RoutledgeHandbooks 9781003150930 Chapter4

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.97.
143
On: 03 Sep 2023
Access details: subscription number
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
Lean Construction 4.0

Driving a Digital Revolution of Production Management in the
AEC Industry
Vicente A. González, Farook Hamzeh, Luis Fernando Alarcón
Proposing a House of Lean Construction 4.0
Publication details
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/9781003150930-6
Makram Bou Hatoum, Hala Nassereddine
Published online on: 30 Dec 2022
How to cite :- Makram Bou Hatoum, Hala Nassereddine. 30 Dec 2022, Proposing a House of Lean
Construction 4.0 from: Lean Construction 4.0, Driving a Digital Revolution of Production Management in
the AEC Industry Routledge
Accessed on: 03 Sep 2023
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/9781003150930-6
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: 10.3.97.143 At: 19:01 03 Sep 2023; For: 9781003150930, chapter4, 10.1201/9781003150930-6
4
PROPOSING A HOUSE OF LEAN
CONSTRUCTION 4.0
Makram Bou Hatoum and Hala Nassereddine
Introduction
For the last decades, the architectural/engineering/construction (AEC) industry has been
shaped by the adoption of Lean Thinking and the implementation of Lean Construction.
More recently, concepts of Industry 4.0 in the AEC industry, known as Construction 4.0,
have been regarded as the impetus to transform the industry (Ammar et al., 2022). While
each movement is powerful in and of itself, their synergy results in manifold gains. Thus, the
term ‘Lean Construction’ 4.0 emerged.
The vision of Lean Construction 4.0 comes at a time when the construction industry is
in need of change. While the construction industry accounts for around 13% of the world’s
gross domestic product (GDP), its annual productivity growth has barely increased 1% an-
nually over the last two decades, requiring nearly $1.6 trillion in opportunities to close the
productivity gap with competing industries (Barbosa et al., 2017). The root cause of this
gap can be attributed to the traditional business-as-usual ways in which the construction
industry has reached a stagnation point – there is a pressing need to increase productivity,
improve project performance, address the labor shortage, reskill workers, reduce fragmen-
tation, introduce standardization, address resistance to change, improve procurement, and
increase collaboration (Barbosa et al., 2017; Hatoum & Nassereddine, 2020; Lau et al., 2019;
Sawhney et al., 2020). With the manufacturing-style innovations that a vision like Lean
Construction 4.0 will bring, the needs can be addressed, and the industry could witness an
expected productivity boost by 50% to 60% (Barbosa et al., 2017).
The significance of Lean Construction 4.0 vision makes it important to bring awareness
to the subject to both academicians and practitioners in the AEC industry. To do that, this
chapter proposes a conceptual ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’ framework that centralizes
all the vision aspects together, so it can be used as an educational tool by academicians and a
digital support plan for practitioners. The depiction of the Lean Construction 4.0 vision as a
house is inspired by the ‘Toyota Production System House’ introduced by (Liker, 2021) who
explained that: ‘A house is a structural system. It is strong only if the roof, the pillars, and the
foundations are strong, and any weak link weakens the whole system’. Therefore, present-
ing Lean Construction 4.0 as a structural house can show the importance of all the aspects
discussed in the chapter in creating a successful Lean Construction 4.0 vision. In specific,
the components of ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’ will answer the following questions:
50 DOI: 10.1201/9781003150930-6
1 What are the major transformations that support the Lean Construction 4.0 vision? The
answer to this question is portrayed by the beam of the house.

2 What are the pillars that support and enable these transformations? The answer to this
question is portrayed by the columns of the house.
3 What are the factors that AEC firms must consider strengthening to support the Lean
Construction 4.0 vision? The answer to this question is depicted by the foundations of the
house.
4 What role do people play in supporting the Lean Construction 4.0 vision? The answer
to this question is outlined in the subgrade of the house.
Research Approach
To envision the conceptual ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’ framework, this study syn-
thesized the existing research corpus for five main tasks (Figure 4.1): Task 1 (T1) describes
the transformations of a Lean Construction 4.0 vision; Task 2 (T2) presents the culture,
principles, methods, and tools of Lean Construction; Task 3 (T3) presents the design prin-
ciples capabilities, concepts, and technologies of Construction 4.0; Task 4 (T4) investigates
the synergies between Lean and Construction 4.0; Task 5 (T5) summarizes the technology-
organization-environment (TOE) factors that affect AEC firms’ decisions to implement
Lean Construction 4.0 innovations; and Task 6 (T6) describes the importance of people.
Conceptual House of Lean Construction 4.0 Framework

The proposed House of Lean Construction 4.0 is shown in Figure 4.2. Applying the reverse
planning method, the following sections discuss the house backward starting with the roof
and ending with the subgrade.
The Transformations of Lean Construction 4.0 (T1)

