries such as Korea and North America,
there are a few collaborative researches between industry and universities. (IAARC,
2004; Yoshida, 2006; MLIT, 2007; PWRI, 2007; AIST, 2007; O’Brien, 1996; Kwok et
al, 2006; Lim et al, 2005; Kim et al, 2005; Woo et al, 2005)
In terms of affordability and availability, judging from the trends of twenty years ago, it
is unlikely that there be improvements in the near future. Improvements might be seen
in certain areas of construction such as design rather than on-site application (IAARC,
2004). For on-site application, there might be a future in enhancements to existing
construction plants and equipment or task-specific, dedicated machines, rather than a
full-blown cognitive construction robot (Rosenfeld, 1995; Hwang-Bo, You and Oh,
1999; Miyake and Ishihara, 2006; Naticchia et al, 2006).
In context of the technologies’ development and increased range of use and flexibility,
again, it is very unlikely that this would happen for on-site construction. Further
development of the technologies might be evident for other phases of construction (Chen
et al, 2006; Wang et al, 2006; Liapi, 2006; Miyagawa, 1997; Waly and Thabet, 2002;
Huang and Sun, 2005); but an area relevant to on-site construction could be in the
development of modular building designs that fully utilise off-site prefabrication,
transportation and on-site assembly. An example of this is the FutureHome project,
developed as part of the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) global programme
involving over 250 companies and over 200 research institutions across Australia,
Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, Switzerland and the United States (Balaguer
et al, 2002). Modular building development has been applied extensively across Eastern
Europe, Germany, Japan and in some other countries. There may possibly be a future in
this for countries where repetitious or common designs are employed, such as the
government’s low cost housing projects in Malaysia, where the same designs and
features are used repetitively but in different locations.
228
The most unlikely change foreseeable in the near future is greater integration within the
industry and more standardisation of design and work processes. As the industry is
usually composed of small companies specialising in different areas of construction;
with different responsibilities and control within their own area, it is highly unlikely that
there be greater integration within these various companies in the future (Fiatech, 2004;
PATH, 2003; Hewitt and Gambatese, 2002).
As mentioned before, the ranking for future trends and opportunities will be based on
phase 1 data analysis, encompassing ten trends; rather than the five trends under data
integration. This is so as to provide a broader information base and better clarity for each
trend previously stated. Relating the issues discussed concerning future trends with the
fourth research question “What are the future trends and opportunities for the
implementation of automation and robotics technologies in the construction industry?”
the future trends can be listed and ranked as, from most to least significant, there will be
greater awareness of automation & robotics technologies within the construction
industry community; the number of construction companies using automation & robotics
technologies will increase significantly; automation and robotics technologies will be
cheaper to acquire and operate; there will be a significantly larger range of automation &
robotics technologies available for use in construction; there will be greater
standardisation of the design and construction processes; the use of automation &
robotics technologies will enable firms to operate more efficiently and competitively; the
technologies will be easily available across the world; the technologies will be readily
accepted by the workers and the industry; automation & robotics technologies will be
easier to install and operate; and there will be greater integration within the construction
industry in terms of control and responsibility for design and construction.
6.4 Summary
This chapter discusses the analyses and test results of both the quantitative and
qualitative phases; with the two data sets synthesised and integrated and the results used
as the basis for triangulation with the literature review findings of the research.
229
Significant findings from Phase 1 were discussed within seven central themes, including
the demographic factors, level of implementation in different stages of construction,
areas of usage on-site, association between levels of usage and demographic factors,
barriers to implementation, minimising or overcoming those barriers, and future trends
and opportunities. To provide further support and collaboration to these findings, the
results of Phase 2 were elaborated on and cross-referenced within four key areas, that is,
impact of core factors (size, business type, market share, sector) on level of usage;
barrier variables (different construction areas usage, cost, fragmented industry, difficult
to use, incompatibility, re-training, unavailable, not accepted); differing levels of usage
between countries (characteristics, labour, market share, policies, workers’ union,
culture); and future trends and opportunities (aware accept, afford available, increase use,
develop technology, more integration).
The data integration phase, incorporating the triangulation of results and findings of the
quantitative and qualitative data analysis phases with the literature review, have
highlighted on the significant factors and relationships between variables that provide
answers to the research questions previously set out in context of the research’s central
theme of automation and robotics technologies implementation in the construction
industry.
230
7.1 Introduction
This chapter recapitulates on the key issues covered in this study through reviewing,
summarising and drawing conclusions based on the literature review discussed in
Chapter 2, the methodology used in generating and examining the data explained in
Chapters 3 and 4, and the results and findings of the study expanded in Chapter 5; in
conjunction with the interpretation and discussions on findings described in Chapter 6.
In doing this, it focuses on the contributions made in terms of the use of innovative
technologies in the construction industry generally; and the significance of the
implementation of construction automation and robotics technologies specifically.
Highlighting the contributions of this study involves listing key themes arising out of the
research on factors affecting the use of automation and robotics technologies in the
construction industry; both in context of the characteristics of the industry and the
attributes of the technologies under study. This will be discussed in relation to the
research questions and objectives previously set out; with the framework of the findings
summarised based on all the influencing issues that have been discovered. This will then
be followed by recommendations for related future research areas.
7.2 Research Conclusions
As previously stated in Chapter 1, this research aims to identify and examine the key
barriers to the implementation of automation and robotics technologies in construction;
by exploring and establishing the relationship between characteristics of the construction
industry and the attributes of existing construction automation and robotics technologies
to the level of usage and implementation in three selected countries, Japan, Malaysia and
Australia. Factors relating to the barriers are identified though extensive literature
review; and further elaborated by the chosen research instruments of questionnaires and
231
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
interviews; with the data analysed statistically and contextually using SPSS and N-Vivo
software.
7.2.1 Literature Contribution
Enhancing and adding to the body of knowledge in the field of construction technology
generally and automation and robotics technologies specifically were achieved
principally through the literature review and through linkages to the findings from the
questionnaire and interviews. An understanding of the principles of automation and
robotics as applicable to construction was established through the examination of the
terms and appraising all the relevant information on the existing technologies being
developed and in use.
In this research, the definition for “construction automation and robotics” was
extensively investigated, to derive at a concise and acceptable definition of the term; as
evidence from the literature review seems to show that the industry has still not reached
a consensus on a clear definition. The three areas that emerged from the study of the
definitions, summarised previously in Chapter 2, were mechanisation, automation and
robotics; encompassing a spectrum of technology application.
Figure 7.1 Definition Spectrum of Technology Application
MECHANISATION AUTOMATION ROBOTICS

LOW DEGREE OF TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION HIGH
At the low end is mechanisation, which involves equipping a process with machinery.
The mechanisation process will evolve into an automation process, when it goes one
step further and the process is not only supported by machines but these machines can
work in accordance with a program that regulates the behaviour of the machine. At the
high end of the technology application spectrum is robotics, where task-specific or
intelligent robots are used to execute tasks. The application of automation and robotics
technologies in construction can therefore, at the very least, be the use of sophisticated
232
machinery to assist in work processes; and at most, the use of highly intelligent and
cognitive robots, in which case is very rare. This definition spectrum enriches the
perspective on technology application, as implementation can be distinguished from
different levels from the low end mechanisation through to the high end fully-fledged
robotised system.
Information on the range of automation and robotics technologies being developed and
implemented in construction was also reviewed for the different phases of construction;
design, planning, scheduling, estimating, costing, project management and on-site
construction; thus enhancing the body of knowledge of technology application in these
areas. The characteristics of the technologies were also studied, specifically for on-site
construction; and the framework for on-site construction processes that facilitates the use
of automation and robotics was described in section 2.4.4.
Figure 7.2 Automation and Robotics Technologies Usage Areas For On-site Work Processes
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
MODULAR / STANDARDISED
EASE OF COMPONENT ASSEMBLY
REGULARITY IN DESIGN/ MATERIALS
SIMPLE TASKS
REPETITIVE TASKS
TOTAL
AUTOMATION OF
EARTHWORKS CONSTRUCTION
WORKS
ON-SITE
CONSTRUCTION
PROCESSES
STRUCTURAL
STEELWORK PAINTING/
FINISHING
BUILDING ASSEMBLY/
CONCRETING LIFTING AND
POSITIONING
OF COMPONENTS
233
The analysis results from the selected research instruments have highlighted the level of
use for these different areas are highest in structural steelwork, concreting, building
assembly and painting/ finishing, especially for Japan. Area on-site where the
technologies is least used is in total automation. Investigating these factors has provided
supporting knowledge on the key elements or attributes of work processes within the
construction phases that are parallel to the technologies application, including the design
considerations.
Another literature contribution is in examining the different characteristics and culture of

the construction industry in the sample countries, Japan, Malaysia and Australia; in view
of extracting pertinent points relating to facilitating the implementation of the
technologies. These factors, which form the basis for investigating the main barriers to
the implementation of automation and robotics technologies in construction, described in
the conceptual framework in chapter 3, was further collaborated using the selected
research instruments. The main categories reviewed pertaining to the technologies
implementation were economic and cost, structure or organisation, products and
processes, technology and culture or human factors; which were then elaborated parallel
to the construction characteristics and barrier variables analysed under the questionnaire
and interviews. Literature contributions are realised in terms of the categorising of these
factors; whilst the analytical data contributions are in their ranking, which will be further
described in the next section.
7.2.2 Analytical Data Contribution
Through the research instruments, namely the questionnaire and interviews, and the data
collected, analysed and synthesised with literature, contributions to the field of built
environment and construction technology are made mostly within the four areas of,
correlation between the characteristics of the construction companies and industry
attributes and composition (size, business type, market share, sector) on level of usage;
barrier variables; comparison for differing levels of usage between countries
(characteristics, labour, market share, policies, workers’ union, culture); and future
234
trends and opportunities. These four areas were discussed in detail previously under
section 6.3, within context of providing answers to the four research questions.
From the data analysis and integration results, a simple model or scheme can be
produced, incorporating the key factors and variables that have been identified, which
allows for the comparison and ranking of these factors and variables in terms of their
application or significance. The schemes will also form part of the summary for the
findings of this research and are produced separately for the four key areas that were
investigated.
Ranking Scheme 1: Correlation between Characteristics of Construction

Companies and Industry to Level of On-site Usage of
Automation and Robotics Technologies
As previously described in 6.3.1, there was reasonably conclusive evidence from phase 3
data integration to construe that areas of construction play a significant role in
influencing levels of usage; with the core factors under investigation showing a stronger
correlation with level of usage for on-site construction, compared to other stages, such as
design. As such, it can be deduced from statistical evidence that there is no significant
relationship between level of implementation and the core factors for the earlier stages
of construction, especially for design and planning/ scheduling. Following these facts,
the ranking scheme produced below is applicable specifically for on-site construction
only, as this area is also the main focus or scope of the research.
Figure 7.3 Ranking Scheme 1: Correlation Between Core Factors and Level of Usage
RANKING CHARACTERISTICS OF
MOST COMPANY AND INDUSTRY
SIGNIFICANT
1 Size Of Company
2 Type Of Business
3 Market Share
LEAST
SIGNIFICANT 4 Construction Sector
235
Ranking Scheme 2: Barrier Variables
One important aspect that was ascertained from the examination of the barrier variables
in sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 was that the ranking of all seven variables corresponds with
each other for both the statistical and contents analyses. This demonstrates fairly strong
evidence of the barrier variables under investigation being appropriately ranked; which
is also supported by the literature review findings. Another aspect that should be
mentioned here is that the barrier variables are again very much related to areas of usage,
but as far as possible, the ranking scheme produced for this area is specific to on-site
construction.
Figure 7.4 Ranking Scheme 2: Barrier Variables
RANKING BARRIER VARIABLES

