buildings

Review
Construction 4.0 Technologies and Decision-Making:
A Systematic Review and Gap Analysis
Hazwani Shafei 1 , Afiqah R. Radzi 2,3 , Mohammed Algahtany 4, * and Rahimi A. Rahman 1,5, *

1 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan 26300, Malaysia
2 Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
3 Faculty of Indusrial Management, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan 26300, Malaysia
4 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Northern Border University,
Arar 91413, Saudi Arabia
5 General Educational Development, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1341, Bangladesh
* Correspondence: mohammed.algahtany@nbu.edu.sa (M.A.); arahimirahman@ump.edu.my (R.A.R.)

Abstract: Construction 4.0 involves implementing advanced technologies in construction projects

to achieve higher productivity, safety, and sustainability. However, architecture, engineering, and
construction (AEC) professionals are reluctant to adopt Construction 4.0 technologies. Lack of
information on Construction 4.0 technologies and poor decision-making lead to the issue being
unresolved. As a result, the following research question emerged: What are the current trends and
research gaps in the existing research on Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making? This
study aims to review the publication trends in Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making
and pinpoint the gaps in prior research. To achieve the aim, a systematic literature review (SLR) was
conducted on published articles using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-
analyses (PRISMA) method. A total of 22 articles were carefully selected and reviewed. The findings
disclosed four research trends: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Also, the findings
Citation: Shafei, H.; Radzi, A.R.; suggested that existing research still concentrates on adopting and implementing Construction 4.0
Algahtany, M.; Rahman, R.A. technologies. As a result, the existing research has low exploration in integrating Construction 4.0
Construction 4.0 Technologies and technologies and decision-making processes. The study findings could guide researchers and AEC
Decision-Making: A Systematic professionals to establish effective decisions in achieving Construction 4.0.
Review and Gap Analysis. Buildings
2022, 12, 2206. https://doi.org/ Keywords: Construction 4.0; emerging technologies; decision-making; systematic literature review; SLR
10.3390/buildings12122206

Academic Editor: Jurgita

Antucheviciene
1. Introduction
Received: 14 November 2022
Accepted: 7 December 2022
The fourth industrial revolution (IR 4.0) has created a paradigm shift in the construc-
Published: 13 December 2022
tion industry toward digital transformation. IR 4.0 has gained the construction industry
leader’s attention in utilizing modern technologies for collaboration, coordination, and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
communication to deliver a sustainably built environment. The critical concept in IR 4.0
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
is machines interconnected via a network or the internet using the next generation of
published maps and institutional affil-
cyber-physical technologies [1]. This includes artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and nan-
iations.
otechnology. Digital transformation could enhance deliverance in terms of quality, safety,
sustainability, productivity, and competitiveness. According to the world economic forum
(WEF), digital technology adoption boosts productivity, streamlines project management
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
and procedures, and enhances quality and safety [2]. Therefore, to align with IR 4.0, the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. construction industry needs to transform significantly by deploying emerging technologies.
This article is an open access article The transformation towards a greater level of digitalization has led to a new concept
distributed under the terms and known as Construction 4.0. Construction 4.0 was coined from IR 4.0, originating from
conditions of the Creative Commons the German manufacturing sector [3]. The advanced technologies parked under the IR
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 4.0 concept include big data and analytics, autonomous robots, simulations, system inte-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ grations, the internet of things (IoT), cyber-physical systems, cloud computing, additive
4.0/). manufacturing (AM), and augmented reality (AR) [4]. These technologies are primarily

Buildings 2022, 12, 2206. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122206 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 2 of 19

used in the manufacturing industry. The construction sector started digitalization through
Construction 4.0, referring to the success of the manufacturing industry. Adopting emerg-
ing technologies in construction processes could completely change the physical assets’
design, development, and preservation. According to [5,6], digital collaboration across
project phases could enhance operational efficiency, the management of project lead times,
and waste minimization. It showed that the roles of digital technologies in the construc-
tion industry are no longer mere tools. Instead, they fundamentally change the method
of running a construction business. Therefore, to thrive in IR 4.0, it is critical to adopt
Construction 4.0 technologies.
In recent years, construction projects have become further complex, and budgets
and schedule burdens are rising while the quality standards are growing. In the face
of such challenges, the construction industry is morally obligated to transform towards
digitalization. However, even though digitalization has been a growing trend for years,
it is still in its infancy stages and remains scattered and unorganized [7]. Moreover, most
construction professionals have been reluctant to adopt Construction 4.0 technologies [8].
This reluctance is due to the nature of the construction industry. These include project
complexity, the uncertainty of the external environment, a fragmented supply chain, short-
term thinking, and cultural issues 9. Due to these factors, decision-makers have difficulty
selecting strategic decisions for technology adoption. They require critical and analytical
thinking to establish significant decisions, especially in complex projects. In a worst-case
scenario, at the management level, there is a lack of decision tools to select Construction
4.0 technologies in the construction industry [8]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
decision tools that support decision-makers in the construction industry in establishing
strategic decisions.
Significant prior research has explored Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-
making. Ref. [9] reviewed the state of digital twin (DT) development. As such, [9] sug-
gested incorporating a multi-actor game-theory decision algorithm, optimizing scenarios
for decision-making, developing resilience control, and utilizing decision-support tools.
Next, [10] underwent a systematic review to identify research themes, gaps, and roadmaps
for applying emerging technologies in industrialized construction. This review highlighted
the need for a performance assessment for decision-makers to adopt Construction 4.0 tech-
nologies. Also, developing a comprehensive performance assessment is vital to persuade
decision-makers to adopt advanced technologies. In another SLR article, [11] proposed a
Construction 4.0 framework by identifying the enabling technologies and their applications.
Ref. [11] identified that one of the significant scenarios is decision support for prefabricated
construction. The article highlighted integrating AI and the IoT with building informa-
tion modeling (BIM) to support prefabricated construction. In addition, [12] conducted a
systematic review of Construction 4.0 technology adoption for off-site construction (OSC).
According to [12], adopting Construction 4.0 for OSC could save time and costs, decrease
waste, and enhance the overall productivity of projects. For OSC, five (5) key technologies
are significant for establishing strategic and accurate decisions. These are BIM, global
positioning systems (GPSs), the IoT, AI, and robotics. On the contrary, [13] presented ten
new Construction 4.0 technologies in AEC using a scoping review. These consisted of
BIM, AI, 3D printing, machine learning (ML), the IoT, geographic information systems
(GISs), virtual reality (VR), big data, robotics, and AR. These technologies could assist in
establishing sound decisions in the construction industry. In addition, [13] disclosed three
(3) technologies that are currently adopted in the construction industry, including mobile
devices, BIM, and digital signatures.
There has been a growing number of publications on Construction 4.0 technologies
and decision-making in the construction industry. Nevertheless, the existing body of knowl-
edge lacks an overview of research related to integrating Construction 4.0 technologies
and decision-making. The existing literature often focuses on deciphering a more com-
prehensive piece of Construction 4.0 technologies. In contrast, this study has a narrower
focus on Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. There is also a severe issue
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 3 of 19

highlighted by the reluctance of construction professionals to implement Construction 4.0