The success of the Lean Construction 4.0 vision can be translated into four major industry
transformations: product transformation, delivery transformation, digital transformation,
and mindset transformation.
Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of the methodology
51
Figure 4.2 ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’
The main output of any construction project is the physical built environment asset that
needs to be constructed for the client or owner – whether a residential, non-residential,
infrastructure, or industrial facility (Barbosa et al., 2017). Consequently, a Lean Construc-
tion 4.0 vision will have a direct impact on the end-product, and thus prompting a product
transformation. One major example of product transformation that Lean Construction 4.0
can embrace is offsite construction (Sawhney et al., 2020). In the last few years, the con-
struction industry has been witnessing a rise in prefabrication and modular construction,
moving it gradually away from the traditional ‘stick-built’ on-site construction (Razkenari
et al., 2020). This movement places projects in an ideal ‘factory-like’ environment where the
application of Lean management principles and automation systems like modeling, simula-
tions, and robots becomes easier (Brissi et al., 2021). Another example to highlight is the use
of additive manufacturing or 3D printing (Sawhney et al., 2020). 3D printing is one of the
core technologies of Construction 4.0 that can bolster the Lean philosophy goals including
lead time reduction, waste eradication, quality or Jidoka improvements, and cost savings (El
Sakka & Hamzeh, 2017; Muñoz-La Rivera et al., 2021).
In addition to the physical asset, a construction project should be completed safely with-
out exceeding its planned budget or running behind schedule; the project should also pro-
vide the value that its owner paid for (Han et al., 2012). Thus, the delivery of the project is
important, and that is where a Lean Construction 4.0 vision will prompt a delivery transfor-
mation. For example, the use of key concepts such as Building Information Modeling (BIM)
throughout the entire project lifecycle can be enabled by Lean Project Delivery Systems
(LPDS) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) (Babalola et al., 2019; Fakhimi et al., 2016;
Nassereddine et al.; 2022a). Conversely, Lean planning and control methods, such as Last
52
Planner System (LPS), location-based management system, (LBMS), and value stream map-
ping (VSM), can be enhanced using Construction 4.0 technologies such as augmented real-
ity, laser scanning, and wireless sensors (Brahmi et al., 2021).
As for the digital transformation, it is notably represented through linking the physical world
to the cyber one and creating resilient cyber-physical systems (CPS) in the construction in-
dustry. CPS is a ‘system with a seamless automatic connection between the material world
and smart digital components, capable of perceiving, directing, and controlling the physical
world’ (Klinc & Turk, 2019). There are five levels of CPS implementation – denoted as the
5Cs, that Lean Construction 4.0 should enhance: connection, conversion, cyber, cognition,
and configuration (Lee et al., 2015). Figure 4.3 explains the 5Cs and mirrors their current
application in the construction industry.
Finally, a mindset transformation can also be achieved with Lean Construction 4.0. Projects
for example should be looked at as engagement platform that allows parties to encourage
dialogue, develop information-sharing practices to provide access to valuable data, under-
stand and share both risks and rewards, and promote transparency ( Jacobsson & Roth, 2014).
Team leaders such as project managers should develop a growth mindset that enables lifetime
learning and allows them to embrace challenges, accept feedback and criticism, learn from
mistakes, and believe in their teams’ ability to develop intellectual skills (Owusu-Manu
Figure 4.3 Levels of CPS and their applications in the construction industry
53
et al., 2020). Another example is ‘scientific thinking’ which was added at the center of the
2021 version of Toyota’s 4P model (Liker, 2021). Scientific thinking should expand the in-
dustry’s level of knowledge by emphasizing several scientific behaviors such as deep observa-
tions, iterative learning, alignment of plans and goals with policies, and bold strategies with
few big leaps and big small steps (Liker, 2021).
The Pillars of Lean Construction 4.0 (T2, T3, T4)

A Lean Construction 4.0 vision is inspired by the synergies of two main pillars: Lean Con-
struction and Construction 4.0 (Hamzeh et al., 2021).
Lean Construction (T2)

Lean Construction emerged as a new concept in the mid-1990s as a novel theory-based
approach to the construction industry with a kit of principles, tools, and methods from
Toyota’s Lean Production (Koskela et al., 2002). It is a ‘respect- and relationship-oriented
production management-based approach to project delivery’ which changes the traditional
way of designing, building, supplying, and delivering construction projects (Seed, 2015).
Lean Construction aims to ‘optimize the whole’ in construction projects by removing waste,
focusing on processes and flow, generating value, and continuously improving (Seed, 2015).
Lean Construction embraces an unconventional culture that is different from the tradi-
tional environment of the construction industry and is built on 14 principles inspired by
Toyota and supported by a set of practices and tools. Compiled comprehensively from various
studies, Figure 4.4 provides a summary of the characteristics of the Lean Construction cul-
ture, alongside the 14 Lean principles and the most-common Lean practices and tools (Ansah
et al., 2016; Babalola et al., 2019; Demirkesen & Bayhan, 2019; Gao & Low, 2014; Liker,
2021; Pekuri et al., 2012).
Figure 4.4 Culture, principles, practices, and tools of Lean Construction
54
Construction 4.0 (T3)

Modeled after Industry 4.0, the concept of Construction 4.0 is inspired by the convergence
of trends and technologies, both physical and digital (Sawhney et al., 2020). Construction 4.0
aims to (1) link the physical and digital layers of a built environment asset, (2) leverage the
use of technology in construction processes to assist people through the project lifecycle, and
(3) enable horizontal integration, vertical integration, and end-to-end through engineering
(FIEC, 2020; Muñoz-La Rivera et al., 2021; Sawhney et al., 2020).
Like Lean Construction, Construction 4.0 is set on design principles and enables major
capabilities through different technologies and technological concepts. Based on the literature,
Figure 4.5 provides a comprehensive summary of the design principles, capabilities, and key
technologies and concepts that Construction 4.0 enables (Hossain & Nadeem, 2019; Karma-
kar & Delhi, 2021; Klinc & Turk, 2019; Prieto, 2021; Sawhney et al., 2020).
Synergies between Lean Construction and Construction 4.0 (T4)