MOST
SIGNIFICANT
1 High Costs / Financial Commitment
2 Fragmented Nature Of Construction Industry
3 Difficult To Use/ Not Easily Understood
4 Incompatibility With Existing Practices And Current

Construction Operations
5 Low Technology Literacy Of Project Participants/ Need
For Re-Training Of Workers
6 Unavailable Locally And Difficult To Acquire
LEAST
SIGNIFICANT 7 Not Accepted By Workers
From the ranking scheme, it can be concluded that the high costs and financial
commitment associated with automation and robotics application is the most significant;
whilst the least significant is the technologies not being accepted by workers. It can be
deduced from this that the construction industry is fairly cost sensitive towards
technology utilisation, and for there to be greater implementation of the technologies,
the buying, operating and maintenance costs needs to be affordable and offered at a
more competitive price to the industry.
236
Ranking Scheme 3: Comparison for Differing Levels of Usage between Countries
The differing levels of usage of the technologies were investigated between Japan,
Malaysia and Australia for comparison purposes; evolving around six core factors
including: the individual countries’ construction characteristics; the labour situation;
cultural and society acceptance of technologies in general; companies’ market share
composition; government and company policies; and the countries’ construction
management and workers’ union. In answering the third research question of “why there
is greater use of the technologies in one country compared to another”, no attempt was
made to rank these factors and only a list of reasons are provided as it is deemed as more
suitable in answering “why” a phenomenon occurs. The ranking scheme provided here is
based on the earlier analysis in section 6.2.4, and is established using the contents
analysis ranking. These categories, derived from the three sample countries, are a useful
starting point, and can be employed as a basis for future research work to determine the
global implementation of automation and robotics technologies.
Figure 7.5 Ranking Scheme 3: Comparison for Differing Levels of Usage between Countries
MOST RANKING CORE FACTORS INFLUENCING LEVEL OF USAGE BETWEEN

SIGNIFICANT
COUNTRIES
1 Construction Characteristics
2 Labour Situation
3 Cultural And Society Acceptance Of Technologies
4 Companies’ Market Share Composition
5 Government And Company Policies

LEAST
SIGNIFICANT
6 Construction Management And Workers’ Union
The construction characteristics play a vital role in determining the level of

implementation of the technologies, as can be deduced from the higher level of usage for
the Japanese where their industry comprises mostly of large conglomerates operating
under one roof and involved in fairly large and competitive markets; compared to
Malaysia and Australia where the industry comprises of fairly small businesses.
237
Ranking Scheme 4: Future Trends and Opportunities
The future trends and opportunities were statistically analysed under a broader group of
ten categories; whilst the contents analysis provided focus by directing the topic area
into a smaller group of five categories. However, as mentioned before in section 6.3.4,
for ranking purposes, the statistical analysis will be used so as to provide a broader
information base and better clarity in terms of the significance placed by the participants
for each trend stated.
Figure 7.6 Ranking Scheme 4: Future Trends and Opportunities
RANKING FUTURE TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

MOST
SIGNIFICANT
1 Greater awareness of the technologies within the

construction industry community
The number of construction companies using
2 automation & robotics technologies will increase
significantly
3 Automation and robotics technologies will be cheaper to
acquire and operate
4 There will be a significantly larger range of automation &
robotics technologies available for use in construction
5 There will be greater standardisation of the design and
construction processes
6 The use of automation & robotics technologies will
enable firms to operate more efficiently and
competitively
7 The technologies will be easily available across the
world
8 The technologies will be readily accepted by the workers
and the industry
9 Automation & robotics technologies will be easier to
install and operate
There will be greater integration within the construction
LEAST
SIGNIFICANT 10 industry in terms of control and responsibility for design
and construction
It can be concluded from the ranking scheme that increasing awareness of the
technologies within the construction industry community is the most probable future
scenario for automation and robotics technologies. The least likely scenario, of there
being greater integration within the construction industry, is to be expected and is
238
generally supported by literature evidence. As the industry is usually composed of small

companies specialising in different areas of construction; with different responsibilities
and control within their own area, it is very unlikely that we see greater integration
within these various companies in the near future.
The contributions made through the ranking of the key categories identified within the
four areas are realised in terms of establishing the groundwork for research on global
application of construction automation and robotics technologies. The key categories
identified under ranking schemes 1 and 3 can be employed in determining the potential
for any country in terms of adopting the technologies; in that the schemes can be used to
gauge whether a country is more likely to use the technologies based on their
construction industry attributes.
For example, these ranking schemes can be used to investigate which country is more
likely to adopt the technologies, Yemen or Singapore; given the characteristics of the
construction industry in each country and the foreseeable advantages to be gained in
adopting the technologies.
Ranking scheme 1 can be employed for gaining better understanding of the construction
companies’ composition in these countries with regard to the technologies. In Yemen the
construction industry is mostly made up of small companies operating in a fairly
localised market, so the ranking for its potential use of the technologies would be fairly
low. These facts can then be juxtaposed with ranking scheme 3, and it is found that the
labour in Yemen is quite cheap, with less cultural and society acceptance of technologies
in general, thus it can be concluded that Yemen rates low in terms of the adoption of the
technologies. The same procedure can be applied to Singapore, and from there, the
rankings can be used to determine whether the technologies’ adoption potential for each
country is ranked high or low; whilst allowing comparisons to be made. To be more
precise and to provide better clarity, the ranking schemes needs to be expanded to allow
for weightage of ranking between countries to be evaluated; which is an area for future
research work.
239
Ranking scheme 2 can be used to investigate the barriers to implementation for a

country that is found to be likely to adopt the technology; but is not. As evidenced by the
findings of literature, for some countries, the best solutions to their labour or other
construction problems are not seen in the adoption of innovative technologies, especially
if there are high costs involved. The ranking scheme can allow researchers to study the
reasons why these technologies are not used, and if it is generally because of high costs
or unavailability, there may be potential in examining selected areas of use where these
barriers do not form as high a hindrance. Ranking scheme 4 can provide the researcher
with the background on the predicted value and use of the technologies in the future.
Where there is an area that is discovered to gain advantages from the use of the
technologies, then the future trends can assist in predicting the likely scenario of the
technologies application in these areas.
7.2.3 Summary of Research Findings
Contributions of the research can also be realised through the outcome of the research
analyses and its findings. In this research, the three instruments selected have generated
a number of key themes and factors that are significant to automation and robotics
technologies in the construction industry; especially in terms of their implementation in
the three sample countries, Japan, Malaysia and Australia. It is therefore pertinent that a
summary of the analyses results be produced to form a framework of the findings based
on all the influencing issues that have been discovered.
The summary of the findings will highlight the significant factors discovered under
phase one analysis of the questionnaire and phase two analysis of the interviews; in view
of phase three data integration and literature review findings. The summary produced is
in tabulated form illustrating the differences and similarities of the research analyses
results between Japan, Malaysia and Australia, as presented in Table 7.1 below.
240
Table 7.1 Summary of the Research Analyses Results and Findings

KEY FACTORS / THEMES JAPAN MALAYSIA AUSTRALIA
Correlation between Level of Total: 90% Usage Total: 50% Usage Total: 65% Usage
Use and Demographic
Factors
AUD50M-150M: 78%, Less AUD0.2M: 100% AUD0.2M-1.5M: 75%,
Size of Company AUD150M-500M: 92%, AUD0.2M-1.5M: 100%, AUD1.5M-25M: 75%,
More AUD500M: 100% AUD1.5M-25M: 50%, AUD25M-50M: 83%,
AUD150M-500M: 100% AUD50M-150M: 59%,
AUD150M-500M: 43%,
More AUD500M: 67%
Comments Strong statistical No clear statistical No clear statistical
evidence of correlation indication of correlation indication of correlation
Contractors: 100%, Contractors: 33%, Contractors: 68%,
Type of Business Sub-con: 100%, Sub-con: 50%, Sub-con: 100%,
Consultants: 77%, Consultants: 50%, Consultants: 54%,
Developers: 100%; Developers: 67%; Developers: 50%;
Comments Majority used by all Mostly used by High usage by sub-
types of business developers contractors
Number of International None: 67%, None: 43%, None: 61%,
Branch Offices (Global 1 to 5: 100%, 1 to 5: 100% 1 to 5: 100%,
Market Share) 6 to 10: 100%, 6 to 10: 67%
16 to 20: 100%
Comments Strong positive Fairly strong positive High correlation
statistical correlation statistical correlation
Residential: 100%, Civil Residential: 50%, Civil Residential: 67%, Non-
Construction Sector Eng: 100%, All: 100%, Eng: 50%, All: 67%, Res:65%,CivilEng:50%,
Res &Non-Res: 83% Res &Non-Res: 0% All: 77% , Res & Non-
Res: 50%
Used in mostly all Mainly used by Mainly used by
Comments sectors, least for non- companies involved in companies involved in
residential “All sectors” “All sectors”
Level of Usage Ranking: SCH, COS, Ranking: SCH, DES, Ranking: SCH, COS,
PM, DES, SITE COS, PM, SITE DES, PM, SITE
Design (DES) Mean: 2.40, SD: 1.38, Mean: 2.00, SD: 1.14, Mean: 2.00, SD: 1.09,
Mean Ranking: 4 Mean Ranking: 2 Mean Ranking: 3
Scheduling/ Planning (SCH) Mean: 3.30, SD: 1.29, Mean: 2.12, SD: 1.57, Mean: 2.76, SD: 1.64,
Costing/ Tendering (COS) Mean: 3.20, SD: 1.27 , Mean: 1.62, SD: 1.13, Mean: 2.20, SD: 1.52,
Project Management (PM) Mean: 2.60, SD: 1.04, Mean: 1.62, SD: 1.13, Mean: 2.04, SD: 1.38,
On-site Construction (SITE) Mean: 2.23, SD: 1.01, Mean:1.13, SD: 0.34, Mean: 1.41, SD: 0.78,
Usage highest for Usage highest for Usage highest for
Comments Scheduling/Planning, Scheduling/Planning, Scheduling/Planning,
lowest for On-site lowest for On-site lowest for On-site
Never: 10%, Never: 50%, Never: 35.3%, 1-3 yrs:
Length of Use 5-10 yrs: 30%, Less than 1 yr: 12.5%, 11.8%, 3-5 yrs: 17.6%,
More than 10yrs: 60% 3-5 yrs: 12.5%, 5-10 yrs: 17.6%, More
5-10 yrs: 25% than 10 yrs: 17.6%
Most have used A&R Most have never used Most never used A&R,
Comments for more than 10 years A&R but length of usage
higher than Malaysia
Company has R&D Dept? Yes – 20% of those
using the technologies No No
has its own R&D Dept
within company
241
Table 7.1(continued) Summary of the Research Analyses Results and Findings