in practice. Moreover, previous research identified that the decision-making efforts concern-
ing technology selections are undeveloped [14]. The lack of information on Construction
4.0 technologies, their functions, and poor decision-making skills might lead to the reluc-
tance issue. Also, to the authors’ knowledge, there has been a grey area in Construction
4.0 technologies and decision-making despite its growing trends. Indeed, reviewing and
understanding what was researched in the existing literature is necessary. This would
persuade the decision-makers in the construction industry to establish the strategic decision
to fully adopt the Construction 4.0 technologies. However, a comprehensive and systematic
review to grasp the current knowledge gaps is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to review
the publication trends in Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making and pinpoint
the gaps in the prior research. This study fills this knowledge gap by critically evaluating
the state of Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making, examining the trends, and
pinpointing the existing gaps.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Construction 4.0 Technologies
Construction 4.0 adapts the IR 4.0 framework, comprising cyber-physical systems and
advanced digital technologies in practice [15]. For example, in Malaysia, policymakers
have established the Construction 4.0 strategic plan (2021–2025) as the roadmap for the next
digital revolution in the local construction industry. This plan introduces twelve technolo-
gies to enhance construction competitiveness and productivity, including BIM, cloud and
real-time collaboration; AI; blockchain; IoT; big data and predictive analytics; 3D scanning
and photogrammetry; prefabrication and modular construction; AR and virtualization;
3D printing and AM; autonomous construction, and advanced building material. One
significant Construction 4.0 technology that could enhance the efficiency of construction
management is BIM. BIM is a simulation and modeling technology that synchronizes
information with the client, consultant, and contractor [16]. Cloud and real-time collabo-
rations are internet-centric, based on information resource storage [17]. On the contrary,
AI technology is a simulation of human intelligence processes based on computer systems
to conduct tasks through a set of algorithms [18]. Following that technology, blockchain
refers to a distributed ledger of databases that comprise significant information, records of
transactions, and internet protocols in a network of computers [19]. Meanwhile, the IoT
refers to the sensor on devices that could track performance, optimize energy and improve
the security and health parameters for construction players [5]. Furthermore, large amounts
of construction project data are stored, managed, and processed for scientific decision-
making, known as big data and predictive analytics [20]. Ref. [21] defines 3D scanning and
photogrammetry as 3D data acquisition and mapping tools for detecting a thousand points
per second to produce 3D photographs using the laser. Next is prefabrication and modular
construction. It is a complete component of construction systems assembled in the factory
before the final installation on site [17]. All these technologies are applied frequently across
project phases and are in line with [5,6].
On the contrary, four Construction 4.0 technologies are adopted based on suitability
and requirements, including AR and virtualization, 3D printing and AM, autonomous
construction, and advanced building material. AR and virtualization revolve around hu-
man and computer interactions through wearable devices [18]. Moving on to 3D printing,
AM creates a physical object modeled digitally [18]. Autonomous construction requires
an intelligent machine or robot that transforms data into physical actions during construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance [22]. Finally, advanced building materials (i.e., high-
performance concrete, aerogel, and foamed aluminum) are applied in the construction
phase to upgrade the quality of constructed facilities [23]. These emerging technologies
could increase productivity, improve collaboration, enhance sustainability, and tackle
complex projects [22].
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 4 of 19

2.2. Decision-Making in Construction

Decision-making is choosing to solve problems from a set of alternatives based on ra-
tional, intuitive, or political processes [24]. In the construction business, the client, designer,
project manager, supervisor, and contractor hold high responsibilities for establishing the
decision [25]. During construction projects, decision-making skills are essential for a project
manager for every step to avoid any severe delay in a project schedule [26]. Moreover,
alternatives to rational and analytical thinking are critical for complex projects to ensure
strategic decision-making to solve arising problems. Therefore, a holistic understanding of
decision-making in project management is essential for all managers and other stakeholders
involved. In the worst-case scenario, there is a high risk of the project slowing progress
or stagnating completely if the decision-makers select the wrong decisions. The primary
factor in achieving the project objectives is gathering the inputs from a group of decision-
makers that initiated critical decision-making discussions in the early stages of construction
projects [27]. As such, decision-makers need to find relevant and practical approaches.
Efficient decision-making means more efficient management of projects and opportu-
nities to improve management methods to meet costs, fulfill needs (biological, physical,
social, and organizational), and time management for construction work and schedules [28].
In addition, there are three major components for solving decision-making problems:
decision-makers, decision tools, and techniques to select the best alternatives [29]. Accord-
ing to [29], the decision-maker’s profile shifted from individual to hierarchy and networked
decision-making. Regarding the decision tools, the parameter changed to the fuzzy format,
while the techniques to select the best alternatives changed from judgmental to rational
and axiomatic techniques. Ref. [30] reported the benefits of utilizing decision support tools
that minimized the cost and time during the decision-making process in the public and
private sectors. As the complexity of construction projects increases, thus, the profile of the
decision-makers, parameters for the decision tools, and the techniques for selecting the best
alternatives also change. Therefore, it is critical to ensure that construction professionals
corroborate informed decisions in selecting Construction 4.0 technologies.

3. Materials and Methods

An informed and effective decision-making process for implementing Construction
4.0 technologies in construction organizations is crucial for project success. Therefore, this
study systematically reviews Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. An SLR
is a way to synthesize scientific evidence to answer a research question by assessing the
published evidence in journals or articles on a selected topic [31]. A comprehensive SLR
addresses the research questions by synthesizing published articles on a particular topic,
identifying future research directions, and disclosing the research gaps [32]. Thus, an SLR is
suitable for establishing an overview of Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making,
providing evidence-based insights on a research topic, and addressing the significant gaps.
Additionally, this study applies the systematic method of the PRISMA protocol guidelines.
According to [33], the PRISMA guidelines comprise a four-phased flow diagram based
on: phase 1: identification, phase 2: screening, phase 3: eligibility, and phase 4: inclusion.
The PRISMA method’s transparency renders the methodology and analytical process more
straightforward and precise [34]. Thus, it helps to produce evidence-based research and
improves the quality of the review [35]. In addition, most construction research applied
this method [36–38]. Figure 1 illustrates the SLR procedure.
 tion of high-impact journal articles for review papers is significant to synthesize the exist-
ing research for a valuable overview of the knowledge and insights. Therefore, the search
was limited to journal articles and excluded conference proceedings in order to provie a
high-quality review synthesis. The search algorithm was: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (construction
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206
AND 4.0 AND decision)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LAN- 5 of 19
GUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, ”j”)). The search resulted in only 54
journal articles.

Total articles retrieved from Articles citing the initial list in

Identification
Scopus (n = 54) Scopus (n = 106)

Additional articles after

removing the duplicates (n = 104)

Total initial articles after Additional articles after abstract

abstract screening (n = 23) screening (n = 30)
Screening

Total articles after duplicate Total articles after abstract

articles were removed (n =51) screening (n=53)
Eligibility

Total articles after the eligibility

assessment (n = 27)
Inclusion

Total articles included for

further analysis (n =22)

Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The systematic
systematic literature
literature review
reviewprocedure.
procedure.

This study used the Scopus database to retrieve the articles for the SLR. Much prior
research in construction and other fields (e.g., engineering, management, and business)
used Scopus for SLRs as it has the largest abstract and citation databases [39,40]. This is true
when compared with other databases, such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed.
Scopus offers the most comprehensive coverage of construction research [41]. Furthermore,
since 2004, Scopus has covered 15,000 journals from 4000 publishers and is being reviewed
annually to ensure that high-quality standards are maintained [42]. As the review involves
a new and emerging topic that might result in fewer articles, this study used general
keywords for the search, i.e., “Construction”, “4.0”, and “Decision”. In addition, the search
was limited to journal articles in English. According to [43], the limitation of high-impact
journal articles for review papers is significant to synthesize the existing research for a
valuable overview of the knowledge and insights. Therefore, the search was limited to
journal articles and excluded conference proceedings in order to provie a high-quality
review synthesis. The search algorithm was: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (construction AND 4.0 AND
decision)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, ”j”)). The search resulted in only 54 journal articles.
As the search result was minimal, this study also included articles that cited the initial
54 articles to ensure the comprehensiveness of the review. A total of 106 articles that cited
the 54 articles were retrieved from Scopus. Then, 2 articles with duplicates were removed,
leaving 104 citing articles. In the screening phase, the articles’ abstracts were reviewed. As
a result, 23 initial and 30 citing articles were selected. Two duplicate articles were removed
when the initial and citing articles were combined. Then, the full articles were reviewed
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 6 of 19

during the eligibility phase, resulting in 27 articles. Finally, five more articles were removed
after examining the full content. In the end, 22 articles were valid for further analysis.
The number of identified articles was similar to other published SLRs stipulated for
Construction 4.0 technologies. For example, in similar research by [44], out of 300 identi-
fied articles from the database, only 10 were relevant. Another example is by [7]; out of
547 identified articles, the research only included 20 for the final review. Moreover, [45]
reviewed 27 articles out of 113 identified articles from Scopus. Meanwhile, [46] proposed a
comprehensive multi-dimensional Construction 4.0 sustainability framework by system-
atically reviewing 29 out of 1007 articles from a Scopus search. Moreover, [47] reported
that few publications exist in the current literature as “Construction 4.0” is still a new
and emerging topic. Furthermore, as this study focused on Construction 4.0 technologies
and decision-making, the topic is more specific and narrower than other prior reviews on
Construction 4.0 technologies. Therefore, the sample size could be considered adequate to
overview the current research trends in Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making.