As seen in Figures 4.4 and 4.5, Lean Construction and Construction 4.0 share several com-
mon characteristics that reflect positively on the construction industry. In fact, the inter-
action between Lean and the fourth industrial revolution has been investigated in several
studies, some of which are shown in Figure 4.6 (Buer et al., 2018; Ciano et al., 2021; Ejsmont
et al., 2020; Küpper et al., 2017; Rosin et al., 2019; Sanders et al., 2016; Sony, 2018).
As for Lean Construction 4.0, it has yet to be directly addressed in the literature (Hamzeh
et al., 2021). However, some studies have investigated synergies between Lean ideologies
and Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction industry. Examples of such investigations:
Lean with augmented reality (Nassereddine, 2022b); Last Planner System with BIM, aug-
mented reality, and virtual reality (Dallasega et al., 2018); Lean management with BIM and
Figure 4.5 Design principles, capabilities, technologies, and concepts of Construction 4.0
55
Figure 4.6 Examples of major studies investigating Lean and Industry 4.0
Big Data analytics (Demirdöğen et al., 2021); Lean with 3D printing (El Sakka & Hamzeh,
2017); BIM with IPD (Brahmi et al., 2021; Fakhimi et al., 2016); Lean practices with UAVs
(Ersoz et al., 2019); Lean scheduling with BIM and AI (Li et al., 2020); Lean with cloud-
based IoT in prefabricated construction (Xu et al., 2018); Lean principles with robotics in
offsite construction (Brissi et al., 2021); Lean principles with BIM and digitalization in offsite
construction (Barkokebas et al., 2021).
Additionally, some studies presented implementation frameworks based on Construction
4.0 and Lean Construction. For example, Lekan et al. (2020) investigated the Lean Think-
ing areas and disruptions caused by Industry 4.0 technologies to propose a hybrid model for
achieving Construction 4.0. Another study by Hatoum et al. (2021) presented a ‘Construc-
tion 4.0 Process Reengineering’ (CPR4.0) framework to assist AEC firms in rethinking pro-
cesses to integrate Construction 4.0 technologies. The Lean-based framework was built on
existing reengineering methodologies, people-process-technology methodology, and Lean
principles (Hatoum et al., 2021).
Underlying Factors that Affect Change Decisions Within AEC Firms (T5)
Implementing the Lean Construction 4.0 vision requires AEC firms to be strategically po-
sitioned for this change effort. Therefore, it is essential to understand the factors that can
56
influence an organization’s decision toward Lean Construction 4.0. The TOE methodology
was adopted to compile these factors from the existing literature. Technology factors are
related to the innovations offered by the Lean Construction 4.0 vision. Organization fac-
tors include the organizational features of AEC firms. Environment factors reflect on the
external environment surrounding the organization and the innovations. A summary of the
factors is presented in Figure 4.7 and discussed below.
Technology Factors
Compatibility
The compatibility of the innovation represents the degree to which the innovation is ‘being
consistent with the existing values, experiences, and needs of the company’ (Rogers & Shoe-
maker, 1971). It can be either normative indicating the innovation’s compatibility with how
people feel about it, or practical and operational indicating the innovation’s compatibility
with people’s tasks and responsibilities, or both (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
Complexity
The complexity of the innovation is the degree to which it is perceived as relatively difficult
to understand or use (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Higher complexity can lead to problems
around information availability and innovation usage. Additionally, the time taken to utilize
the innovation’s interface forms a cost of adoption. New technologies, for instance, are more
easily adopted when they are simple or at least easy to interact with (Mabad et al., 2021).
Observability
The observability of the innovation is the extent to which the results can be visible to others
(Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). This factor can affect the general reception of the innovation,
through communicability and social approval (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). The existence of
successful cases of the innovation can demonstrate the effectiveness, benefits, and practical
applications in the AEC industry (Wu et al., 2018).
Relative Advantage
The relative advantage of the innovation can be described as the degree that an innovation is
seen better than the idea, program, or product it is replacing (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). It
can be evaluated using several indicators, including the change in profits, time savings, social
benefits, and/or hazards removed (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
Divisibility and Trialability

The divisibility and trialability aspects of an innovation, while different, can be related.
Divisibility is the extent to which the innovation can be tried on a small-scale prior to
adoption. Trialability is the extent to which the innovation may be experimented with on
a limited basis (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). While a highly divisible technology can be
‘trialable’, not all trialable technology are divisible since some trialable technology can be
relatively small and easily reversible (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
57
Industry Standards
With the lack of standardization being a major barrier for change in the construction industry,
the existence of industry standards is an important incentive for AEC firms to adopt an innova-
tion (Elghdban et al., 2020). Industry standards are a set of policies, regulations, or best practices
presenting a structured adoption and implementation plan of an innovation (Wu et al., 2018).
Privacy and Security