Level of On-site Usage Total: 70% Usage Total: 12% Usage Total: 22% Usage
Ranking: PF, SS, CON, Ranking: SS (not used Ranking: SS, EWK,
BA, EWK, TA for other areas) CON, BA, PF, TA
Earthworks (EWK) Mean: 1.60, SD: 0.81, Not used Mean: 1.59, SD: 1.10,
Mean Ranking: 5 Mean Ranking: 2
Structural Steelwork (SS) Mean: 1.90, SD: 1.24, Mean: 1.25, SD: 0.68, Mean: 1.65, SD: 1.29,
Concreting (CON) Mean: 1.70, SD: 0.91, Not used Mean: 1.53, SD: 1.05,
Building Assembly / Lifting of Mean: 1.70, SD: 1.11, Not used Mean: 1.29, SD: 0.67,
Components (BA) Mean Ranking: 3 Mean Ranking: 4
Painting / Finishing (PF) Mean: 2.20, SD: 1.56, Not used Mean: 1.24, SD: 0.74,
Total Automation (TA) Mean: 1.40, SD: 0.67, Not used Mean: 1.12, SD: 0.47,
Mostly used for Only used for Structural Mostly used for
Comments Painting/Finishing, least Steelwork Structural Steelwork,
for Total Automation least for Total
Automation
Ranking according to Ranking according to Ranking according to
Barriers To Implementation: Mean (value): Mean (value): Mean (value):
B1: Cost Acquire 1. B2 (4.70), 1. B1 (4.38), 1. B4 (5.12),
B2: Cost update 1. B4 (4.70), 2. B3 (4.12), 2. B7 (4.41),
B3: Incompatible 3. B1 (4.50), 3. B6 (3.88), 3. B8 (4.35),
B4: Fragmented 4. B5 (4.30), 3. B8 (3.88), 4. B6 (4.29),
B5: Difficult to use 5. B3 (3.60), 5. B4 (3.75), 5. B1 (4.12),
B6: Unavailable 6. B8 (2.90), 6. B5 (3.65), 5. B3 (4.12),
B7: Not accepted 8. B7 (2.60), 7. B2 (3.62), 7. B5 (4.06),
B8: Low literacy 8. B6 (2.60) 8. B7 (3.12) 8. B2 (3.71)
The most significant The most significant The most significant

Comments barrier is cost to update barrier is cost to acquire barrier is fragmented
& fragmented industry industry (tallies with
Japan) but with cost at
relatively low ranking
Ranking according to Ranking according to Ranking according to
Future Trends: Mean (value): Mean (value): Mean (value):
F1: Awareness 1. F1 (5.50), 1. F1 (4.79), 1. F1 (5.35),
F2: Cheaper 2. F2 (5.10), 2. F3 (4.50), 2. F7 (5.06),
F3: Larger range 2. F7 (5.10), 3. F6 (4.25), 3. F3 (4.94),
F4: More efficient use 4. F4 (5.00), 4. F4 (4.00), 4. F2 (4.80),
F5: Standardisation 4. F5 (5.00), 4. F7 (4.00), 5. F6 (4.65),
F6: Available 6. F10 (4.90), 6. F2 (3.88), 6. F5 (4.59),
F7: Increased number 7. F8 (4.40), 6. F10 (3.88), 7. F2 (4.80),
F8: Easier to install 8. F3 (4.00), 8. F5 (3.75), 8. F9 (4.00),
F9: Integration 8. F6 (4.00), 9. F8 (3.63), 9. F8 (3.53),
F10: Readily accepted 10. F9 (3.80) 10. F9 (3.37) 10. F10 (3.18)
Most significant trend Most significant trend Most significant trend

Comments awareness tallies for all awareness tallies for all awareness tallies for all
three countries three countries three countries
Least significant trend Least significant trend Least significant trend
integration tallies with integration tallies with readily accepted does
Malaysia Japan not tally with Japan and
Malaysia
242
Table 7.1(continued) Summary of the Research Analyses Results and Findings

Differing Levels of Usage Total: 90% Usage of Total: 50% Usage of Total: 65% Usage of
between Countries : Automation and Automation and Automation and
Comparing Construction Robotics in All Areas of Robotics in All Areas of Robotics in All Areas of
Industry Attributes Between Construction Construction Construction
the Three Countries
The industry is not as The industry is The industry is
Construction Industry fragmented as in other fragmented and mainly fragmented and mainly
Characteristics countries. Industry follows the traditional follows the traditional
mostly comprises of RIBA work structure. RIBA work structure.
large companies with Industry mostly Industry mostly
multiple concerns, comprises of small, comprises of small,
involved in all stages of local companies local companies
construction involved in specific involved in construction
stages of construction. trade services (69%)
Labour situation fairly Labour situation is Labour situation fairly
Labour Situation acute due to aging critical due to critical due to population
workforce and industry’s unwillingness of locals demographics, but
unpopularity with to work in the industry. resolving the problems
younger generation. Solution is to bring in is mostly based on short
Solution is to take up foreign labour, but that term solutions, which
the technologies to is now causing socio- rarely involves the use
reduce labour economic problems to of expensive and
dependency and to the country. “unproven” technology.
attract younger people.
Companies operate in a Companies mostly Companies mostly
Market Share large market, including operating in fairly operating in fairly
predominantly being localised domestic localised domestic
involved in the global market, except for the market, except for the
market. few working in few conglomerates
collaboration with involved in the global
overseas companies. market.
Company policies Government policy in Construction 2020 in
Government and Company mostly in place for place pertaining to place targeted at
encouraging research Industrialised Building industry research,
Policies
and development into System Roadmap 2003- education and
innovative technologies 2010 to encourage technology diffusion to
within the construction alternative to deliver & improve
industry. conventional and labour industry’s effectiveness
intensive methods. and competitiveness.
Workers’ union not as Workers’ union not as Workers’ union of
Workers’ Management and significant for significant for greater importance due
Union consideration in terms consideration in terms to the relatively higher
of technology of technology influence of union
application compared to application compared to representatives in the
Australia. Australia. industry.
The Japanese is more People generally People generally
Culture advanced in terms of becoming more becoming more
technology accepting of accepting of
development and its technologies, but more technologies, but more
integration within their predominant in some predominant in some
society compared to areas/ industries areas/ industries
other countries. compared to others. compared to others.
243
7.3 Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations for future work relating to the barriers to the implementation of

automation and robotics technologies in construction are proposed to address three areas;
firstly in addressing the implications of limitations within the methodology and literature
as constrained by the scope of the research itself; secondly, in expanding the findings of
the research in terms of the ranking schemes; and thirdly, in extending the research and
assimilating the practical aspects of the technologies to enable guidelines to be produced
within the industry for the construction community.
7.3.1 Resolutions for Research Limitations
This research identifies and examines the key barriers to the implementation of
automation and robotics technologies in construction; by exploring and establishing the
relationship between identified variables in three selected countries, Japan, Malaysia and
Australia. The scope limits the population of the questionnaire survey and interviews to
the construction industry community of only these three countries; which generates its
own limitation in any attempt at generalisation to the population at large. Although care
was taken in selecting countries where the construction characteristics provides contrast
to better reflect the global population; any attempts at inferring the sample to the general
population may intrinsically reflect the characteristics of these three countries.
Addressing these issues involves further research work in extending the study to other
countries; and using a larger, representative sample across the industries, so as to
provide a better picture on the global situation in terms of automation and robotics
implementation in construction.
Another limitation of the research is that the research scope entails that the barriers be
principally investigated for on-site construction only. Judging from the information and
findings for the earlier phases of construction, which was partially included in this
research, especially for design where there is negative correlation between the core
factors and level of use, it can be ascertained that there is high potential in generating
244
higher usage of the technologies in these areas. The study could therefore be expanded
in future work to include investigating the barriers and opportunities for these areas of
construction, specifically for design, planning/ scheduling, costing/ tendering and project
management.
7.3.2 Recommendations for Future Expansion of the Ranking Schemes
The ranking schemes were produced based on the analytical findings garnered from the
research instruments; within the four areas of: correlation between the characteristics of
the construction companies and industry attributes on level of usage; barrier variables;
comparison for differing levels of usage between countries; and future trends and
opportunities. The categories derived from the three sample countries, for each of the
ranking scheme, could provide a useful starting point to be employed as a basis in future
research work for determining the global implementation of automation and robotics
technologies.
To effectively utilise the ranking schemes for ascertaining the applications of the
technologies for any countries worldwide, there is a need to expand the research and
devise a general framework of procedures that takes into account the weightage of
ranking for each core factor so as to allow ranking between countries to be evaluated.
This may then make comparisons between countries more meaningful in that it might be
possible to assign a numerical number ranking rather than “high” or “low”. The
numerical number ranking could follow an ordinal scale; with further research work
required in the areas of generating more data relating to the core factors or categories; to
achieve a useable evaluation model.
The ranking schemes and evaluation model can also be produced for other areas of
construction that were not within the scope of this research, that is, the earlier phases of
construction as mentioned before. In this case, future research may involve investigating
the barriers to automation and robotics implementation in say, the design phase, and
producing a ranking scheme for these barrier variables. From there, each barrier variable
245
can be further investigated and assessed to facilitate the formulation of the evaluation
model for the selected construction phase.
7.3.3 Recommendations for Future Guidelines for the Construction Industry
The research could prove useful in terms of its practical applications if it could be
further extended and assimilated within the construction industry. To be of use to the
industry, and for it to generate much interest, the guidelines produced should be
specifically addressed for the individual construction industry of each country, and
should not be too general in nature. This would involve extensive research work, and a
good starting point would be in producing a more general guideline to begin with. The
scope would be fairly large, but the main areas that may be relevant include:
• Further research and development of the technologies – in countries where this

might not be practical to be taken up within the company due to certain constraints,
there is a need to open the venue for further joint ventures with academia or other
industries; or acquire the technologies from countries where they are available.
• Implications in financial terms of acquiring the technologies – this needs to be
studied so as to provide a clearer picture to the construction industry on what
technologies are available and at what price. In certain economic climates, such as
recessions, major companies might be reluctant to take the risk of investing in “un-
proven” technologies. Better dissemination of cost information might improve the
technologies’ popularity as companies can consider the technologies based on
certain criteria that is set up to assist them in making informed decisions.
• Establishing a better communication channel within the industry concerning the
technologies – this could be in the form of associations set up within the industry or
government policies concerning the technologies. Government incentives given to
contractors for using innovative approaches to construction (such as the IBS system
in Malaysia) may encourage greater implementation.
• Consider the re-training of construction workers, to supervise, maintain and
programme the technologies as needed, so as the technologies acquired are not seen
246
as a way to replace the workers – this is an especially important consideration where