Thematic Analysis
Ref. [48] suggested an inductive approach to analyze the final list of articles during an
SLR. A thematic analysis method is an inductive approach to identifying, analyzing, and
reporting on the patterns or themes within a data set [48,49]. Therefore, a thematic analysis
was used to define and evaluate patterns or themes from the final list of articles. In other
words, the categories or names for the themes were unknown until after the data analysis.

4. Results
4.1. Overview of the Existing Research
Figure 2 depicts the selected journal articles annually for 15 years, from 2007 to
2022. The publication year for scientific research on decision-making and Construction 4.0
technologies starts in 2020, with most publications published in 2022. Out of 22 articles,
11 of them were published in 2022 (50%), 7 in 2021 (32%), and 4 in the year 2020 (18%).
Although the number of relevant publications covering these topics was limited, the article
number indicated a rapid development, as the number of articles grew tremendously
until 2022. These results show that this topic has been gaining attention in recent years
by researchers, probably as a vital strategy for the construction industry to recover from
the COVID-19 disruption that adversely impacted this industry. According to [50], labor
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
scarcity, supply chain disruption, decreased construction productivity, increased 7project
of 20

financing rejection rates, and reduced foreign investments are among the critical pandemic
impacts on the construction industry.

11
Number of Articles

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year of Publication

Publicationyears
Figure2.2.Publication
Figure yearsofofthe
thereviewed
reviewedarticles.
articles.

Table 1 presents a summary of the publications from the SLR. The Journal of Engineer-
Table 1 presents a summary of the publications from the SLR. The Journal of Engi-
ing, Design, and Technology and Buildings published the most articles compared with the
neering, Design, and Technology and Buildings published the most articles compared
with the other journals. The listed journals in Table 1 show that various journals actively
publish research-based topics. Therefore, it proves the growing interest in this area of re-
search and this study on the current trends in the construction industry as it started to
grow in 2020.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 7 of 19

other journals. The listed journals in Table 1 show that various journals actively publish
research-based topics. Therefore, it proves the growing interest in this area of research and
this study on the current trends in the construction industry as it started to grow in 2020.

Table 1. Journal titles of the reviewed articles.

Journal Title No. of Articles Source

Journal of Engineering, Design, and Technology 2 [51,52]
Built Environment Project and Asset Management 1 [53]
Innovative and Sustainable Built Environment 1 [54]
Production Planning and Control 1 [55]
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 1 [56]
Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management 1 [57]
International Journal of Environmental Research and
1 [58]
Public Health
Sustainability (Switzerland) 1 [59]
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management 1 [60]
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1 [61]
Journal of Management in Engineering 1 [62]
Journal of Architectural Engineering 1 [63]
International Journal of Construction Management 1 [64]
Buildings 2 [65,66]
Malaysian Construction Research Journal 1 [67]
Environment, Development, and Sustainability 1 [68]
Infrastructures 1 [69]
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 1 [70]
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 1 [71]

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

4.2. Thematic Analysis
In this study, the thematic analysis of the final list of articles resulted in the following
main themes: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Each theme has several
subthemes, as
subthemes, as illustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure3.3.The subsequent
The subsequentsubsections discuss
subsections the theme
discuss and
the theme
subthemes.
and subthemes.

Figure 3. Themes
Themesand
andsubthemes
subthemesfor
forthe existing
the research
existing onon
research Construction 4.0 4.0
Construction technologies andand
technologies de-
cision-making.
decision-making.

4.2.1. Strengths
Strengths are the positive attributes of the internal environment to achieve the antic-
ipated organizational objectives. This study’s seven articles (28%) contributed to seven
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 8 of 19

4.2.1. Strengths
Strengths are the positive attributes of the internal environment to achieve the antic-
ipated organizational objectives. This study’s seven articles (28%) contributed to seven
subthemes. The subthemes are vaccine, willingness, integration, interaction, safety enablers,
new system, and risk assessment.
The suspension of construction activities during the COVID-19 pandemic adversely
impacted the construction supply chain management. Due to the movement control order
(MCO), most construction activities were forced to stop operating. As such, [52] disclosed
Construction 4.0 technologies as the effective vaccine for better decision-making during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, most construction professionals are highly willing
to adopt Construction 4.0 technologies for the resiliency of supply chain management.
This includes an intelligent construction site, simulation tools, and virtualization for fa-
cilitating decision-making. These technologies could enhance the design, management,
operation, and adequate decision-making of construction projects. As such, the framework
for applying Construction 4.0 technologies was proposed by [53] to improve project perfor-
mance. Moreover, integrating Construction 4.0 technologies on the same platform is vital
to produce high-quality construction outputs throughout the project’s life cycle. Ref. [54]
validated that integrating deep learning and the DT has a high potential to support efficient
decision-making through cognitive abilities. Workers or machines work with low capacities,
and poor production schedules are the reason for low construction productivity. Ref. [55]
developed a lean construction (LC) and BIM interaction model to increase production.
This model assisted decision-makers in determining significant LC and BIM parameters to
achieve the organizational objectives and project success.
Construction safety is crucial to avoid accidents, fatalities, injuries, and disease due to
the industrial nature of work dealing with risky activities. Ref. [51] discovered that BIM,
wearable safety technologies, and robotic and automation technology (RAT) are significant
for safety management. These safety enablers could enhance hazard identification, rein-
force safety planning and decisions on the appropriate safety measures, improve safety
inspections, monitoring and supervision, and increase safety awareness. Recently, virtual
assistants, such as Apple’s Siri and Google Assistant, are growing in popularity among
users. Thus, [56] developed a new system in the form of query-answering (QA) for BIM
information extraction (IE) in the construction industry to assist decision-making. This
system served as a virtual assistant for construction professionals to establish decisions
based on accurate information using BIM. The construction industry is not immune to
unintended outcomes and distractions of Construction 4.0 technologies such as blockchains.
Ref. [57] proposed a novel model for risk assessment to assist the construction professional
in data-driven decision-making to manage blockchain risks.

4.2.2. Weaknesses
Weaknesses relate to negative attributes that are harmful to achieve organizational
objectives. There are three articles (12%) in this theme and a subtheme, which includes
challenges.
The construction industry is constantly experiencing poor health and safety perfor-
mance resulting in injuries, fatalities, and accidents. Hence, [58] focused on increasing
awareness among decision-makers to establish safer decisions by utilizing Construction
4.0 technologies in construction management. The safety technologies were the IoT, radio
frequency identification (RFID), VR, sensors, drones, and BIM. However, implementing
these technologies was challenged by a lack of relevant skills, low training capacities, pricy
technologies, and negative perceptions, for example, the fear of job loss by industry profes-
sionals. Usually, on construction sites, IoT technologies are used by the project managers
and construction personnel to create reports, on-site monitoring for material and labor
needs, and other necessary site details. Hence, [59] created a model relationship between the
different challenges of IoT implementation to establish informed decisions for construction
professionals. This model could assist in handling and delivering efficient project perfor-
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 9 of 19

mance. The significant challenges for implementing IoT are technical and extensive data
management. Apart from construction project management, organizational management
plays a significant role in the digital transformation of the construction industry. However,
it has not been explored. Therefore, [60] aimed to foster the implementation of Construction
4.0 technologies by identifying organizational challenges. The known challenges could
assist the top and lower management in formulating strategies and deciding on digital
innovations. Digital transformation in the construction industry primarily depends on
management and strategic challenges. Undoubtedly, identifying organizational challenges
in human resources and society, organizational factors, management, and financial and
customer satisfaction are significant.