Privacy and security of data are critical to organizations and key issues when adopting inno-
vations (Mabad et al., 2021). An innovation should address security authentication, autho-
rization, accountability, data protection and disaster recovery, reluctance to share internal
data with external partners, and privacy of users (Gangwar et al., 2015). Addressing these
concerns facilitates innovation implementation for AEC firms (Arabshahi, 2021).
Virtual Community
A virtual community can be defined as an ‘online social network where people with com-
mon interests, goals, or practices interact to share information and knowledge while engag-
ing in social interactions’ (Chiu et al., 2006). It should provide ‘rich innovation of interest,
with members both sharing and receiving valuable information’ (Chiu et al., 2006). Such
communities can centralize information on any innovation and act as an open source to
promote the innovation’s adoption (Tsai & Yeh, 2019). Some factors to evaluate a virtual
community include its knowledge platform, collaborative approach, being open-source, and
the nature and security of the information it provides (Tsai & Yeh, 2019).
Organization Factors
Organization Scale
The size of an organization plays an important role in the adoption of innovations. Larger
firms are perceived to have the capacity and capabilities to take risks and invest in innova-
tions compared to smaller firms (Mabad et al., 2021). While size is important, other organi-
zational factors must be considered to define the scale of the organization including age (i.e.,
legacy or not), origin, geographical location, scale of operations, and number of customers
and projects (Chandra & Kumar, 2018; Elghdban et al., 2020; Ukobitz, 2021).
Scope of Operations
The scope of operations represents the type of work performed by the organization and is
associated with innovation adoption (Tsai & Yeh, 2019). Examples in the AEC industry in-
clude the nature of construction projects such as residential, commercial, infrastructure, and
industrial, and the type of the project-delivery system (Killough, 2021; Seaden et al., 2003;
Tsai & Yeh, 2019).
Financial Resources
The cost needed to adopt any innovation is one of the most significant factors that im-
pact adoption decisions (Elghdban et al., 2020). Cost is considered throughout the lifecy-
cle of the innovation. Starting with procurement and acquisition for the initial required
58
investments such as people, training, hardware, software, system integration, and/ or con-
sultants; then operations and management for the cost to operate, maintain, and/ or insure
the innovation to successfully use it; and finally costs for retirement and disposal (Eiris &
Gheisari, 2017).
Human Resources
The demographic variables of the company’s employees such as age, education, position,
years of experience, type of experience, skills, and digital literacy can influence the compa-
ny’s overall knowledge and innovation adoption decisions (Schuh et al., 2020; Tsai & Yeh,
2019).
Information Systems
Information systems (IS) allow the organization to manage the information generated by
its people, machinery, equipment, tools, materials, and projects (Schuh et al., 2020). IS play
a key role in the company’s internal and external response to changes in the environment
(Laudon & Laudon, 2006). Information technology (IT) infrastructure is also essential for
innovation adoption because it is the platform for the organization’s specific information sys-
tem applications (Laudon & Laudon, 2006; Schuh et al., 2020). Thus, a strong IT infrastruc-
ture increases organizational likelihood to adopt innovations ( Jeyaraj et al., 2006; Mabad
et al., 2021). The strength of an IT infrastructure depends on its resources, technical (e.g.,
hardware, software, network, and other tangible resources) and non-technical (e.g., people,
procedures, data policies and governance, know-how, and nature of collaboration) (Elghaish
et al., 2020; Mabad et al., 2021).
Management Qualities
Organizational leadership through its support to change initiatives is key for innovation
adoption (Ukobitz, 2021). Leadership perceptions of the usefulness of innovations promote
a long-term innovative mission and vision, reinforce organizational values, manage re-
sources optimally, and cultivate a favorable organizational climate (Gangwar et al., 2015).
Decision-makers should also cultivate trust, open communication, and social collaboration
throughout the organization and ensure an innovation does not result in job losses (Muylle,
2019; Schuh et al., 2020).
Decision Bureaucracy
The decision-making process within an organization influences innovation adoption de-
cisions and depends on the organizational culture (mechanistic vs. organic) and structure
(technical vs. social) (Adler, 1999; Reigle, 2001). Decision-making in mechanistic cultures
happens centrally and is formalized with more vertical communication. Organizations with
organic cultures have a decentralized decision-making process with more lateral commu-
nication (Reigle, 2001). The nature of this process determines whether decision-makers
are forcing innovations on the organization or are pulling innovations as needed (Dixon,
2001). An organization is encouraged to cultivate an enabling bureaucracy, where rules and
procedures can be tools that empower employees to engage in decisions on the adoption of
innovations (Liker, 2021).
59
Readiness and Commitment

Organizational readiness can be defined as the degree to which an organization ‘has the
awareness, resources, commitment, and governance to adopt’ an innovation (Tan et al.,
2007). Readiness is also influenced by the employees’ beliefs of the practicability of the inno-
vation, and the alignment of the innovation with the organization’s structure and people (Holt
et al., 2007). Three dimensions – namely technological, financial, and h uman – describe the
readiness and commitments needed from an organization to adopt the innovation (Elghdban
et al., 2020).
Champions
Identifying a ‘champion’ to lead innovation adoption is a critical ingredient (Elghdban et al.,
2020). A champion should excel in their knowledge and role, have a comprehensive under-
standing of the perceived benefits, communicate advantages with stakeholders and profes-
sional teams, convince resistors with the new change, take the lead in the adoption process
and work closely with the related teams, assist in training present staff, and collaborate with
the IT department to establish the needed IT resources (Mabad et al., 2021).
Availability of Training
Training is described as the degree to which a company: instructs its employees to use an
innovation in terms of quality and quantity, reduces employees’ anxiety and stress, provides
motivation and a better understanding of benefits, reduces ambiguity, improves the per-
ceived ease of use and usefulness of an innovation, and opens the door for future improve-
ment (Gangwar et al., 2015; Schillewaert et al., 2005).
Figure 4.7 The technology-organization-environment (TOE) factors
60
Environment Factors
Project Stakeholders and Trading Partners