the workers’ union carries much weight in the industry. The training can be
incorporated through a set of necessary upgrading skills for semi-skilled workers or
through seminars and workshops.
• Change in the education and training of construction professionals – this is relevant
if there is to be increased understanding of the technologies in the industry and on
the worksites. Curriculum change might not involve much adjustments, it could be in
terms of introducing certain topics or subjects relating to innovative technologies to
construction students. Some universities in North America and Japan are already
doing this, with some subject being offered as electives or as a topic incorporated in
the compulsory subjects.
• The introduction of the technologies onto the worksite should not be considered only
in terms of a fully fledged robotics system, but considered in terms of the lower end
of the spectrum as well, such as semi-autonomous machinery for earthworks. The
use of the technologies where there is prefabrication, standardisation or highly
repetitive work processes should be highlighted as well. The technologies
application should also be considered for use within the other phases of construction,
where the barriers are not so great, such as the design phase.
7.4 Summary
From the literature and analytical data findings, there is clear evidence that the
implementation of automation and robotics in the construction industry is influenced by
the construction industry characteristics and companies attributes, parallel to their barrier
variables considerations. The key elements that have been identified through literature
and the research instruments have been extensively investigated and methodically
discussed to further reinforce the conclusions. Findings and conclusions arising from the
research work, including the ranking schemes produced for the four key areas of, the
construction attributes on level of usage; barrier variables; differing levels of usage
between countries and future trends, have established a number of potential areas for
247
further research that could impact the level of implementation both globally and for
individual countries.
This research contributes to enhancing the body of knowledge in the field of built
environment and construction technology on the use of automation and robotics in the
construction industry, both in terms of literature and the analytical data investigated. The
research also sets out and provides various perspectives of the construction industry and
advanced technology application from the three countries studied, that is, Japan,
Malaysia and Australia. This establishes the groundwork for further research into the
global application of the technologies; in terms of expanding the scope and methodology
of the research; extending the ranking schemes to address a wider application; and
recommendation for creating a future guidelines for the construction industry concerning
the technologies.
248
Abeid, J., Allouche, E., Arditi D. and Hayman, M. (2003), “Photo-Net II: A Computer-
based Monitoring System Applied To Project Management”, Automation in
Construction 12(5): 603-616
AIST (2007), “National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Japan”
<http://www.aist.go.jp>
Alfares, M. and Seireg, A. (1996), “An Integrated System For Computer-Aided Design
and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Modular Forms”, Automation
in Construction 5(4): 323-341
Alshawi, M. and Ingirige, B. (2003), “Web-enabled Project Management: Emerging

Paradigm in Construction”, Automation in Construction 12(4): 349-364
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition), (2000),

Houghton Mifflin Company, USA
Austrade (2008), “Construction to Malaysia: Trends and Opportunities”,

<http://www.austrade.gov.au/Construction-to-Malaysia/default.aspx>
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), “Construction Industry”,

<http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ >
Babbie, E., Halley, F. and Zaino, J. (2007), Adventures in Social Research - Data
Analysis Using SPSS 14.0 and 15.0 for Windows (6th Edition), Pine Forge Press, USA
Balaguer, C., Abderrahim, M., Navarro, J.M., Boudjabeur, S., Aromaa, P., Kakkonen, K.,
Slavenburg, S., Seward, D., Bock, T., Wing, R., and Atkin, B. (2002), “FutureHome: An
Integrated Construction Automation Approach”, IEEE Robotics and Automation
Magazine March: 55-65
249
REFERENCES
Bernold, L.E. (1987), “Automation and Robotics in Construction: A Challenge and A

Chance For An Industry In Transition”, International Journal of Project Management
5(3):1-2
Black, T.H. (1993), Evaluating Social Science Research, Sage Publications, UK: 137
Blaikie, N. (2000), Designing Social Research, Polity Press, USA
Bouchlaghem, D., Shang, H., Whyte, J. and Ganah, A. (1997), “Visualisation in

Architecture, Engineering and Construction”, Automation in Construction 14(3): 287-
295
Boyd,P.C. (1995), Computer Applications in Construction, McGraw-Hill International,

Singapore
Brown, M.A. (1989), “The Application of Robotics and Advanced Automation to the
Construction Industry”, CIOB Occasional Paper No 30: 1-44
Brown, K., Hampson, K. and Brandon, P. (2006), Clients Driving Construction

Innovation: Moving Ideas Into Practice, CRC for Construction Innovation for Icon.Net
Pty. Ltd, Australia
Campbell, D.A. (2000), “Architectural Construction Documents on the Web: VRML As

a Case Study”, Automation in Construction 9(1): 129-138
Chae, M.J., Yoo, H.S., Kim, J.R. and Cho, M.Y. (2006), “Bridge Condition Monitoring
System Using Wireless Network (CDMA and ZigBee)”, Proceedings of the 23rd
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo:
332-334
Chang, C., Lin, L., Lin, C. and Lin, H. (2006), “Life Cycle Management and Assessment
of High-tech Construction Projects”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium
on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 140-145
250
REFERENCES
Chang, H., Choi, J. and Kim, M. (2006), “Identifying the Demand for Innovative Future
Construction Technology”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 11-14
Chen, K., Chang, T. and Chiou, S. (2006), “Interactive Media of Dynamic

Sketch”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 78-82
Cheng, S., Yu, W., Wu, C. and Chiu, R. (2006), “Analysis of Construction Inventive
Patents Based on TRIZ”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on
Cho, Y.K. and Youn, J. (2006), “Wireless Sensor-driven Intelligent Navigation Robots
for Indoor Construction Site Security and Safety”, Proceedings of the 23rd International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 493-498
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (2003), “Industrialised Building

Systems (IBS) Roadmap 2003-2010”,
<http://www.cidb.gov.my/upload/docs/1/IBS_ROADMAP.pdf>
Construction Industry Institute Research Report (2004), Design Practices to Facilitate

Construction Automation: 1-3,
<http://www.new-technologies.org/ECT/PT183/researchstudy.htm>
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method
Approaches, Sage Publications Inc., USA
CSIRO (1996), “What’s In The Pipeline?, The Helix 50 , Oct- Nov 1996, CSIRO
Publication, <http://www.publish.csiro.au/helix/cf/issues/th50al.cfm>
CSIRO Annual Report (1997), “1994-95: Research Highlights – Infrastructure, Services,

Advancement of Knowledge”, CSIRO Australia,
<http://www.csiro.au/csiro/ARarchive/ar94_95/resinfra.htm>
251
REFERENCES
CSIRO Media Release (2005), “Bricks and Clicks: Building Design Goes High Tech”,
Ref 2005/151, 18 August 2005,
<http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=151bricks&style=mediaRelease>
CSIRO Media Release (2005), “CSIRO and MIT Join Forces in Robotics”, Ref 2005/77,
25 May 2005,
<http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=151bricks&style=mediaRelease>
Department of Statistics Malaysia (2005), “Annual Labour Force Survey”

<http://www.statistics.gov.my>
De Vaus, D.A. (1995), Surveys in Social Research 4th Edition, Allen and Unwin,
Australia
Dictionary of Computing, Oxford University Press, Oxford Reference Online, available

(2005), <http://www.oxfordreference.com>
Dictionary of World History, Oxford University Press, Oxford Reference Online,

available (2005), <http://www.oxfordreference.com>
Dzeng, R. and Tommelein, I.D. (2004), “Product Modelling To Support Case-based

Construction Planning and Scheduling”, Automation in Construction 13(3):341-360
Explanation Guide (2005), “Robot: Meaning”,

<http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Robot.html>
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2003), Research Methods for Construction Second Edition,
Blackwell Publishing
Feng, C. and Yeh, Y. (2006), “Using DSM and fmGA to Determine the Optimal Design
Process for Engineering Design Projects”, Proceedings of the 23rd International
Fiatech (2004), “Intelligent & Automated Construction Job Site”: 1-8,

<http://www.fiatech.org/projects/roadmaps/jobsite.html>
252
REFERENCES
Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (1994), “Interviewing: The Art of Science” in Editors:
Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications
Inc., USA: 361-376
Foster, J.J. (2002), Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows Versions 8 to 10, Sage
Publications Ltd, UK
Freeman, M.S. (1997), A New Dictionary of Eponyms, Oxford University Press, UK
Fujii, S., Inoue, K., Takubo, T. and Arai, T. (2006), “Climbing Up Onto Steps for Limb
Mechanism Robot “ASTERISK””, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on
Gambao, E. and Balaguer, C. (2002), “Robotics and Automation in Construction”, IEEE

Robotics and Automation Magazine (March): 4-6
Gambao, E. and Hernando, M. (2006), “Control system for a Semi-automatic Façade

Cleaning Robot”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 406-411
Greer, R., Hass, C., Gibson, G., Traver, A. and Tucker, R.L. (1997), “Advances in
Control Systems for Construction Manipulators”, Automation in Construction 6(3): 193-
203
Greer, R., Kim, Y. and Hass, C. (1997), “Teleoperation for Construction

Equipment”, ASCE Construction Congress Proceedings: 1012-1019
Gorman, G.E. and Clayton, P. (2005), Qualitative Research for the Information
Professional: A Practical Handbook (Second Edition), Facet Publishing, UK
Ha, Q., Santos, M., Nguyen, Q., Rye, D. and Durrant-Whyte, H. (2002), “Robotic
Excavation in Construction Automation”, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
(March): 20-26
253
REFERENCES
Hampson, K. and Brandon, P. (2004), “Construction 2020: A Vision for Australia’s

Property and Construction Industry”, CRC for Construction Innovation for Icon.Net Pty
Ltd., Australia
Han, S., Kim, H., Cho, K.H., Kim, M.K., Kim, H. and Park, S. (2006), “Research
Planning Methodology for Technology Fusion in Construction”, Proceedings of the 23rd
596-601
Han, S.H., Kim, D.Y., Kim, H., Chung, Y., Park, H. and Choi, S. (2006), “Fully
Integrated Web-Based Risk Management Systems for Highly Uncertain Global
Projects”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
Hasegawa, Y. (2006), “Construction Automation and Robotics in the 21st

Century”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
Hewitt, M.M. and Gambatese, J.A. (2002), “Automation Consideration During Project
Design”, International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction
(ISARC), Washington D.C
Hooker, L. (2004), “AEC Feature: Autodesk Inventor for AEC”,

<http://www.cadserver.co.uk/common/viewer/archive/2004/Dec/20/news4.phtm>
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences (Second Edition), Sage Publications, USA
Huang, R., and Sun, K. (2005), “System Development for Non-unit Based Repetitive
Project Scheduling”, Automation in Construction 14(5): 650-665
Huberman, A.M and Miles, M.B. (1994), “Data Management and Analysis Methods” in
Editors: Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage
Publications Inc., USA: 428-444
254
REFERENCES
Husin, R., and Rafi, A. (2003), “The Impact of Internet-enabled Computer-Aided Design
in the Construction Industry”, Automation in Construction 12(5): 509-513
Hwang-Bo, M., You, B.J. and Oh, S.R. (1999), Development of An Unmanned
Autonomous Concrete Floor Robotic Trowelling System, Proceedings International
Symposium Of Robotics and Automation in Construction: 79-84
International Association of Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC) (2004),

“Self Study Course”, <http://www.iaarc.org/frame/quick/self_study.htm>
iaarc.org homepage (2004), <http://www.iaarc.org>
Issacs, A.(ed) (2000), A Dictionary of Physics, Oxford University Press, UK
Jemmott, H. (2002), “Using NVivo in Qualitative Data Analysis”, University of Bath,