4.2.3. Opportunities
Opportunities are the favorable external factors in an organization that is exploitable
for their advantages. It is essential to realize that most of the published articles in the
decision-making and Construction 4.0 area were considered opportunities. A total of
12 articles (48%) demonstrated 9 subthemes, including opportunities, factors, solutions,
maturity, readiness, perspectives, decision support system, performance, and a new model.
Construction 4.0 technologies are crucial to improving the health and safety perfor-
mance of construction sites. In that case, [58] emphasized the opportunities of Construction
4.0 technologies that could suggest safer decisions for workers. It could enhance workflow,
safety inspections, information management, and accountability. Despite being the most
crucial driver for digital transformation, RAT has limited application in the construction
industry. Given this issue, [61] identified the positive and negative factors that could
impact the decisions of construction organizations to adopt RAT. Based on the empiri-
cal results, cost factors (e.g., the initial costs and long-term cost savings) positively and
negatively impacted the application of RAT. In line with this article, [62] assessed the
benefits and barrier factors for decision-makers to decide on implementing RAT based on
multi-stakeholder perspectives. The findings highlighted RAT’s more focused, efficient,
and user-friendly improvements.
Most of the research cited the limitation of Construction 4.0 technologies application in
the construction industry due to cost factors. Hence, [59] recommended a digitalized cost
analysis to reduce the implementation risks and support the decision process for organiza-
tional management. Adopting Construction 4.0 technologies in industrialized construction
enhanced the off-site construction process and project delivery. Then, [63] developed a
maturity framework to help organizations establish data-driven and fast decisions for
adopting Construction 4.0 technologies. In the meantime, organizational readiness is a
crucial element of industrialized construction maturity. Thus, to establish a better decision
to adopt industrialized construction, organizations need to assess their readiness and en-
courage a culture of readiness. It includes readiness for change, accepting innovations, and
professional development [63]. The maturity framework classified emerging technologies
into four categories. These include business digitalization, computer-integrated design,
data acquisition, optimization, predictive analytics, and RAT. These technologies are sig-
nificant in improving the off-site construction process. Moreover, there are four levels
of maturity: explore, initiate, control, and optimize. This framework provides practical
recommendations for shifting an organization’s operational model from conventional to
industrialized construction.
Different from [63,64] proposed a multi-criteria decision-making model named Con-
FIRM. This model has the function of measuring the strategic readiness of construction
firms concerning Industry 4.0 technologies’ implementation. The results showed that
human capital components (e.g., intellectual agility, knowledge, skills, and competencies)
are the most critical success factors for implementing Construction 4.0 technologies. Using
the ConFIRM model, the management team could establish fast and informed decisions to
determine whether their organization is suitable to adopt Construction 4.0 technologies.
Moreover, this model assists in acquiring some intellectual capital and recommends action
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 10 of 19

plans to establish better judgments in adopting Construction 4.0 technologies. Industri-

alized construction is a system that uses innovation in design by employing intelligent
manufacturing and automation. It is known as off-site construction, prefabrication construc-
tion, or modular construction. This system benefitted the industry by reducing construction
costs, time, and labour. Despite the compelling benefits of industrialized construction, there
is a lack of research that reveals the Construction 4.0 technologies’ developmental poten-
tial, benefits, and potential barriers. As such, [65] provided an in-depth understanding
of industry practitioners’ attitudes to adopting emerging technologies in industrialized
construction. From the US practitioners’ perspective, 3D and nD models, sensing tech-
niques, and business information models are the technologies with the highest current
utilization. On the contrary, extended reality, AM, and advanced data analytics are the
technologies with the highest developmental potential. Project inputs (e.g., cost, time,
and labor), implementation costs, software constraints (e.g., capital costs and software
upgrading), and compatibility are the main factors for technological adoption. Inter-group
comparison results indicated that the organizational background has a marginal influence
on practitioners’ perspectives. In contrast, personal career profiles could significantly affect
practitioners’ perspectives.
In developing countries, the lack of awareness and resistance to change has hindered
digital innovation in the construction industry. Thus, [67] assessed organizations’ decisions
for digital transformation through BIM implementation in developing countries. The
results revealed that the digital transformation journey through BIM implementation in this
country is already in place and practiced. However, for successful digitalization, it requires
a mindset change toward cultural, organizational, and operational transformation. Also, it
needs an innovative integration of emerging technologies, processes, and competencies
across the construction life cycle. Unfortunately, most construction organizations focus on
BIM adoption and ignore other Construction 4.0 technologies. As such, [72] developed
a technological adoption decision-making framework for decision-makers. Based on the
technology acceptance model (TAM) and the expectation confirmation model (ECM), it
allows the decision-makers to adopt multiple Construction 4.0 technologies. The TAM is
the theory that measures users’ attitudes to using new technology at a single point at one
time. In addition, it has two specific measurements: perceived ease of use and usefulness.
On the contrary, the ECM refers to the theory that measures satisfaction and dissatisfaction
when using technologies or existing technologies’ performance after using them. In that
research, the author used the TAM and ECM theories and provided critical steps for the
final decision of organizations up to the commencement of the technological operation.
This research identified that the managers at the top, middle, and production levels are the
primary decision-makers in adopting technologies in construction organizations. Usually,
they decide on a discussion regarding technology and finances.
Supply chain management is critical in the construction industry to achieve project
success, especially in project-oriented organizations. Construction organizations may face
project risks without suitable performance suppliers, including cost overruns, improper
quality, and delivery delays. In addition, PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological,
environmental, and legal) risks could disrupt the construction supply chain. In recent years,
COVID-19 struck the whole world’s economy and adversely impacted the construction
supply chain and productivity. Post-COVID-19 research in [68] proposed a novel approach
to assist decision-making in choosing a high-performance supplier. This approach was
based on three aspects: localization, agility, and digitalization for a resilient construction
ecosystem. The findings showed that the most critical criterion for construction supplier
performance measurement was “digitalization”. Adopting Construction 4.0 technologies,
such as big data, IoT, advanced robotics, and distributed ledger technology (DLT), could
help suppliers establish proactive strategies and run predictive analytics. With digital-
ization, suppliers could expand networking and automate every process for operational
effectiveness. Also, it could enhance customer satisfaction and rapidly recover from supply
chain disruptions.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 11 of 19

Transportation management is part of supply chain management that is crucial for

controlling the delivery flow of materials, tools, and equipment for installation at construc-
tion projects. Heavy machinery, such as trucks, are traditionally one of the highest costs
to consider, mainly due to fuel consumption. However, until now, an accurate estimation
of fuel consumption for this transport machine has been absent, resulting in an uncon-
trolled and untraced actual cost spent on transportation. Taking account of this issue, [69]
proposed a fuel consumption estimation model for decision-makers to properly manage
construction resources (e.g., economic and physical). This model functions to prepare for
unpredictable occurrences (e.g., equipment malfunction and low productivity). The results
revealed that fuel consumption strongly correlated with cargo, route inclination, and total
distance. Furthermore, it proved that these criteria are key input parameters for achieving
accurate and reliable fuel consumption predictions. As the prediction model combines
sensor and ML algorithms, it demonstrated its viability in real-world construction.