As a construction project requires the involvement of many players, the readiness and support
of those impacted by an innovation must be considered (Elghdban et al., 2020). An AEC firm is
said to be more likely to adopt an innovation if its partners have already adopted it (Chen et al.,
2019). Pressure from trading partners across the supply chain (from upstream or downstream)
can incentivize others in the supply chain to adopt the innovation (Pan & Pan, 2020).
Vendors
Access to innovation vendors is needed to adopt an innovation. Vendors providing technol-
ogy solutions need to collaborate with AEC firms to facilitate and expedite the adoption of
innovations (Mabad et al., 2021). Vendors can also provide firms with licenses and partner-
ing arrangements, software updates, and track records to prove the value of an innovation
(Arabshahi, 2021).
Customer/Owner
A firm’s innovative behavior is affected by the customer, and construction industry firms are
no exception. Innovation-driven firms improve customer value across the entire project life-
cycle, and thus, gain customer loyalty (Chen et al., 2019). Additionally, customers’ awareness
of an innovation can incentivize AEC firms to adopt this innovation, and thus improving
business relations and project delivery (Chen et al., 2019).
Labor Unions
Labor unions are key stakeholders to consider when innovating the AEC industry because
workers’ jobs, roles, responsibilities, and skills may be impacted ( James Manyika et al., 2017).
Unions can engage with the rest of the industry and play an active role in leading the tran-
sition by ensuring access to programs that meet innovation demands and working with
employers for effective employment transitions (Green, 2019).
Competition
The pressure resulting from the practices of competitors and the need to gain competitive
advantage can drive firms to change their business-as-usual and innovate (Chen et al., 2019;
Pan & Pan, 2020). Research showed that in a competitive environment, firms innovate to
‘alter the rules of the competition and change the competitive playing field’ (Chen et al.,
2019; Martins et al., 2015). Examples of competitive strategies include the quality of the
project, innovativeness of the project delivery process, cost savings and low end prices, flex-
ibility in designing and customizing the project, short delivery times, and high customer
service performance (Kinkel et al., 2021).
Social Responsibility
Construction projects are dynamic in nature – they have different sizes and locations and
serve different purposes. Additionally, AEC firms serve diverse communities and thus may
either feel a voluntary obligation to societies based on social expectations, norms, and codes
61
of conduct, or be placed in situations where they cannot ignore the social community due to
rising public pressures (Hwang et al., 2016). Such social responsibilities can lead firms to inno-
vate (Elghdban et al., 2020). Climate change is a great example. The rising pressure from the
public created a growing need for sustainable and green construction (Cliffton et al., 2021).
Government
Governmental agencies and authorities can encourage the spread and diffusion of multiple
innovations (Chen et al., 2019). The effect of existing rules, policies, and regulations can
also help create a perception of the values associated with innovations (Chaurasia & Verma,
2020).
Market Demands and Trends

The influence of market demand on innovation has been highlighted from the market pull
perspective in innovation studies, especially in an innovative generation (Di Stefano et al.,
2012). For the construction industry, the adoption intention also arises from the need to
address present challenges facing the market, such as workforce replenishment, productivity
improvement, and environmental impact reduction (Pan & Pan, 2020).
People as a Subgrade to ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’ (T6)