Department of Education Dialogue, Issue 2,
< www.bath.ac.uk/education/dialogue/dialogue2.7.pdf>
Kajima Corporation (2004), “Official Website” < http://www.kajima.co.jp>
Keller, G. and Warrack, B. (1997), Statistics for Management and Economics (Fourth
Edition), Duxbury Press, USA
Kim, H., Cho, K.H., Kim, H., Kim, M.K., Han, S.H. and Park, S.H. (2006), “Identifying
the Demand for Innovative Future Construction Technology”, Proceedings of the 23rd
11-14
Kim, I., Liebich, T., Maver, T. (1997), “Managing Design Data in an Integrated CAAD
Environment: A Product Model Approach”, Automation in Construction 7(1): 35-53
Kim, J., Kim, J., Cha, H. and Shin, D. (2006), “Development of the Construction Waste
Management Performance Evaluation Tool (WMPET)”, Proceedings of the 23rd
263-268
255
REFERENCES
Kim, J., Kwon, S., Yoo, H. and Cho, M. (2005), “Development of MEMS-Based
Vibration Sensor for Tunnel Construction and Maintenance Monitoring
System”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium Of Robotics and Automation
in Construction (ISARC), Ferrara (Italy): http://www.iaarc.org/external/isarc2005-
cd/www/pdf/43kim.pdf
Kirchner, N., Liu, D. and Dissanayake, G. (2006), “Bridge Maintenance Robotic Arm:
Capacitive Sensor for Obstacle Ranging in Particle Laden Air”, Proceedings of the 23rd
596-601
Kumar, R. (1998), Research Methodology, Longman, UK
Kuroi, K. and Ishihara, H. (2006), “A Four-leg Locomotion Robot for Heavy Load
Transportation”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and
Kwok, N.M., Ha, Q.P., Ngo, V.T., and Hong, S.M. (2006), “Particle Swarm
Optimisation-Based Coordination of a Group of Construction Vehicles”, Proceedings of
the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC),
Tokyo: 840-845
Lancaster University (2005), “Intelligent Control: Construction

Robotics”, http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/REGROUP/INTELLIGENT/research/C
Rarticles.asp
Laptali, E., Bouchlaghem, N., and Wild, S. (1997), “Planning and Estimating in Practice
and the Use of Integrated Computer Models”, Automation in Construction 7(1): 71-76
Lee, E., Woo, S., and Sasada, T. (2001), “The Evaluation System for Design
Alternatives in Collaborative Design”, Automation in Construction 10(3): 295-301
Leondes, C.T. (2003), Computer Aided and Integrated Manufacturing Systems (Volume
4), World Scientific, Singapore
256
REFERENCES
Li, H., Ma, Z., Shen, Q. and Kong, S. (2003), “Virtual Experiment of Innovative
Construction Operations”, Automation in Construction 12(5): 561-575
Liapi, K.A. (2006), “TRIVERA: An Efficient Tool for Cost Integration into 4D
Models”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
Lim, H., Yoon, S., Park, S., Park, S. and Chun, J. (2006), “Constitution of Design
Management System for Curtain Wall”, Proceedings of the 23rd International
Lim, T., Cho, H., Lee, H. and Yang, S. (2005), “Development of Hardware in the Loop
System (HILS) for Hydraulic Excavator”, Proceedings of the 22nd International
Symposium Of Robotics and Automation in Construction (ISARC), Ferrara
(Italy): http://www.iaarc.org/external/isarc2005-cd/www/pdf/25lim.pdf
Litwin, M.S. (1995), How To Measure Survey Reliability and Validity, Sage
Publications, USA
Ma, Z., Shen, Q. and Zhang, J. (2005), “Application of 4D for Dynamic Site Layout and
Management of Construction Projects”, Automation in Construction 14(3): 369-381
Mahbub, R. and Humphreys, M. (2005), “An Investigation Into the Barriers to

Automation and Robotics in Construction”, Proceedings of COBRA/AUBEA/CIB/RICS
QUT Research Week International Conference, Brisbane: 215-220
Mahbub, R. and Humphreys, M. (2006), “Cross-National Research on Barriers to

Construction Automation and Robotics Implementation in Australia and
Japan”, Proceedings of CRC for Construction Innovation International Conference, Gold
Coast: 215-220
257
REFERENCES
Manning, P.K. and Cullum-Swan, B. (1994), “Narrative, Content and Semiotic

Analysis” in Editors: Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., Handbook of Qualitative Research,
Sage Publications Inc., USA: 463-477
Marshall, G. (ed) (1998), A Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, UK
Martinez, S., Salgado, A., Barcena, C., Balaguer, C., Navarro, J.M., Bosch, C. and
Rubio, A. (2006), “User-Oriented Interactive Building Design”, Proceedings of the 23rd
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction(ISARC) ,Tokyo:
442-447
Masatoshi, H., Hasegawa, Y., Matsuda, H., Tamaki, K., Kojima, S., Matsueda, K.,
Takakuwa, T. and Onada, T. (1996), Development of Interior Finishing Unit Assembly
System with Robot: WASCOR IV Research Project Report, Automation in Construction
5(1): 31-38
McKinney, K. and Fischer, M. (1998), “Generating, Evaluating and Visualising

Construction Schedules With CAD Tools”, Automation in Construction 7(6): 433-447
Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2007), “Innovation: Meaning”, <http://www.m-

w.com/>
Miller R.L. and Brewer J.D. (2003), The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key
Social Science Research Concepts, Sage Publications Ltd
Mitchell, W.J. (1999), “A Tale of Two Cities: Architecture and the Digital
Revolution” Science 285 No. 5429: 839. Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre,
EBSCOhost
Miyagawa, T. (1997), “Construction Manageability Planning – A System for

Manageability Analysis in Construction Planning”, Automation in Construction 6(3):
175-191
258
REFERENCES
Miyake, T. and Ishihara, H. (2006), “Development of Small-size Window Cleaning

Robot By Wall Climbing Mechanism”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium
MLIT (2007), “National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Japan”, <http://www.nilim.go.jp>
Naticchia, B., Giretti, A. and Carbonari, A. (2006), “Set Up of a Robotised System for
Interior Wall Painting”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation
and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 194-199
Neil, C.C., Salomonsson, G. and Sharpe, R. (1991), “Robotics for Construction:

Exploring the Possibilities”, CSIRO Australia Technical Report TR 91/2: 1-77
Ngo, T.D. and Schioler, H. (2006), “A Truly Autonomous Robotic System through Self-
Maintained Energy”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation
and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 834-839
Niimi, H. and Douhara, N. (2006), “The Application Research of Mobile Robots with
Forklift Driving Wheels Capable to Ascend and Descend Stairs”, Proceedings of the 23rd
206-209
Nitithamyong, P. and Skibniewski, M.J. (2004), “Web-base Construction Project

Management Systems: How To Make Them Successful?”, Automation in Construction
13(4): 491-506
Noguchi, H. (2006), “Development of a Block Transfer Device Using Net Chains for
Automation and Labour Saving”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on
Nguyen, T.H., Kwok, N.M., Ha, Q.P., Li, J. and Samali, B. (2006), “Adaptive Sliding
Mode Control for Civil Structures Using Magnetorheological Dampers”, Proceedings of
the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC),
Tokyo: 636-641
259
REFERENCES
Obayashi, S. (1999), “Construction Robot Systems Catalogue in Japan:

Foreword”, Council for Construction Robot Research Report: 1-3
Obayashi (2003), “Annual Report 2003”,

<http://www.obayashi.co.jp/english/ir/annual/pdf/ar_03.pdf>
O’Brien, J.B. (1996), “Construction Robotics in Australia – A State of the Art
Report”, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology (2003), “Emerging Scanning Results:

Construction Robotics”, <http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=7542>
Paulson, B.C. (1995), Computer Applications in Construction, McGraw-Hill

International Editions, Singapore
PWRI (2007), “Public Works Research Institute, Japan”, <http://www.pwri.go.jp>
QSR (2005), “Official Website”,< http://www.qsrinternational.com/software.htm >
Raftery, J., Pasadilla, B., Chiang, Y.H., Hui, E.C.M. and Tang, B. (1998), “Globalisation
and Construction Industry Development: Implications of Recent Developments in the
Construction Sector in Asia”, Construction Management and Economics 16: 729-737
Reynolds, S. and Valentine, D (2004), Guide to Cross-Cultural Communication, Pearson

Prentice Hall, USA
RIBA website (2005), “RIBA Appointment Contracts Suite”,

<http://www.architecture.com/go/Architecture/Using/Contracts_306.html>
Richards, L. (2005), Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide, Sage Publications,

UK
Richards, L. (2006), Up and Running in Your Project: A Post-workshop Handbook for

NVivo7,
260
REFERENCES
<http://download.qsrinternational.com/Document/NVivo7/NVivo7_Up&Running_Lyn_
Richards.pdf>
Robson, C. (2002), Real World Research (2nd Edition), Blackwell Publishers, UK
Rosenfeld, Y. (1995), “Automation of Existing Cranes: From Concepts to

Prototype”, Automation in Construction 4(2): 125-138
Ruane, J.M. (2005), Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science

Research, Blackwell Publishing, USA
Sacks, R. and Warszawski, A. (1997), “A Project Model For An Automated Building

System: Design and Planning Phases”, Automation in Construction 7(1): 21-34
Sacks, R., Warszawski, A., and Kirsch, U. (2000), “Structural Design in an Automated
Building System”, Automation in Construction 10(1): 181-197
Saidi, K.S., Bunch, R. Lytle, A.M., and Proctor, F. (2006), “Development of a Real-time
Control System Architecture for Automated Steel Construction”, Proceedings of the 23rd
412-417
Schodek, D., Bechthold, M., Griggs, K., Kao, K.M. and Steinberg, M. (2005), Digital
Design and Manufacturing: CAD/CAM Applications in Architecture and Design, John
Wiley and Sons, USA
Sekaran, U. (2000), Research Methods For Business: A Skill-Building Approach (Third

Edition), John Wiley and Sons, USA
Selvanathan, A., Selvanathan, S., Keller, G. and Warrack, B. (2004), Australian

Business Statistics (Third Edition), Thomson, Australia
Seo, J., Lee, W., Moon, S., Kim, S. and Lim, J. (2006), “Prototyping and Automating a
Concrete Surface Grinding Machine for Improving Infrastructure
261
REFERENCES
Conditions”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Automation and

Seward, D. (1992), “Robots in Construction: Conference Report”, Industrial Robot 19:

25-29
Shimizu Corporation (2004), “Official Website”,
<http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/index.html>
Slaughter, E.S. (1997), “Characteristics of Existing Construction Automation and

Robotics Technologies”, Automation in Construction Volume 6, Issue (2): 109-120
Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. (2005), Approaches To Social Research 4th Edition,
Oxford University Press, USA
Soanes, C. and Stevenson, A. (ed) (2004), The Concise Oxford English Dictionary,
Oxford University Press, UK
Software for AEC.com (2005), “Software for Architecture, Engineering, Construction”,

<http://software.foraec.com/data/software/Search?search=%22Construction%22%20Co
nstruction&first=20>
Sprague, J. and Mutsuko, M. (2001), “Japan’s Dilemma”, Asia Week March 2001,
<http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/japans_dilemma.htm>
Spence, W.D. (2006), Construction Materials, Methods and Techniques (2nd Edition),
Thomson Delmar Learning, USA
Stake, R.E. (1994), “Case Studies” in Editors: Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., Handbook
of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications Inc., USA: 236-247
Stein, J.J., Gotts, V. and Lahidji, B. (2002), “Construction Robotics”,