4.2.4. Threats
Threats are potential risks from external factors that could jeopardize the organi-
zational goal. For this study, three articles (12%) were categorized under threats with
subthemes of barriers and risks.
DLT, or the blockchain, is a powerful business enhancer whose potential could dis-
rupt the construction industry’s project delivery and business model. However, due to
several barriers and challenges, this technology has not reached the plateau of productivity.
Therefore, [70] evaluated the applicability of identified challenges and barriers based on a
sustainability perspective for the construction organizations to decide on adopting DLT.
There are 41 barriers parked under four categories: project level, organizational level,
market/industry level, and construction ecosystem level. The infrastructure for data man-
agement is the top-ranked barrier at the project level. While at the organizational level,
the lack of advanced applications and archetypes is the highest barrier. On the contrary, a
lack of customer demand hinders DLT adoption in the construction industry. Lastly, DLT
needs further improvement in taxation and reporting in the construction ecosystem. In this
case, the findings revealed that the barriers to DLT affected social sustainability, followed
by economic, environmental, and project sustainability.
The adoption rate of Construction 4.0 technologies is relatively low, especially in
managing occupational safety and health (OSH) risks. Amongst other industries, the
construction industry has the slowest uptake for digital transformation. In developing
countries, barriers to implementing these safety sciences and management technologies
are under research. The barriers could negatively impact construction workplace safety,
increase risks, and reduce productivity in hazardous construction sites. To help address
this situation, [61] explored the critical barriers for construction professionals to decide on
adopting new safety sciences and management technologies. The critical barriers were the
investment costs for new technologies, the construction industry’s culture, incompatible
client needs, the resistance to change among construction professionals, and a lack of top
management and leadership support.
Apart from barriers, risk identification for adopting and implementing Construction
4.0 technologies in the construction industry is urgently required. Therefore, researchers
and construction professionals should investigate possible risks that could influence the
benefits of technology implementation in the construction industry. As a result, it could
increase stakeholders’ willingness to use these technologies. The impacts of these risk
factors vary according to the technologies’ type and function. For example, immersive
technology (ImT), such as VR, AR, and mixed reality, would bring value to the construction
industry by enhancing project communication, training workers, and assisting project
coordination. They integrate physical and virtual environments that allow the users to
experience blended reality. Five risk categories were identified by [66] to guide the practi-
tioner in adopting and integrating ImT for construction projects. These were technology
concerns, operational limitations, investment limitations, individual concerns, and external
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 12 of 19

issues. High investment costs (investment limitations), the need for extensive worker
training (individual concerns), and the possibility of introducing new risks to workers
(individual concerns) were among the significant risk factors for ImT technology. Moreover,
the research also modeled three statistically significant hypothesized risk paths: external
issues and individual concerns, external issues and investment limitations, and individual
and technology concerns.

5. Discussion
5.1. Characteristics of the Existing Research
Based on the results, this study synthesizes the knowledge gaps in the existing research
on Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. Table 2 presents the characteris-
tics of the articles. There are four themes, with seven articles under strengths, twelve
under opportunities, and three under weaknesses and threats. It could be induced that
strengths and opportunities would drive the research in Construction 4.0 technologies and
decision-making. The probable reason could be that these themes could help achieve a
total digital transformation in the construction industry. It is in line with [73]’s review of
Construction 4.0 research. Ref. [73] recorded a rapid increase in publications from 2014 to
2019, contributing to a 283% growth rate. Nevertheless, the integration of Construction
4.0 technologies and decision-making is currently less explored by existing research. On
the contrary, construction organizations should investigate the weaknesses and threats
that are harmful and unfavorable in accomplishing Construction 4.0. Low-skilled workers
are the crucial threats to construction 4.0 successful adoption [74]. Inadequate training for
construction professionals resulted in a moderate knowledge level to adopt and run the
construction 4.0 technologies. Thus, it could harm internal management since investments
for the technologies are made but cannot be operated due to weak human capital. Therefore,
it is crucial to have effective leadership in Construction 4.0 to face that critical challenge [75].
Additionally, both themes could serve as the lessons learned to strategize actions.
Meanwhile, the most highlighted area amongst the reviewed articles is the key fac-
tors, followed by the decision process, integrated technologies, one technology, and a
decision support tool. The key factors included challenges, barriers, and solutions for the
implementation of Construction 4.0 technologies in construction projects and organiza-
tions [58–60,70,71]. At the same time, [61,65] highlighted the factors for implementing
Construction 4.0 technologies [61,65]. Meanwhile, [66] identified the critical risk factors
for successfully implementing Construction 4.0 technologies. In summary, most previous
research focuses on adopting and implementing Construction 4.0 technologies.
Even though there is research on the decision support system for Construction 4.0
technologies, the researcher proposed a decision-making model based on the strategic
readiness of the construction organizations [64]. On the contrary, [75] developed a techno-
logical adoption decision-making framework. The developed framework aimed to guide
decision-makers in adopting Construction 4.0 technologies in organizations. However, if
construction organizations are unaware of the available emerging technologies, adopting
technologies would focus on one or two known technologies, as the research conducted
by [56,57,69] emphasized the use of one specific technology. Integrating multiple tech-
nologies has more potential than fragmented applications in establishing a cyber-physical
system to enhance the overall capabilities of construction organizations [76]. Ref. [77]
presented eight technologies that implemented IoT mechanisms for Construction 4.0 prepa-
ration: BIMs, smart communication, big data, sensors, RFID, AR, remote operations, and
GPSs. As such, a few existing research articles explored the integrated emerging technolo-
gies for safety areas [51], the integration of deep learning and DT [54], lean and BIM [55],
and supplier performance measurement [68]. Other than that, there is some research on
decision-making in implementing Construction 4.0 technologies [52,53,63,67]. In summary,
research in Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making is growing. However, the
existing research focused on adopting and implementing Construction 4.0 technologies
rather than integrating technologies and decision-making processes.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 13 of 19

Table 2. Characteristics of the reviewed articles.

Source Purpose Area Subtheme Theme

[52] Modeling technologies Decision process Vaccine
[53] Adoption technologies Decision process Willingness
[54] Investigation technologies Integrated technologies Integration
[55] Synergy Integrated technologies Interaction Strength
[51] Adoption technologies Integrated technologies Safety enablers
[56] Virtual systems One technology New system
[57] Management frameworks One technology Risk assessment
[58] Implementation technologies Key factor Challenges
[59] Implementation technologies Key factor Challenges Weaknesses
[60] Implementation technologies Key factor Challenges
[58] Implementation technologies Key factor Opportunities
[61] Adoption technologies Key factor Factors
[62] Adoption technologies Key factor Factors
[59] Implementation technologies Key factor Solutions
[63] Adoption technologies Decision process Maturity
[63] Adoption technologies Decision process Readiness
Opportunities
[64] Implementation technologies Decision support tool Readiness
[65] Adoption technologies Key factor Perspectives
[67] Implementation technologies Decision process Decision
[72] Implementation technologies Decision support tool Decision
[68] Criteria measurement Integrated technologies Performance
[69] Implementation technologies One technology Prediction
[70] Adoption technologies Key factor Barriers
[71] Adoption technologies Key factor Risk Threats
[66] Adoption technologies Key factor Barriers

5.2. Existing Research Areas, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

This SLR also disclosed the limitations and future directions of the existing research
on Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. However, these limitations and
suggestions are compiled from the reviewed articles. Therefore, future explorations are not
limited to the findings. Table 3 shows that most research has limitations in their methodolo-
gies, which include using a single research strategy, either qualitative or quantitative, and
cross-sectional methods [52,63–65]. Therefore, future research could validate prior find-
ings using other research strategies, longitudinal studies, or using other decision-making
theories [57,68,70,75].
Furthermore, most of the data collection for the reviewed articles was limited to one
country with a small sampling size [53,58,63,65,75]. Consequently, the findings could not
be generalized to represent the whole target population in the construction domain [69,75].
To establish more reliable and generalizable data, [52] proposed to conduct further research
in other developing countries and increase the sample size [51,57,58,62,65]. At the same
time, [55] recommended testing the performance of the developed model and framework
with an additional expert with a different project nature. Moreover, most articles focused on
a single Construction 4.0 technology [51,61,65,66,69]. This situation shows that the decision
to adopt Construction 4.0 technologies is still limited and fragmented [51]. To counter these
issues, [53] proposed increasing the awareness of applying Construction 4.0 technologies
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 14 of 19

through seminars or workshops. While [51,65] suggested industry-academia collaboration

efforts in exploring the true potential of Construction 4.0 technologies.