Any house needs a strong subgrade to support it, and the most important subgrade of ‘House
of Lean Construction 4.0’ is ‘People’. The people aspect is ingrained into every element of
the conceptual framework. First, every technology, organization, or environment factor that
affects change in an AEC firm is directly or indirectly related to the people involved: people
develop, use, and define characteristics of the technology; people are also at the core of any
organization, they make the change decisions and they are the first to be affected by them;
and people are responsible for creating the supportive outside environment to help organiza-
tions seeking change (Elghdban et al., 2020).
Second, people are at the center of the Lean philosophy and ideologies, where training in
scientific thinking and respecting people is important to embrace change and continuously
improve (Liker, 2021). People should work in an organization that provides a safe environ-
ment for constructive conflict, recognizes their added value and contribution, challenges
them to improve their capabilities and grow, offers communication and collaboration means,
and cultivates trust (Seed, 2015).
Technologies offered by Construction 4.0 also need the support of humans, where a com-
pany cannot successfully implement technologies if its people feel threatened by them (Gallo
et al., 2021). On the contrary, people in an organization should be treated as the ‘authors of
the innovation’, as they will be the ones using Construction 4.0 technologies and adapting
their skills to get the maximum benefits out of it (Gallo et al., 2021). Thus, the innovations
that Lean Construction 4.0 will bring to construction processes should meet human needs
and respect the people involved, and is core to creating the desired harmony between people,
technology, and the change in processes (Hamzeh et al., 2021).
Finally, the manifestation of people under Lean Construction 4.0 can be explained by the
people (1) applying Lean principles, tools, and practices to be empowered and respected and
(2) using Construction 4.0 technologies to support their work and performance (Hatoum
62
Figure 4.8 AR-PSP prototype
et al., 2022). An example that embodies people under Lean Construction 4.0 is illustrated in
Figure 4.8 where a user applies an AR-enabled Lean practice, the AR-enabled Production
Strategy Process (PSP), to plan the project and produce a production strategy (Nassereddine,
2022b).
Conclusions
The purpose of this chapter was to present the conceptual ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’
framework, a holistic structure that summarizes the goals, pillars, and foundations of the
Lean Construction 4.0 vision. The house can be used as a tool to bring awareness around this
vision to both academicians and practitioners. AEC firms can consider this house as part of
the digital strategic plan. The house is theoretic in nature and its findings are limited to the
existing body of knowledge. Future studies can build on this work to provide empirical evi-
dence to support the elements of the house. Additional research can be conducted to discuss
the house with practitioners and academicians to expand on the current version of the house.
References
Adler, P. S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(4), 36–47.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.2570553
Ammar, A., Nassereddine, H., AbdulBaky, N., AbouKansour, A, Tannoury, J., Urban, H., and Schranz,
C. (2022). Digital twins in the construction industry: A perspective of practitioners and building
authority. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8, 834671. https://doi.org/10.3389/f buil.2022.834671
Ansah, R. H., Sorooshian, S., Mustafa, S. B., & Duvvuru, G. (2016). Lean construction tools. Proceed-
ings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 784–793.
Arabshahi, M. (2021). Developing a governance framework to assist with the adoption of sensing tech-
nologies in construction. PhD Thesis, Curtin University.
Babalola, O., Ibem, E. O., & Ezema, I. C. (2019). Implementation of Lean practices in the construc-
tion industry: A systematic review. Building and Environment, 148, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.10.051
63
Barbosa, F., Woetzel, J., Mischke, J., Ribeirinho, M. J., Sridhar, M., Parsons, M., Bertram, N., &
Brown, S. (2017). Reinventing Construction: A Route to Higher Productivity. McKinsey Global Insti-
tute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview
Barkokebas, B., Khalife, S., Al-Hussein, M., & Hamzeh, F. (2021). A BIM-Lean framework for digi-
talisation of premanufacturing phases in offsite construction. Engineering, Construction and Architec-
tural Management, 28(8), 2155–2175. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-11-2020-0986
Brahmi, B. F., Boudemagh, S. S., Kitouni, I., & Kamari, A. (2021). IPD and BIM-focussed methodol-
ogy in renovation of heritage buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 40(3), 1–21. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1933557
Brissi, S. G., Chong, O. W., Debs, L., & Zhang, J. (2021). A review on the interactions of robotic
systems and Lean principles in offsite construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Man-
agement, Ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0809
Buer, S.-V., Strandhagen, J. O., & Chan, F. T. S. (2018). The link between industry 4.0 and Lean
manufacturing: Mapping current research and establishing a research agenda. International Journal of
Production Research, 56(8), 2924–2940. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1442945
Chandra, S., & Kumar, K. N. (2018). Exploring factors influencing organizational adoption of aug-
mented reality in E-commerce: Empirical analysis using technology–organization–environment
model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 19(3), 237–265.
Chaurasia, S., & Verma, S. (2020). Strategic determinants of big data analytics in the AEC sector:
A multi-perspective framework. Construction Economics and Building, 20(4), 63–81. https://doi.
org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.6649
Chen, Y., Yin, Y., Browne, G. J., & Li, D. (2019). Adoption of building information modeling in Chi-
nese construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(9), 1878–1898.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-11-2017-0246
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems,
42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
Ciano, M. P., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G., & Rossi, T. (2021). One-to-one relationships between industry
4.0 technologies and Lean production techniques: A multiple case study. International Journal of Pro-
duction Research, 59(5), 1386–1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1821119