<http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~tscott/EECFG/ROBOTS.PDF>
Takenaka Corporation (2004), “Official Website”, < http://www.takenaka.co.jp>
262
REFERENCES
Tan, W. (2004), Practical Research Methods (2nd Edition), Pearson Prentice Hall, USA
Tucker, R. and Haas, C. (1999), “Needs Assessment for Construction

Automation”, Field Systems and Construction Automation Group Report, University of
Texas
UCLA Academic Technology Services (2005), “How Does SPSS Compare With SAS
and Stata?”, <http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/compare_packages.htm>
UCLA Academic Technology Services (2005), “What Statistical Analysis Should I

Use?”, <http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/>
Universidad Carlos III De Madrid (2004), “Robotics Lab: Current Research”,

<http://roboticslab.uc3m.es/roboticslab>
University of Sydney (2005), “Australian Centre for Field Robotics”,
<http://www.acfr.usyd.edu.au/main.html>
University of Texas at Austin (2001), “SPSS for Windows: Getting Started”,

<http://www.utexas.edu/its/rc/tutorials/stat/spss/spss1/>
Waly, A.F. and Thabet, W.Y. (2002), “A Virtual Construction Environment for
Preconstruction Planning”, Automation in Construction 12(2): 139-154
Wang, Y., Chang, T. and Chiou, S. (2006), “Towards Instant Interaction Environment –
A Handy Design Inspiration Object”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium
Wang, H.J., Zhang, J.P., Chau, K.W. and Anson, M. (2004), “4D Dynamic Management
For Construction Planning and Resource Utilisation”, Automation in Construction 13(5):
575-589
Wakisaka, T., Furuya, N., Inoue, Y. and Shiokawa, T. (2000), “Automated Construction
System For High-rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, Automation in Construction 9(3):
229-250
263
REFERENCES
Warszawski, A., Rosenfeld, Y. and Shohet, I.M.(1996), “Autonomous Mapping System

for An Interior Finishing Robot”, ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 19(1)
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1998), MICRA
Wilson, A. (2003), Marketing Research: An Integrated Approach, Prentice Hall, UK

Wen, K. and Kao, Y. (2005), “An Analytic Study of Architectural Design Style by
Fractal Dimension Method”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Ferrara
(Italy): http://www.iaarc.org/external/isarc2005-cd/www/pdf/63wen.pdf
Woo, S., Hong, D., Lee, W. and Kim, T. (2005), “Robotic systems for Pavement Lane
Painting Operations”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium Of Robotics and
Automation in Construction (ISARC), Ferrara (Italy):
http://www.iaarc.org/external/isarc2005-cd/www/pdf/29hong.pdf
Wordnet (2005), “A Lexical Database for the English Language”,

<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/>
World Encyclopedia Philip’s, “Automation”, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Reference Online, (2005),
<http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t105.e846>
Yamazaki, Y. (2004), “Future Innovative Construction Technologies: Directions and

Strategies To Innovate Construction Industry”, Proceedings of the 21st International
Symposium Of Robotics and Automation in Construction (ISARC), Jeju Island: 79-84
Yang, J., Kao, C., Lee, Y. (2006), “System Requirement Analysis of a Construction
Delay Analysis System”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium Of Robotics
and Automation in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 102-106
264
REFERENCES
Yoshida, T. (2006), “A Short History of Construction Robots Research and

Development in a Japanese Company”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium
Of Robotics and Automation in Construction (ISARC), Tokyo: 188-193
Yu, W., Cheng, S., Shie, Y. and Lo, S. (2006), “Benchmarking Technological
Competitiveness of Precast Construction through Patent Map Analysis”, Proceedings of
the 23rd International Symposium Of Robotics and Automation in Construction
(ISARC), Tokyo: 118-123
Yu, S.N., Choi, C.H., Lee, S.Y., Han, C.S., Lee, K.Y. and Lee, S.H. (2005), “The
Analysis of the Curtain Wall Installation Robot: Based on the Test in the Construction
Site”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium Of Robotics and Automation in
Construction (ISARC), Ferrara (Italy): http://www.iaarc.org/external/isarc2005-
cd/www/pdf/33yu.pdf
265
Appendix 1
Examples of specialised robots developed by Takenaka Corporation, Japan.
Concrete Floor Surface

Finishing Robots
(Surf Robo)
Equipped with two sets of
rotary floats and a running
function, Surf Robo
automatically finishes concrete
floor surfaces.
Steel Frame Welding Robot

This is a robot equipped with a
teaching function for the
automatic welding of such parts
as "columns and beams" or
"columns and columns" in steel
work.
Automated Coating
Delamination Robot, "JET-
SCRAPER"
This robot utilizes multi-jet
nozzles and super high-pressure
water jet sprayers to remove
coatings from exterior walls.
266
APPENDICES
Appendix 2: The RIBA Plan of Work
Extracted from: Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) website

at http://www.architecture.com/go/Architecture/Using/Contracts_306.html
The RIBA Plan of Work is a robust process protocol which describes the activities from
appraising the client’s requirements through to post construction. The stages are also
used in the appointing documents to help identify the architect's services.
Stage A : Appraisal
Identification of client's requirements and possible constraints on development.
Preparation of studies to enable the client to decide whether to proceed and to select
probable procurement method.
Stage B : Strategic Briefing Preparation of Strategic Brief by, or on behalf of, the
client confirming key requirements and constraints.
Identification of procedures, organisational structure and range of consultants and others
to be engaged for the project.
[Identifies the strategic brief (as CIB Guide) which becomes the clear responsibility of
the client]
Stage C : Outline Proposals

Commence development of strategic brief into full project brief
Preparation of outline proposals and estimate of cost
Review of procurement route.
Stage D : Detailed Proposals

Complete development of the project brief
Preparation of detailed proposals
Application for full development control approval.
Stage E : Final Proposals

Preparation of final proposals for the Project sufficient for co-ordination of all
components and elements of the Project.
Stage F : Production Information

F1: Preparation of production information in sufficient detail to enable a tender or
tenders to be obtained; and Application for statutory approvals.
F2: Preparation of further production information required under the building contract.
[Now in two parts, F1 - the production information sufficient to obtain tenders and F2 -
the balance required under the building contract to complete the information for
construction]
267
APPENDICES
Stage G : Tender Documentation

Preparation and collation of tender documentation in sufficient detail to enable a tender
or tenders to be obtained for the construction of the Project.
[Solely concerned with the documentation required for tenders. Particularly useful with
D+B or management contracts]
Stage H : Tender Action

Identification and evaluation of potential contractors and/or specialists for the
construction of the project
Obtaining and appraising tenders and submission of recommendations to the client.
Stage J : Mobilisation
Letting the building contract, appointing the contractor
Issuing of production information to the contractor
Arranging site handover to the contractor.
Stage K : Construction to Practical Completion

Administration of the building contract up to and including practical completion.
Provision to the contractor of further information as and when reasonably required.
Stage L : After Practical Completion

Administration of the building contract after practical completion.
Making final inspections and settling the final account.
[Clearly separated from the construction phase]
268
APPENDICES
Appendix 3: Postal Questionnaire: Example for Australian Participants
Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
2006 SURVEY ON BARRIERS TO AUTOMATION AND ROBOTICS IN CONSTRUCTION
You have been selected to participate in this survey on the Barriers to the
Implementation of Automation and Robotics in the Construction Industry. This survey is
divided into five main areas; that is, demographic information; the level of
implementation; issues and concerns pertaining to the use of the technologies;
perceived barriers and their impact; and future trends and opportunities.
The researcher is interested in your opinions, ideas and experiences. Your input and
participation would be invaluable to the research in terms of gaining a broad picture on
the use of these technologies across the industry, from contractors to consultants. All
the information you provide is confidential and will only be used for academic purposes
and published in summary, statistical form.
For the purpose of this survey, the term Construction Automation and Robotics is
defined as: “The use of self-governing mechanical and electronic devices that utilises
intelligent control to carry out construction tasks and operations automatically. These
include the use of automation in all stages of construction, from the automation of the
design process using Computer Aided Design (CAD); the production of cost estimates
and scheduling through the use of softwares; through to actual ingenious machines (or
robots) that use intelligent control utilised during on-site construction operations”.
Please return the completed questionnaire before 1 May 2006 in the stamped self-
addressed envelope provided to:
Rohana Mahbub
PhD student
School of Urban Development
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
Gardens Point Campus
2 George Street, GPO Box 2434
Brisbane Q4001
For Malaysian participants, you may return the completed questionnaire to :
Rohana Mahbub
D-03-01 Blok Idaman D
Tasik Heights Apartments
Bandar Tasik Selatan
57000 Kuala Lumpur
If you choose to participate on-line, the web-site address for the questionnaire
(Australia) is: http://rohanamahbub.tripod.com/id1.html
Thank you for your participation – your response is very much appreciated
269
APPENDICES
SECTION A : DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1 What type of business (primary) is your company? Tick One

Contractor
Sub-contractor
Consultant or professional services
Developer
2 In which sectors of the building and construction industry does your Tick all that
company operate? apply
Residential
Non-residential
Civil Engineering Works and Infrastructure
3 What is the gross annual revenue of your company? Tick One

Less than A$0.2 million
A$0.2 million to A$1.5 million
A$1.5 million to A$25 million
A$25 million to A$50 million
More than A$500 million
4 Do you have branch offices? If yes, please state approximate number. Number of
(Please write zero in the box, if you do not have branch offices) branch
offices
Within the country
Outside the country, international
5 Approximately how many full time staff currently work in your Tick One
company?
(including branch offices, and owners/partners in Head Office)
1 to 10 people
11 to 50 people
51 to 100 people
101 to 250 people
251 to 500 people
501 to 1000 people
More than 1000 people
270
APPENDICES
SECTION B : LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
6 Does your company use automation & robotics technologies? Tick One
Yes
No
If no, please skip Questions 7 to 11, and move to Question 12 in Section C (page 5)
7a If yes, please state in which areas of construction you have used Tick all
these technologies. that apply
Design
Scheduling / Planning
Costing / Tendering
Project Management
On-site Construction
7b In which areas are the Level of Usage

technologies most used by your Never Seldom Sometimes Regularly Highly
company?
(please tick the relevant boxes) 1 2 3 4 5
Design
Scheduling / Planning
Costing / Tendering
Project Management
On-site Construction
8 How long have you been using automation & robotics technologies? Tick One
Less than 1 year
Between 1 to 2 years
More than 10 years
9 Are the majority of the automation & robotics technologies that you Tick One
use acquired from outside your company?
Yes
No
271
APPENDICES
If your company uses automation and robotics technologies for on-site construction,
please answer Questions 10a and 10b, if not, please go to Question 11.
10a In which areas does your company use automation and robotics for Tick all
on-site construction work? that apply
Earthworks
Structural Steelwork
Concreting (including reinforcement placing and surface finishing)
Building Assembly / Lifting and Positioning of Components
Painting / Finishing
Total Automation of Construction Works (eg SMART System)
10b In which areas are automation Level of Usage