Table 3. The link between the existing research, research limitations, and future research directions.

Theme Subtheme Research Limitation Future Research Direction

Strength • Vaccine • No triangulation between • Adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies for the
• Willingness quantitative and resiliency of the construction industry
• Integration qualitative data • Integration of Construction 4.0 technologies and
• Risk Assessment • Limited to one country supply chain
• Safety Enablers • The application of • Construction 4.0 technologies in
• Interaction Construction 4.0 technology is developing countries
• New System still limited and fragmented. • Strategies for improving awareness of
• Limited research in Construction 4.0 technologies.
developing countries • Strategies for introducing Construction 4.0
• Small sampling size technologies at the tertiary level
• Risk assessment models for Construction 4.0
technologies at the project, organization, market,
and supply chain levels (e.g., grey OPA, original
OPA, opportunities, and threats)
• Strategies for responding to risks associated with
Construction 4.0 technologies
• Usage and barriers of Construction 4.0
technologies in construction safety
• Enhancement strategies for industry-academia
collaborations on Construction 4.0 technologies
• Integration of Construction 4.0 technologies and
DT at all project stages
• Mapping the mechanisms for the real-time
analysis of Construction 4.0 technologies’
physical and virtual data
• System structures and workflows of
Construction 4.0 technologies in automating
real-time decision-making
• The categorization of Construction 4.0
technologies based on project suitability
• The validation of the existing findings on
Construction 4.0 technologies using another
research strategy (e.g., industry experts or
other projects)
Weaknesses • Challenges • Limited to one country • The identification of social and technical factors
• Limited to one Construction for Construction 4.0 technology adoption
4.0 technology in organizations
• The development of Construction 4.0 guidelines
using information from other industries
• Challenges and solutions for implementing
Construction 4.0 technologies throughout the
construction value chain
• Strategies for supporting Construction 4.0
implementation in organizations (e.g.,
decentralizing decision-making processes and
rethinking digital transformation according to
organizational hierarchy)
• Technicalities and complexity of implementing
Construction 4.0 technologies
• Strategies for protecting against unauthorized
access for facilities and management
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 15 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

Theme Subtheme Research Limitation Future Research Direction

Opportunities • Opportunities • Limited to one country • Return on investment and cost-effectiveness of
• Factors • Small sampling size Construction 4.0 technologies
• Solutions • Lack of data sharing from • Risk and safety analysis to predict accidents and
• Maturity respondents device malfunctions
• Readiness • No triangulation between • Factors for resistance to adopting Construction
• Perspectives quantitative and 4.0 technologies
• Decision support qualitative data • Integration between industrialized construction
system • Lack of case studies. and Construction 4.0 technologies (e.g., extended
• Performance • Respondents have a limited reality, AM, and advanced data analytics)
• New model understanding of • The evaluation of developed Construction 4.0
Construction 4.0 technologies systems using cost, time, labor, and
• Organizations lack policy on quality indicators
Construction 4.0 technology • Information interoperability between
adoption Construction 4.0 technologies
• Applications to enhance the working efficacy of
managers or developers using Construction 4.0
technologies
• Relationships between Construction 4.0
technology utilization, organizational
background, and individual profiles
• The usage of other decision-making theories in
Construction 4.0 technologies
• The capabilities of suppliers to ensure the supply
chain resilience of Construction 4.0 technologies
• The validation of existing research findings (e.g.,
global data, different research strategies,
stakeholders, case studies, and increased
sample size)
Threats • Barriers • Pandemic COVID-19 • The usage of other decision-making theories in
• Risks restrictions Construction 4.0 technologies (e.g., OPA-F)
• Long duration for data • The development of decision-making processes
collection and frameworks using alternative
• Lack of data due to private decision-making theories (e.g., OPA)
and confidential information • The synergy between the challenges and benefits
• No triangulation between of Construction 4.0 technologies
quantitative and • The validation of existing research findings (e.g.,
qualitative data global data, different research strategies,
• Small sampling size stakeholders, case studies, and increased
• Limited to one country sample size)
• Limitations related to
using surveys
• Limitations related to using
non-probability sampling

The cost factor or investment factor in the acquisition, operation, and maintenance
of a technology type is a critical factor that hinders the adoption of Construction 4.0
technologies among organizations [61]. There are four suggestions to counter this cost
issue. First, undergo financial analysis such as the return on investment [61]. Second,
to offer subsidies on acquisition costs [53]. Third, to establish government tax relief and
incentives for organizations that adopt Construction 4.0 technologies [62]. Fourth, to
present information on cost-effective technology types [65]. Ref. [65] suggested evaluating
the developed framework or model for adopting Construction 4.0 technologies using
cost, time, labor, and quality. The weak topic gave the drawback of input. Thus, the
existing scope of research is limited to Construction 4.0 challenges for construction projects,
management, and organization. Henceforth, moving forward, [58] advised construction
professionals to follow and adapt guidelines from other industries (e.g., manufacturing)
to assist decision-making in adopting Construction 4.0 technologies. In addition, digital
transformation in organizations should be rethought, such as introducing decentralized
decision-making and investigating the complexity and technicality of digital innovation.
Despite the opportunities to adopt Construction 4.0 technologies in organizations
that could bring benefits, the implementation of Construction 4.0 technologies is still very
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 16 of 19

low. Nevertheless, the amount of research on Construction 4.0 technologies is growing

exponentially in this era. However, limited research is still available on Construction 4.0
technologies and decision-making.

6. Conclusions
This study aims to review the publication trends in Construction 4.0 technologies
and decision-making and pinpoint the gaps in the prior research. A total of 22 journal
articles were carefully reviewed based on the PRISMA method and analyzed using thematic
analysis. The analysis categorized the articles into four themes: strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats. Additionally, the articles contributed to nineteen different
subthemes: vaccine, willingness, integration, interaction, safety enablers, new system, risk
assessment, challenges, opportunities, factors, solutions, maturity, readiness, perspectives,
decision support system, performance, new model, barriers, and risks. The review suggests
a knowledge gap in integrating Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. Most
research focused on implementing Construction 4.0 technologies rather than providing an
effective decision process.
This study is the first to conduct an SLR of research trends on Construction 4.0
technologies and decision-making. The study delves into the scientific trends and article
classifications and pinpoints the research limitations, knowledge gaps, and future research
directions for Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. Despite great efforts,
this study still has a few limitations. First, the review focuses on the trends of Construction
4.0 technologies and decision-making only. Therefore, this study cannot represent other
research areas related to Construction 4.0. The second limitation is that the literature search
was conducted using Scopus. Hence, some articles indexed by other databases might be
excluded. Nevertheless, the selected database is commonly used by construction and other
research for SLRs, and therefore the methodology is acceptable. Another minor limitation
is that all reviewed articles are in English. Regardless of these limitations, the aim of the
study was adequately met.
The theoretical implication of this study is to provide insights into what has been
explored in Construction 4.0 technologies and decision-making. These insights could
prevent future researchers from conducting and developing similar research. Future
researchers could use the study findings to identify existing research gaps before conducting
research. Also, researchers could use the findings on the study limitations and future
directions as a guide. Regarding the practical implications, industry practitioners could
refer to the study findings when implementing Construction 4.0 technologies. In conclusion,
this study provides both theoretical and practical implications.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.S., A.R.R. and R.A.R.; methodology, H.S. and A.R.R.;
validation, R.A.R.; formal analysis, H.S. and A.R.R.; resources, M.A. and R.A.R.; data curation, H.S.
and A.R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S. and A.R.R.; writing—review and editing, H.S.,
A.R.R., M.A. and R.A.R.; visualization, H.S.; supervision, R.A.R.; project administration, R.A.R.;
funding acquisition: M.A. and R.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Min-
istry of Education, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through the project number IF_2020_NBU_355.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding authors. The data are not publicly available due to some data being proprietary or
confidential in nature. Therefore, the data may only be provided with restrictions.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and
Innovation, Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through the project number
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 17 of 19

IF_2020_NBU_355. The authors are also grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments, which improved this paper’s quality.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rajab, I.A.A.; Ishak, H.; Ishak, M.; Rajab, R.S. Is It the Dawn of Industrial Revolution 4.0 in Malaysia. myForesight 2016, 2012, 1–44.
2. WEF. Shaping the Future of Construction a Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzer-
land, 2016.
3. Osunsanmi, T.O.; Aigbavboa, C.; Oke, A. Construction 4.0: The Future of the Construction Industry in South Africa. Civ. Environ.
Eng. 2018, 12, 206–212.
4. Aripin, I.D.M.; Marinie, E.A.Z.; Ismail, Z. Factors Influencing the Implementation of Technologies Behind Industry 4.0 in
the Malaysian Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Built Environment and Engineering
2018—“Enhancing Construction Industry Through IR4.0”, Johor, Malaysia, 29–30 October 2018; Volume 6, pp. 6–11.
5. Kaufmann, D.; Ruaux, X.; Jacob, M. Digitalization of the Construction Industry: The Revolution is Underway; Oliver Wyman: New
York, NY, USA, 2018.
6. Goi, C.-L. The Impact of Technological Innovation on Building a Sustainable City. Int. J. Qual. Innov. 2017, 3, 6. [CrossRef]
7. Maskuriy, R.; Selamat, A.; Ali, K.N.; Maresova, P.; Krejcar, O. Industry 4.0 for the Construction Industry—How Ready Is the
Industry? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2819. [CrossRef]
8. Yap, J.B.H.; Lee, K.P.H.; Wang, C. Safety enablers using emerging technologies in construction projects: Empirical study in
Malaysia. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021. [CrossRef]
9. Sepasgozar, S.M.E. Differentiating Digital Twin from Digital Shadow: Elucidating a Paradigm Shift to Expedite a Smart. Buildings
2021, 11, 151. [CrossRef]
10. Qi, B.; Razkenari, M.; Costin, A.; Kibert, C.; Fu, M. A systematic review of emerging technologies in industrialized construction. J.
Build. Eng. 2021, 39, 102265. [CrossRef]
11. Statsenko, L.; Samaraweera, A.; Bakhshi, J.; Chileshe, N. Construction 4.0 technologies and applications: A systematic literature
review of trends and potential areas for development. Constr. Innov. 2022. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, M.; Wang, C.C.; Sepasgozar, S.; Zlatanova, S. A systematic review of digital technology adoption in off-site construction:
Current status and future direction towards industry 4.0. Buildings 2020, 10, 204. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, K.; Guo, F.; Zhang, C.; Hao, J.; Schaefer, D. Digital Technology in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC)
Industry: Research Trends and Practical Status toward Construction 4.0. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress
2022, Arlington, VA, USA, 9–12 March 2022; pp. 983–992. [CrossRef]
14. Moshood, T.D.; Adeleke, A.Q.; Nawanir, G.; Ajibike, W.A.; Shittu, R.A. Emerging Challenges and Sustainability of Industry 4.0
Era in the Malaysian Construction Industry. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2020, 9, 1627–1634. [CrossRef]
15. Sawhney, A.; Riley, M.; Irizarry, J.; Pérez, C.T. A proposed framework for Construction 4.0 based on a review of literature. EPiC
Ser. Built Environ. 2020, 1, 301–309. [CrossRef]
16. Wan Mohammad, W.N.S.; Abdullah, M.R.; Ismail, S.; Takim, R. Overview of Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption
factors for construction organisations. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 140, 012107. [CrossRef]
17. CIDB. Construction 4.0 Strategic Plan (2021–2025); CIDB: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2021.
18. Lecat, A. Hot Trends in Construction—A New Era of Opportunities; Roland Berger: Paris, France, 2018.
19. Gerber, D.; Nguyen, B. Blockchain Technology Timeline: Case Studies in the Built Environment; Arup: London, UK, 2019.
20. Lu, C.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. Intelligent construction technology of railway engineering in China. Front. Eng. Manag. 2019, 6,
503–516. [CrossRef]
21. Agarwal, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Sridhar, M. The Digital Future of Construction; McKinsey & Company: Singapore, 2016.
22. Gerbert, P.; Castagnino, S.; Rothballer, C.; Renz, A.; Filitz, R. Digital in Engineering and Construction—The Transformative Power of
Building Information Modelling; Boston Consulting Group: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
23. Choudhary, A.; Dogne, N. Smart Construction Materials and Techniques. In Proceedings of the National Conference on
Alternative & Innovation Construction Materials & Techniques; s TEQIP-II/Civil/AICMT-3; e-Proceeding: MITS under TEQIP-II,
Gwalior, India, August 2014; pp. 12–16.
24. Elbanna, S. Decision Making. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Political Behavior; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,
2017; pp. 163–166.
25. Liu, B.; Huo, T.; Liang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Hu, X. Key Factors of Project Characteristics Affecting Project Delivery System Decision Making
in the Chinese Construction Industry: Case Study Using Chinese Data Based on Rough Set Theory. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
2016, 142, 05016003. [CrossRef]
26. Esa, M.; Alias, A.; Abdul-samad, Z. Project Managers0 Cognitive Style in Decision Making: A Perspective from Construction
Industry. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 2014, 6, 65–73. [CrossRef]
27. Zhong, S.; Elhegazy, H.; Elzarka, H. Key factors affecting the decision-making process for buildings projects in Egypt. Ain Shams
Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101597. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 18 of 19

28. Szafranko, E. Decision problems in management of construction projects. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 251, 012048.
[CrossRef]
29. Bakht, M.N.; El-Diraby, T.E.M. ASCE Synthesis of Decision-Making Research in Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015,
141, 04015027. [CrossRef]
30. Lee, Z.P.; Rahman, R.A.; Doh, S.I. Application of decision support tool in design-build projects: A quasi-experiment with novice
decision makers. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022, 12, 537–555. [CrossRef]
31. Lamé, G. Systematic Literature Reviews: An Introduction. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering
Design (ICED19), Delf, The Netherlands, 5–8 August 2019.
32. Page, M.J.; Mckenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Systematic reviews and
Meta-Analyses. BMJ 2021, 372, 89. [CrossRef]
33. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Reprint-Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. BMJ Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 873–880. [CrossRef]
34. Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Group, P. Preferred reporting
items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 349, g7647.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Group, P. Preferred reporting
items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Sytematic Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
36. Chen, X.; Chang-richards, A.Y.; Pelosi, A.; Yang, N. Implementation of technologies in the construction industry: A systematic
review. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 29, 3181–3209. [CrossRef]
37. Shahruddin, S.; Zairul, M. BIM Requirements across a Construction Project Lifecycle: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 12, 569–590.
38. Regona, M.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Xia, B. Opportunities and Adoption Challenges of AI in the Construction Industry: A PRISMA Review.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 45. [CrossRef]
39. Hong, Y.; Chan, D.W.M. Research trend of joint ventures in construction: A two-decade taxonomic review. J. Facil. Manag. 2014,
12, 118–141. [CrossRef]
40. Radzi, A.R.; Rahman, R.A.; Doh, S.I. Decision making in highway construction: A systematic review and future directions. J. Eng.
Des. Technol. 2021. [CrossRef]
41. Ghaleb, H.; Alhajlah, H.H.; Bin Abdullah, A.A.; Kassem, M.A.; Al-Sharafi, M.A. A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic
Literature Review for Construction Project Complexity. Buildings 2022, 12, 482. [CrossRef]
42. Li, S.; Fang, Y.; Wu, X. A systematic review of lean construction in Mainland China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120581. [CrossRef]
43. Palmatier, R.W.; Houston, M.B.; Hulland, J. Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018, 46, 1–5.
[CrossRef]
44. Maskuriy, R.; Selamat, A.; Maresova, P.; Krejcar, O. Industry 4.0 for the Construction Industry: Review of Management Perspective.
Economies 2019, 7, 68. [CrossRef]
45. Franco, B.; Domingues, A.M.; Africano, N.D.A.; Deus, R.M.; Aparecida, R.; Battistelle, G. Sustainability in the Civil Construction
Sector Supported by Industry 4.0 Technologies: Challenges and Opportunities. Infrastructures 2022, 7, 43. [CrossRef]
46. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V.; Islam, N.; Manghat, S. Construction Industry 4.0 and Sustainability: An Enabling Framework.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]
47. Boton, C.; Rivest, L.; Ghnaya, O.; Chouchen, M. What is at the Root of Construction 4.0: A Systematic Review of the Recent
Research Effort. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021, 28, 2331–2350. [CrossRef]
48. Hindiyeh, R.I.; Ocloo, W.K.; Cross, J.A. Systematic Review of Research Trends in Engineering Team Performance. EMJ—Eng.
Manag. J. 2022, 1–25. [CrossRef]
49. Farouk, A.M.; Rahman, R.A.; Romali, N.S. Non-revenue water reduction strategies: A systematic review. Smart Sustain. Built
Environ. 2021. [CrossRef]
50. Rani, H.A.; Farouk, A.M.; Anandh, K.S.; Almutairi, S.; Rahman, R.A. Impact of COVID-19 on Construction Projects: The Case of
India. Buildings 2022, 12, 762. [CrossRef]
51. Oesterreich, T.D.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0:
A triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind. 2016, 83, 121–139.
[CrossRef]
52. Osunsanmi, T.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Thwala, W.D.D.; Molusiwa, R. Modelling construction 4.0 as a vaccine for ensuring construc-
tion supply chain resilience amid COVID-19 pandemic. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2022, 20, 132–158. [CrossRef]
53. Osunsanmi, T.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Emmanuel Oke, A.; Liphadzi, M. Appraisal of stakeholders’ willingness to adopt construction
4.0 technologies for construction projects. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020, 10, 547–565. [CrossRef]
54. Kor, M.; Yitmen, I.; Alizadehsalehi, S. An investigation for integration of deep learning and digital twins towards Construction
4.0. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022. [CrossRef]
55. Bayhan, H.G.; Demirkesen, S.; Zhang, C.; Tezel, A. A lean construction and BIM interaction model for the construction industry.
Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 1–28. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 2206 19 of 19

56. Wang, N.; Issa, R.R.A.; Anumba, C.J. NLP-based query-answering system for information extraction from building information
models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2022, 36, 04022004. [CrossRef]
57. Sadeghi, M.; Mahmoudi, A.; Deng, X. Blockchain technology in construction organizations: Risk assessment using trapezoidal
fuzzy ordinal priority approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022. [CrossRef]
58. Malomane, R.; Musonda, I.; Okoro, C.S. The Opportunities and Challenges Associated with the Implementation of Fourth
Industrial Revolution Technologies to Manage Health and Safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 846. [CrossRef]
59. Amade, B.; Nwakanma, C.I. Identifying Challenges of Internet of Things on Construction Projects Using Fuzzy Approach. J. Eng.
Proj. Prod. Manag. 2021, 11, 215–227. [CrossRef]
60. Nagy, O.; Papp, I.; Szabó, R.Z. Construction 4.0 organisational level challenges and solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12312.
[CrossRef]
61. Bademosi, F.; Issa, R.R.A. Factors Influencing Adoption and Integration of Construction Robotics and Automation Technology in
the US. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021075. [CrossRef]
62. Law, K.K.; Chang, S.; Siu, M.-F.F. Factors Influencing Adoption of Construction Robotics in Hong Kong’s Industry: A Multistake-
holder Perspective. J. Manag. Eng. 2022, 38, 04021096. [CrossRef]
63. Razkenari, M.; Kibert, C.J. A Framework for Assessing Maturity and Readiness Towards Industrialized Construction. J. Archit.
Eng. 2022, 28, 04022003. [CrossRef]
64. Mansour, H.; Aminudin, E.; Mansour, T. Implementing industry 4.0 in the construction industry- strategic readiness perspective.
Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 1–14. [CrossRef]
65. Qi, B.; Razkenari, M.; Li, J.; Costin, A.; Kibert, C.; Qian, S. Investigating U.S. industry practitioners’ perspectives towards the
adoption of emerging technologies in industrialized construction. Buildings 2020, 10, 85. [CrossRef]
66. Afolabi, A.O.; Nnaji, C.; Okoro, C. Immersive Technology Implementation in the Construction Industry: Modeling Paths of Risk.
Buildings 2022, 12, 363. [CrossRef]
67. Hussain, A.H.; Alam, M.R.A.; Eni, S.; Ani, A.I.C.; Roslan, A.F. Assessing the organisations decision for digital transformation
through BIM implementation in Malaysia. MCRJ Spec. Issue 2020, 11, 16–33.
68. Mahmoudi, A.; Sadeghi, M.; Deng, X. Performance measurement of construction suppliers under localization, agility, and
digitalization criteria: Fuzzy Ordinal Priority Approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 1–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Pereira, G.; Parente, M.; Moutinho, J.; Sampaio, M. Fuel consumption prediction for construction trucks: A noninvasive approach
using dedicated sensors and machine learning. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 157. [CrossRef]
70. Sadeghi, M.; Mahmoudi, A.; Deng, X. Adopting distributed ledger technology for the sustainable construction industry:
Evaluating the barriers using Ordinal Priority Approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 10495–10520. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Yap, J.B.H.; Lam, C.G.Y.; Skitmore, M.; Talebian, N. Barriers To the Adoption of New Safety Technologies in Construction: A
Developing Country Context. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2022, 28, 120–133. [CrossRef]
72. Sepasgozar, S.M.E. Digital technology utilisation decisions for facilitating the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies. Constr.
Innov. 2020, 21, 476–489. [CrossRef]
73. Forcael, E.; Ferrari, I.; Opazo-Vega, A.; Pulido-Arcas, J.A. Construction 4.0: A literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9755.
[CrossRef]
74. Adepoju, O.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O. Assessing knowledge and skills gap for construction 4.0 in a developing economy. J. Public Aff.
2021, 21, e2264. [CrossRef]
75. Yang, K.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Wang, C.C. Identifying Leadership Competencies for Construction 4.0. Buildings 2022, 12, 1434.
[CrossRef]
76. You, Z.; Feng, L. Integration of Industry 4.0 Related Technologies in Construction Industry: A Framework of Cyber-Physical
System. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 122908–122922. [CrossRef]
77. Ibrahim, F.S.; Esa, M.; Rahman, R.A. The Adoption of Iot in the Malaysian Construction Industry: Towards construction 4.0. Int.J.
Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2021, 12, 56–67. [CrossRef]