Cliffton, R., Wall, M., Ricketts, S., Lee, K., Jessica Eckdish, & Walter, K. (2021). The CLean
economy revolution will be unionized. Center for American Progress: Energy and Environment.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2021/07/07/501280/cLean-economy-
revolution-will-unionized/
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., & Linder, C. (2018). Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for construc-
tion supply chains: A systematic literature review. Computers in Industry, 99, 205–225. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.039
Demirdöğen, G., Diren, N. S., Aladağ, H., & Işık, Z. (2021). Lean based maturity framework in-
tegrating value, BIM and big data analytics: Evidence from AEC industry. Sustainability, 13(18),
10029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810029
Demirkesen, S., & Bayhan, H. G. (2019). Critical success factors of lean implementation in the con-
struction industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEM.2019.2945018
Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspec-
tives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41(8),
1283–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021
Dixon, J. C. (2001). The market pull versus technology push continuum of engineering education.
Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 10,
18260/1–2–9531. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--9531
Eiris, R., & Gheisari, M. (2017). Evaluation of small UAS acquisition costs for construction applica-
tions. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction ( JC3), 1, 931–938. https://doi.
org/10.24928/JC3-2017/0195
Ejsmont, K., Gladysz, B., Corti, D., Castaño, F., Mohammed, W. M., & Martinez Lastra, J. L. (2020).
Towards ‘lean industry 4.0’–Current trends and future perspectives. Cogent Business & Management,
7(1), 1781995. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1781995
El Sakka, F., & Hamzeh, F. (2017). 3D concrete printing in the service of Lean construction. LC3 2017
Volume II - Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
781–788. https://doi.org/10.24928/2017/0246
64
Elghaish, F., Matarneh, S., Talebi, S., Kagioglou, M., Hosseini, M. R., & Abrishami, S. (2020).
Toward digitalization in the construction industry with immersive and drones technologies:
A critical literature review. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SASBE-06-2020-0077
Elghdban, M. G., Azmy, N. B., Zulkiple, A. B., & Al-Sharafi, M. A. (2020). Factors affecting the adop-
tion of advanced IT with specific emphasis on building information modeling based on TOE frame-
work: A systematic review. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(4), 3314–3333.
Ersoz, A. B., Pekcan, O., & Tokdemir, O. Behzat. (2019). Lean project management using unmanned
aerial vehicles. TAMAP Journal of Engineering, 1318–1322. https://doi.org/10.29371/2018.3.65
Fakhimi, A. H., Majrouhi Sardroud, J., & Azhar, S. (2016). How Can Lean, IPD and BIM Work
Together? In Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction
(ISARC 2016), 67–75.https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2016/0009
FIEC. (2020). Digitalisation, construction 4.0 and BIM. European Construction Industry Federation Prior-
ities. http://www.fiec.eu/priorities/digitalisation-construction-40-and-bim
Gallo, T., Cagnetti, C., Silvestri, C., & Ruggieri, A. (2021). Industry 4.0 tools in Lean production:
A systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 180, 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2021.01.255
Gangwar, H., Date, H., & Ramaswamy, R. (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud computing
adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1),
107–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0065
Gao, S., & Low, S. P. (2014). Lean Construction management: They Toyota Way (Vol. 10). Springer. http://
ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/66115/1/268.pdf
Green, K. (2019). How unions can protect the workers who are most vulnerable to automation. Union-
Track Blog. https://www.uniontrack.com/blog/unions-and-automation
Hamzeh, F., González, V. A., Alarcon, L. F., & Khalife, S. (2021). Lean construction 4.0: exploring
the challenges if development in the AEC industry. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC29), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.24928/2021/0181
Han, W. S., Yusof, A. M., Ismail, S., & Aun, N. C. (2012). Reviewing the notions of construction proj-
ect success. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.5539/
ijbm.v7n1p90
Hatoum, M. B., & Nassereddine, H. (2020). Developing a framework for the implementation of ro-
botics in construction enterprises. EG-ICE 2020 Proceedings: Workshop on Intelligent Computing in
Engineering, 27, 453–462.
Hatoum, M. B., Nassereddine, H., & Badurdeen, F. (2021). Reengineering construction processes in
the era of construction 4.0: A Lean-based framework. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.24928/2021/0126
Hatoum, M.B., Ammar, A., Nassereddine, H., and Dadi, G. (2022). Preparing Construction Employ-
ers for the Gen-Z Workforce: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Interna-
tional Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), 808–819. https://doi.org/10.24928/2022/0193
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational
change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2),
232–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295
Hossain, M. A., & Nadeem, A. (2019). Towards digitizing the construction industry: State of the art of
construction 4.0. Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction. 10th International
Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC 2019. https://doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.
res.2019.184
Hwang, B.-N., Huang, C.-Y., & Wu, C.-H. (2016). A TOE approach to establish a green supply
chain adoption decision model in the semiconductor industry. Sustainability, 8(2), 168. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su8020168
Jacobsson, M., & Roth, P. (2014). Towards a shift in mindset: Partnering projects as engagement plat-
forms. Construction Management and Economics, 32(5), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.
2014.895847
James Manyika, Susan Lund, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Woetzel, Parul Batra, Ryan Ko,
& Saurabh Sanghvi. (2017). Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation (p.
160). McKinsey Global Institute.
Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006). A Review of the predictors, linkages, and biases
in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000056
65
Karmakar, A., & Delhi, V. S. K. (2021). Construction 4.0: What we know and where we are headed.
Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 26(Next Generation ICT-How distant is

ubiquitous computing?), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2021.028
Killough, D. (2021). Common construction project delivery methods: A breakdown. Construction Pay-
ment Blog. https://www.levelset.com/blog/construction-project-delivery-methods/
Kinkel, S., Baumgartner, M., & Cherubini, E. (2021). Prerequisites for the adoption of AI technologies
in manufacturing – Evidence from a worldwide sample of manufacturing companies. Technovation,
110, 102375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102375
Klinc, R., & Turk, Ž. (2019). Construction 4.0—digital transformation of one of the oldest industries.
Economic & Business Review, 21(3), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.15458/ebr.92
Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of Lean Construction.
In R. Best & G. De Valence, (eds.), Design and Construction: Building in Value, 211–226. Routledge.
Küpper, D., Heidemann, A., Ströhle, J., Knizek, C., & Spindelndreier, D. (2017). When Lean meets
industry 4.0: The next level of operational excellence. Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.
com/publications/2017/Lean-meets-industry-4.0
Laudon, K. & Laudon J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm. Prentice
Hall, Pearson.
Lau, S. E. N., Zakaria, R., Aminudin, E., Saar, C. C., Abidin, N. I. A., Roslan, A. F., Abd Hamid,
Z., Zain, M. Z. M., & Lou, E. (2019). Identification of roadmap of fourth construction indus-
trial revolution. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 615(1), 012029. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1757-899X/615/1/012029
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H.-A. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry
4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mfglet.2014.12.001
Lekan, A., Clinton, A., Fayomi, O. S. I., & James, O. (2020). Lean thinking and industrial 4.0 ap-
proach to achieving construction 4.0 for industrialization and technological development. Build-
ings, 10(12), 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120221
Li, B., Schultz, C., Melzner, J., Golovina, O., & Teizer, J. (2020). Safe and Lean Location-Based Con-
struction Scheduling. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction (ISARC 2020), 1409–1416. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2020/0195
Liker, J. K. (2021). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer (2nd
ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Mabad, T., Ali, O., Ally, M., Wamba, S. F., & Chan, K. C. (2021). Making investment decisions on
RFID technology: An evaluation of key adoption factors in construction firms. IEEE Access, 9,
36937–36954. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3063301
Martins, R., Oliveira, T., & Thomas, M. A. (2015). Assessing organizational adoption of information
systems outsourcing. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 25(4), 360–378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1087702
Muñoz-La Rivera, F., Mora-Serrano, J., Valero, I., & Oñate, E. (2021). Methodological-technologi-
cal framework for Construction 4.0. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 689–711.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09455-9
Muylle, L. (2019). Technology readiness and adoption of 3D printing in the construction industry.
Master’s Thesis, Master in Business Engineering: Operations Management, Universiteit Gent.
Nassereddine, H., Hatoum, M.B., and Hanna, A.S. (2022a). Overview of the State-of-Practice of
BIM in the AEC Industry in the United States. In Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium
on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2022), 524–531. https://doi.org/10.22260/
ISARC2022/0074
Nassereddine, H., Veeramani, D., and Hanna, A.S. (2022b). Design, Development, and Validation
of an Augmented Reality-Enabled Production Strategy Process. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8,
730098. https://doi.org/10.3389/f buil.2022.730098
Owusu-Manu, D.-G., Debrah, C., Amissah, L., Edwards, D. J., & Chileshe, N. (2020). Exploring the
linkages between project managers’ mindset behaviour and project leadership style in the Ghanaian
construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, ahead-of-print. https://
doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2020-0149
Pan, M., & Pan, W. (2020). Understanding the determinants of construction robot adoption: perspec-
tive of building contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(5), 04020040.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001821
66
Pekuri, A., Herrala, M., Aapaoja, A., & Haapasalo, H. (2012). Applying Lean in construction–corner-
stones for implementation. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC), 18–20. https://iglc.net/Papers/Details/821
Prieto, R. (2021). Construction 4.0 (Technology). NAC Executive Insights. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/348690890_Construction-40
Razkenari, M., Fenner, A., Shojaei, A., Hakim, H., & Kibert, C. (2020). Perceptions of offsite con-
struction in the United States: An investigation of current practices. Journal of Building Engineering,
29, 101138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101138
Reigle, R. F. (2001). Measuring organic and mechanistic cultures. Engineering Management Journal,
13(4), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2001.11415132
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. The
Free Press.
Rosin, F., Forget, P., Lamouri, S., & Pellerin, R. (2019). Impacts of industry 4.0 technologies on Lean
principles. International Journal of Production Research, 58(6), 1644–1661. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
207543.2019.1672902
Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C., & Wulfsberg, J. P. (2016). Industry 4.0 implies Lean manufacturing:
Research activities in industry 4.0 function as enablers for Lean manufacturing. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management ( JIEM), 9(3), 811–833. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1940
Sawhney, A., Riley, M., & Irizarry, J. (2020). Construction 4.0: An Innovation Platform for the Built En-
vironment (1st ed.). Routledge.
Sawhney, A., Riley, M., Irizarry, J., & Pérez, C. T. (2020). A proposed framework for construc-
tion 4.0 based on a review of literature. EPiC Series in Built Environment, 1, 301–309. https://doi.
org/10.29007/4nk3
Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Moenaert, R. K. (2005). The adoption of infor-
mation technology in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(4), 323–336. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.09.013
Schuh, G., Anderl, R., Dumitrescu, R., Krüger, A., & Hompel, M. ten. (2020). Industrie 4.0 maturity
index: Managing the digital transformation of companies – Update 2020. Acatech STUDY.
Seaden, G., Guolla, M., Doutriaux, J., & Nash, J. (2003). Strategic decisions and innovation
in construction firms. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), 603–612. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0144619032000134138
Seed, W. R. (2015). Transforming Design and Construction: A Framework for Change. Lean Construction
Institute. https://Leanconstruction.org/media/learning_laboratory/new/old/TDC-Book.pdf
Sony, M. (2018). Industry 4.0 and Lean management: A proposed integration model and research
propositions. Production & Manufacturing Research, 6(1), 416–432. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/2
1693277.2018.1540949
Tan, J., Tyler, K., & Manica, A. (2007). Business-to-business adoption of ecommerce in China. Infor-
mation & Management, 44(3), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.04.001
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implemen-
tation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-29(1), 28–45.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463
Tsai, C.-A., & Yeh, C.-C. (2019). Understanding the decision rules for 3D printing adoption. Tech-
nology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(9), 1104–1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1
584287
Ukobitz, D. V. (2021). Organizational adoption of 3D printing technology: A semisystematic litera-
ture review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(9), 48–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMTM-03-2020-0087
Wu, P., Zhao, X., Baller, J. H., & Wang, X. (2018). Developing a conceptual framework to improve
the implementation of 3D printing technology in the construction industry. Architectural Science
Review, 61(3), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1450727
Xu, G., Li, M., Chen, C.-H., & Wei, Y. (2018). Cloud asset-enabled integrated IoT platform for
Lean prefabricated construction. Automation in Construction, 93, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.05.012
67

RoutledgeHandbooks 9781003150930 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RoutledgeHandbooks 9781003150930 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

RoutledgeHandbooks 9781003150930 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.97.

Lean Construction 4.0

Proposing a House of Lean Construction 4.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

answer to this question is portrayed by the beam of the house.

Conceptual House of Lean Construction 4.0 Framework

The Transformations of Lean Construction 4.0 (T1)

Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of the methodology

Figure 4.2 ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’

The Pillars of Lean Construction 4.0 (T2, T3, T4)

Lean Construction (T2)

Figure 4.4 Culture, principles, practices, and tools of Lean Construction

Construction 4.0 (T3)

Synergies between Lean Construction and Construction 4.0 (T4)

Divisibility and Trialability

Privacy and Security

Readiness and Commitment

Figure 4.7 The technology-organization-environment (TOE) factors

Project Stakeholders and Trading Partners

Market Demands and Trends

People as a Subgrade to ‘House of Lean Construction 4.0’ (T6)

Figure 4.8 AR-PSP prototype

Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 26(Next Generation ICT-How distant is

You might also like