& robotics technologies most Never Seldom Sometimes Regularly Highly
used by your company?
(please tick the relevant boxes) 1 2 3 4 5
Earthworks
Structural Steelwork
Concreting
Building Assembly / Lifting &
Positioning of Components
Painting / Finishing
Total Automation
SECTION C : ISSUES AND CONCERNS PERTAINING TO USE OF AUTOMATION

AND ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGIES
11 Why do you think your company uses automation & robotics Tick all
technologies more predominantly in certain areas but not in others? that apply
(eg used more in design but not during the construction phase)
Type of work done by the company reflects areas of usage
High costs associated with application in certain areas
Availability of the technologies differs across the areas
Ease of use (easily understood for implementation)
The technologies can be used repetitively for a range of projects
Differing level of awareness (exposure) to the technologies across
the areas
272
APPENDICES
12 What do you think are the main problems associated with the use of Tick all
automation & robotics technologies in construction? that apply
The technologies are complex and difficult to implement
High costs associated with automation & robotics application
Limited resources available to small and medium-sized firms
Updating the technologies is difficult and expensive
The technologies are not easily available locally
Fragmented nature of the construction industry inhibits innovation
Resistance to change by workers and some project participants
Tight project timeframes inhibit implementation of new technologies
Relatively low level of awareness (exposure) to the technologies
Low technology literacy of the workers / need for re-training
13 Do you think some projects are more suited to the implementation of Tick One
automation & robotics technologies compared to others?
Yes
No
Don’t know
14 If yes, please state in which construction projects you think Tick all
automation & robotics technologies are most suited to. that apply
Residential
Non-residential
Civil Engineering Works and Infrastructure
Specialised sub-contracting work
15 Do you think automation & robotics are more predominantly used in Tick One
larger construction companies compared to the smaller ones?
Yes
No
Don’t know
16 Do you think companies operating internationally on a global scale Tick One

would use more automation & robotics technologies compared to
companies operating locally or within their own countries?
Yes
No
Don’t know
273
APPENDICES
SECTION D : PERCEIVED BARRIERS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION
This section requires you to think of the possible barriers to automation and robotics
application for on-site construction and the impact of these barriers on their level of
implementation. Please indicate your opinion on each item indicated [(a) to (h)] by
ticking your response in the columns.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 Please rate the following barriers to the Rating of Impact

implementation of automation & robotics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
technologies for on-site construction.
(a) High costs / substantial financial

commitment in acquiring the technologies
(b) Automation & robotics technologies are

expensive to update and maintain
(c) Incompatibility of the technologies with

existing practices and current
construction operations.
(d) The fragmentary nature and size of the

construction industry makes the
technologies difficult to implement
(e) Automation & robotics technologies are

difficult to use and not easily understood
(f) Automation & robotics technologies are

unavailable locally or difficult to acquire
(g) The technologies are not easily accepted

by the workers and workers union
(h) Low technology literacy of project

participants / need for re-training of
workers
274
APPENDICES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18 How do you think the barriers for on-site Rating of Impact

operation can be minimised or overcome?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) Reducing the costs of acquiring or buying

(b) Making automation & robotics technologies

cheaper to operate and maintain
(c) Encouraging greater standardisation of

construction products and processes
(d) Making the construction environment more

structured and controlled
(e) Developing automation & robotics

technologies that are easier to use and
understand
(f) Improving availability of the technologies
(g) Better marketing strategies of the

technologies to encourage acceptance
(h) Better training programmes for workers
275
APPENDICES
SECTION E : FUTURE TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
This section requires your opinion on the future trends and opportunities in the
implementation of automation and robotics technologies in the construction industry.
Please indicate your level of agreement to each statement [(a) to (j)] by ticking your
response in the boxes below.
Scale for Level of Agreement for Question 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Agree
Disagree
19 Future Trends ( for the next 10 years) Level of Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) There will be greater awareness of

automation & robotics technologies within
the construction industry community
(b) Automation and robotics technologies will
be cheaper to acquire and operate
(c) There will be a significantly larger range of
available for use in construction
(d) The use of automation & robotics
technologies will enable firms to operate
more efficiently and competitively
(e) In future, there will be greater
standardisation of the design and
construction processes.
(f) The technologies will be easily available
across the world
(g) The number of construction companies
using automation & robotics technologies
will increase significantly
(h) Automation & robotics technologies will be
easier to install and operate
(i) There will be greater integration within the
construction industry in terms of control
and responsibility for design and
construction.
(j) The technologies will be readily accepted
by the workers and the industry
276
APPENDICES
20 What do you think are the opportunities available to construction companies in

terms of increasing the use of automation and robotics technologies in their
projects? Please write your comments below, if any.
21 Do you have any comments about this survey or the use of construction
automation and robotics in general?
Thank you for your assistance in this research and for completing the questionnaire.
Please be assured that all information obtained is confidential. If you wish to receive a
summary of the findings of this survey, please complete your personal details below.
These details will be stored separately from the questionnaire responses in order to
maintain confidentiality.
Name :
Designation/
Job Title:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
277
APPENDICES
Appendix 4: SPSS Abbreviated Codebook
NO QUESTION CHOICE CODE

1 What type of business (primary) is your Contractor 1
company? Subcontractor 2
BUSINESSTYPE Consultant or professional services 3
Developer 4
Others 5
2 In which sectors of the building and Residential 1
construction industry do your company Non-Residential 2
operate? Civil Engineering Works and 3
SECTOR Infrastructure
All of the above 4
Residential and Non-residential 5
only
Others 6
3 What is the gross annual revenue of Less than JPY17m 1
your company? JPY17m-JPY127.5m 2
ANNUALREVENUE JPY127.5m-JPY2.1b 3
JPY2.1b-JPY4.25b 4
JPY4.25b-JPY12.75b 5
JPY12.75b-JPY42.5b 6
More than JPY42.5b 7
4 Do you have branch offices? Yes YES
BRANCHOFFICES No NO
5 Approximately, how many full time 1-10 people 1
staff currently works in your company? 11-50 people 2
STAFF 51-100 people 3
101-250 people 4
251-500 people 5
501-1000 people 6
More than 1000 people 7
6 Does your company use automation and Yes YES
robotics technologies? USE No NO
7 If yes, in which areas of construction are automation and robotics most used by
your company?
Design DESIGN Never 1
Scheduling/ Planning Seldom 2
SCHEDULEPLAN
Costing/ Tendering COST Sometimes 3
Project Management PROJECTMGMT Regularly 4
On-site Construction ONSITE Highly 5
8 How long have you been using Never 1
automation and robotics technologies? Less than one year 2
LENGTHTIME Between 1 to 3 years 3
Between 3 to 5 years 4
Between 5 to 10 years 5
More than 10 years 6
278
APPENDICES

9 Are the majority of the automation and robotics Yes YES
technologies that you use acquired from outside No NO
your company? ACQUIRE
10 In which areas of on-site construction are automation and robotics
technologies most used by your company?
Earthworks EARTHWORKS Never 1
Structural Steelwork STRUC Seldom 2
Concreting CONCRETE Sometimes 3
Building Assembly/ Lifting and Positioning of Regularly 4
Components ASSEMBLY
Painting / Finishing PAINT Highly 5
Total Automation of Construction Works
TOTAL
11 Why do you think your company uses automation and robotics technologies
more predominantly in certain areas compared to others?
Type of work done by the company reflects areas TYPEWORK ON
of usage
High costs associated with application in certain OFF
areas
Availability of the technologies differs across the AVAIL
areas
Ease of use EASEUSE
The technologies can be used repetitively for a REPEAT
range of projects
Differing level of awareness to the technologies AWARE
across the areas
12 What do you think are the main problems associated with the use of
automation and robotics technologies in construction?
The technologies are complex and difficult to COMPLEX ON
implement
High cost associated with A&R application HIGHCOSTS OFF
Limited Resources available to small and LIMITEDRESOURCES
medium-sized firms
Updating the technologies are not easily UPDATING
available locally
Fragmented nature of the construction industry FRAGMENT
inhibits innovation
Resistance to change by workers and some
project participants
Tight project timeframes inhibit implementation TIMEFRAME
of new technologies
Relatively low level of awareness to the
technologies
Low technology literacy of workers/ need for re-
training
13 Do you think some projects are more suited to Yes YES
the implementation of A&R compared to others? No NO
SUITED
279
APPENDICES

14 If yes, please state in which construction projects you think A&R are most
suited to.
Residential RES ON
Non-residential NRES OFF
Civil Engineering Works and Infrastructure CVLENG
Specialised Sub-contracting Work SPECIAL
SUBCON
15 Do you think A&R are more predominantly used in Yes 1
larger construction companies compared to the smaller No 2
ones? LARGEVSMALL Don’t Know 3
16 Do you think companies operating internationally would Yes 1
use more A&R compared to companies operating No 2
locally? INTERNATIONALVLOCAL Don’t Know 3
17 Please rate the following barriers to the implementation of A&R in
construction:
High costs/ substantial financial commitment in Insignificant 1
acquiring the technologies FINANCIALCOMMIT
A&R expensive to update & maintain EXPMAINTAIN Little Significant 2
Incompatibility with existing practices and current Minor 3
construction operations INCOMPATIBILITY
Fragmentary nature and size of construction industry Moderate 4
make A&R difficult to implement FRAGSIZE
A&R difficult to use and not easily understood DIFFUSE Major 5
A&R are unavailable locally or difficult to acquire Very Significant 6
UNAVAILOCAL
A&R not easily accepted by workers and workers’ union Totally Significant 7
ACCEPT
Low technology literacy of project participants / need for
re-training LOWTECHLITPARTICIPANTS
18 How do you think the barriers can be minimised or overcome?
Reducing the costs of acquiring or buying A&R Insignificant 1
technologies REDUCECOST
Making A&R cheaper to operate and maintain Little Significant 2
CHEAPOPERATE
Encouraging greater standardisation of construction Minor 3
products and processes STANDARDISATION
Making the construction environment more structured Moderate 4
and controlled STRUCTUREDENV
Developing A&R that are easier to use and understand Major 5
DEVELOPTECH
Improving availability of the technologies Very Significant 6
IMPROVEAVAIL
Better marketing strategies of the technologies to Totally Significant 7
encourage acceptance BETTERMARKETING
Better training programmes for workers
BETTERTRAINING
280
APPENDICES

19 Please indicate your level of agreement to each statement:
There will be greater awareness of A&R within the Strongly 1
construction industry community GREATERAWARE Disagree
A&R will be cheaper to acquire and operate Moderately 2
CHEAPACQOP Disagree
There will be a significantly larger range of A&R Slightly Disagree 3
available for use in construction LARGERANGE
The use of A&R will enable firms to operate more Neither Agree 4
efficiently and competitively EFFICIENTCOMP nor Disagree
In future, there will be greater standardisation of the Slightly Agree 5
design and construction processes
STANDARDESIGNPROCESS
The technologies will be easily available across the Moderately 6
world EASYAVAIL Agree
The number of construction companies using A&R will Strongly Agree 7
increase significantly NOINCREASE
A&R will be easier to install and operate
EASIERINSTALL
There will be greater integration within the construction
industry in terms of control and responsibility for design
and construction INTEGRATION
The technologies will be readily accepted by the workers
and the industry READILYACCEPT
281
APPENDICES
Appendix 5: Interview Consent Form and Questions
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BARRIERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATION

AND ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Investigator :
Rohana Mahbub, PhD Student
School of Urban Development
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Telephone : 61 7 3864 2973; Fax : 61 7 3864 1170
E-mail : r.mahbub@student.qut.edu.au
Description
This cross-national exploratory research aims to identify and explain the barriers to the
implementation of automation and robotics technologies in the construction industry by exploring
and establishing the relationship between characteristics of the construction industry with that of
existing automation and robotics technologies. In this research, the barriers to implementation
will be studied, discussed, analysed and evaluated for three countries, that is, Japan, Australia
and Malaysia. These three countries were chosen because the characteristics of the
construction industry in these countries provide contrast in terms of culture, GDP, technology
application, organisational structure and labour policies. The differing characteristics ascertained
from the data gathered can provide the framework for comparison purposes and explain the
different levels of usage from country to country, i.e. from high usage in Japan to low usage in
Malaysia and Australia.
Expected Benefits
The information gathered from this research and from the survey may provide greater
understanding of the current automation and robotics technologies in use in construction, which
may encourage greater use of innovative technologies for the future construction industry. The
data that is gathered, analysed and interpreted from the survey can therefore further enhance
the industry’s knowledge in this area, especially for Australia, Japan and Malaysia.
Confidentiality
All responses will be kept strictly confidential and no reference will be made to specific
individuals or companies in the research. Participants will not be identifiable in any way through
the data collected and all survey data will be pooled together into one database for analysis
purposes, making it impossible for any individuals to be identified. Only the survey results will be
published in summary, statistical form.
Voluntary Participants
Participation in the survey is completely voluntary. Participants are under no obligation to
participate, and if you choose not to participate, this decision will in no way impact upon your
current or future relationship with QUT.
Questions /Further Information

If you require further information about the research project, or have any questions about the
survey, please contact the researcher, Rohana Mahbub by telephone, e-mail or fax (contact
numbers as provided above) or Dr Matthew Humphreys (Supervisor)
at m.humphreys@qut.edu.au / tel : 61-7-38649112 / fax : 61-7-38641170.
Concerns / Complaints
If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of this research, please
contact the Research Ethics Officer at ethicscontact@qut.edu.au / tel : 61-7-38642340.
282
APPENDICES
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
Statement of Consent
By signing below, you are indicating that you:
• Have read and understood the information sheet about this project;
• Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction;
• Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the researcher;
• Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty;
• Understand that you can contact the researcher if you have any questions about the
project, or the Research Ethics Officer on 38642340 or ethicscontact@qut.edu.au if you
have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project;
• Agree to participate in the project.
NAME ___________________________________________________________
ORGANISATION ___________________________________________________________
SIGNATURE ___________________________________________________________
DATE ___________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation – your response is very much appreciated
283
APPENDICES
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BARRIERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATION

AND ROBOTICS TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Section A: Demographic – Background Information
1. What type of business is your company?
2. In which sectors of the building and construction industry does your company mostly
operate?
3. Approximately, what is the gross annual revenue of your company?
4. Do you have branch offices? If yes, please state approximate number, within the country
and/or overseas.
5. Approximately how many full time staff currently work in your company?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......
MAIN BODY OF INTERVIEW:
Section B: Level of Implementation and Development
1. Does your company use automation and robotics technologies?

(Note to Interviewer: If no, move to Section C)
2. In which areas of construction have you used these technologies? Please elaborate on level
of usage within these areas.
3. Approximately, how long have you been using automation and robotics technologies?
4. Are the majority of the automation & robotics technologies that you use acquired from
outside your company?
If no, do you have a Research and Development Department within the company that
develops the automation & robotics technologies used in your company? Approximately how
many research projects is your Research and Development Department currently involved in?
5. Does your company use automation and robotics technologies for on-site construction or
components assembly?
If yes, in which areas does your company use automation and robotics for on-site
construction work?
Please elaborate on level of usage within these areas.
6. Why do you think your company uses automation & robotics technologies more
predominantly in certain areas but not in others?
284
APPENDICES
Section C: Issues and Concerns Pertaining To the Use of Automation and Robotics
Technologies
1. What do you think are the main problems associated with the use of automation & robotics
technologies in construction?
2. Do you think some projects are more suited to the implementation of automation & robotics
technologies compared to others? If yes, please state in which construction projects you
think automation & robotics technologies are most suited to.
3. Do you think automation & robotics are more predominantly used in larger construction
companies compared to the smaller ones? If yes, why do you think this is?
4. Do you think companies operating internationally on a global scale would use more
automation & robotics technologies compared to companies operating locally or within their
own countries? If yes, why do you think this is?
Section D: Perceived Barriers and Their Impact
1. What do you think are the possible barriers to the implementation of automation & robotics
technologies in construction? Please elaborate and rate their significance to the construction
industry or your company specifically.
2. How do you think the barriers can be minimised or overcome?
Section D: Future Trends and Opportunities
1. What do you think of the future of construction automation and robotics technologies in the
next ten years?
2. What do you think are the opportunities available to construction companies in terms of
increasing the use of automation and robotics technologies in their projects?
Do you have any comments about this research or the use of construction automation and
robotics in general?
Interviewer - Thank participant for their assistance in the research and for participating in the
interview. Assure participant that all information obtained is confidential. If participant wishes to
receive a summary of the findings of this survey, ask for their business card or ask them to
complete their personal details below. Assure them that these details will be stored
separately from the interview responses in order to maintain confidentiality.
Name :
Designation:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
285
APPENDICES
Appendix 6: Cross-tab Results
Cross-tab Table for Annual Revenue and Number of Staff

ANNUAL FREQUENCY NUMBER OF FULL-TIME STAFF
REVENUE COUNT AND More
PERCENTAGES 11 to 51 to 101 to 251 to 501 to then
1 to 10 50 100 250 500 1000 1000
people people people people people people people Total
Less than Count 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3
AUD0.2M/ % within Annual
JPY17M/ .0% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% 66.7% .0% 100.0%
Revenue
RM0.6M % within Number of
.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.4% .0% 2.9%
full time staff
AUD0.2M- Count 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7
1.5M/ % within Annual
JPY17M- 42.9% 14.3% .0% 42.9% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
Revenue
127.5M/ % within Number of
RM0.6M- full time staff 50.0% 25.0% .0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 6.7%
4.5M
AUD1.5M- Count 1 2 3 3 5 0 0 14
25M/ % within Annual
JPY127.5M- 7.1% 14.3% 21.4% 21.4% 35.7% .0% .0% 100.0%
Revenue
2.1B/ % within Number of
RM4.5M- full time staff 16.7% 50.0% 42.9% 20.0% 17.2% .0% .0% 13.3%
75M
AUD25M- Count 1 0 0 0 6 2 0 9
JPY2.1B- 11.1% .0% .0% .0% 66.7% 22.2% .0% 100.0%
Revenue
RM75M- full time staff 16.7% .0% .0% .0% 20.7% 7.4% .0% 8.6%
150M
AUD50M- Count 1 0 3 7 11 7 0 29
JPY4.25B- 3.4% .0% 10.3% 24.1% 37.9% 24.1% .0% 100.0%
Revenue
RM150M- full time staff 16.7% .0% 42.9% 46.7% 37.9% 25.9% .0% 27.6%
450M
AUD150M- Count 0 0 1 2 5 11 3 22
JPY12.75B- .0% .0% 4.5% 9.1% 22.7% 50.0% 13.6% 100.0%
Revenue
RM450M- full time staff .0% .0% 14.3% 13.3% 17.2% 40.7% 17.6% 21.0%
1500M
More than Count 0 0 0 0 2 5 14 21
AUD500M/ % within Annual
JPY42.5B/ .0% .0% .0% .0% 9.5% 23.8% 66.7% 100.0%
Revenue
RM1500M % within Number of
.0% .0% .0% .0% 6.9% 18.5% 82.4% 20.0%
full time staff
Total Count 6 4 7 15 29 27 17 105
% within Annual
5.7% 3.8% 6.7% 14.3% 27.6% 25.7% 16.2% 100.0%
Revenue
% within Number of
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
full time staff
286

Rohana Mahbub Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rohana Mahbub Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rohana Mahbub Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BARRIERS TO THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATION AND ROBOTICS

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of

SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

My husband Razak, for his love and support

In loving memory of my parents,

My father, Mahbub Amin (1936 – 2005) and

Key Words: Automation, Robotics, Mechanisation, Construction Industry, Barriers,

2.4.1 Construction Technology Characteristics 46

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION: JAPAN, MALAYSIA AND

4.6 Ethical Considerations 124

4.7 Summary 125

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND

5.2.5 Section D: Perceived Barriers for Construction Implementation 155

6.3.2 Barrier Variables 220

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction 231

Appendix 1: Examples of specialised robots developed by Takenaka 266

Appendix 2: The RIBA Plan of Work 267

Figure 1.1 Identification of Variables 12

Figure 3.1 The Scientific Process 79

Figure 7.4 Ranking Scheme 2: Barrier Variables 236

Figure 7.6 Ranking Scheme 4: Future Trends and Opportunities 238

Table 3.1 Response Rate for Pilot Study Survey 94

Table 5.1 Response Rate for Questionnaire Survey 129

Table 5.26 Barrier Variables: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise 161

Table 5.27 Barrier Variables: Summary of Analysis Results 162

Table 5.34 Minimising Barriers: Variances by Ranks for Pair-wise 167

Table 5.35 Minimising Barriers: Summary of Analysis Results 167

Table 5.48 Summary of Content Analysis: Barrier Variables 183

Table 5.50 Summary of Content Analysis: Differing Levels of Usage 189

This thesis is presented as an original contribution based on my PhD research at QUT

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors,

I am grateful to the numerous construction industry professionals who have directly or

1. Mahbub, R. and Humphreys, M. (2005), “An Investigation into the Barriers to

2. Mahbub, R. (2005), “Automation and Robotics Implementation in Developing

3. Mahbub, R. and Humphreys, M. (2006), “Cross-National Research on Barriers to

4. Mahbub, R and Humphreys, M. (2006), “Barriers to Construction Automation and

5. Mahbub, R. (2006), “The Implementation and Development of Innovative

The construction industry demands effective construction organisations, efficient

The majority of previous research into construction automation and robotics

automation and robotics technologies to examine certain trends in the development of

By identifying the barriers to automation and robotics implementation in construction,

1.2 Problem Identification and Research Objectives

behaviour, social relationships, social processes or social structures. An explanatory

1.2.1 The Research Questions

This research will examine the following research questions:

3. Why is there greater use of construction automation and robotics technologies in

This is ascertained mainly through the detailed analysis of the quantitative

1.2.2 The Objectives of the Research

The objectives of this research are:

1. To establish an understanding of the principles of automation and robotics as

This forms the basis of the research, and is accomplished by:

This is accomplished by:

3. To explore and determine a correlation between the characteristics of the

This is accomplished by:

This is accomplished by:

5. To predict the future trends and opportunities for the implementation of

This is accomplished by: