Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Green, lean, Six Sigma barriers at a glance: A case from the construction T
sector of Pakistan
Kramat Hussaina, Zhen Hea, Naveed Ahmadb,*, Muzaffar Iqbala,
Syed Muhammad Taskheer mumtazb
a
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, PR China
b
School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The construction sector consumes a massive amount of resources, produces a large volume of emissions, and
Sustainability generates large-scale waste. Earlier studies considered green, lean, and Six Sigma (GLS) approaches as being
Construction process critical in the construction process for the optimum use of resources, cost reduction, quality improvement, and
Green construction process (GCP) sustainability. Pakistan's construction sector is struggling to implement sustainable and improved construction
Lean construction process (LCP)
processes. This work attempts to analyse barriers to the GLS construction process (GLSCP) through a literature
Six sigma construction process (SCP)
review and expert opinion. During brainstorming sessions, a group of experts validated the barriers and de-
Barriers
Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) veloped contextual relationships among them using a questionnaire. An 11-level hierarchal model was devel-
MICMAC analysis oped by implementing interpretive structural modelling (ISM) methodology. The Matriced Impacts Croise's
Multiplication Appliqée a UN Classement (MICMAC) technique was applied to delineate these barriers into the
categories of ‘driving’, ‘linkage’, and ‘dependent’. While the findings indicate that all barriers are critical and
play a role in hindering the application of GLS in the construction process, the top five critical barriers to GLS are
an unstable political environment, lack of government policy, lack of customer involvement and awareness of
GLS, lack of funds, and lack of top leadership support for GLS adoption. This work may assist the government,
policy-makers, and managers by providing insights into the barriers and in developing strategies for the possible
adoption of GLS concepts for sustainable construction and improved quality.

1. Introduction
In the construction industry, sustainability is globally accepted as
providing competitive advantage and the ability to increase construc-
tion process performance. Construction organisations are adopting
various approaches like green, lean, life-cycle assessment (LCA), and
Six Sigma to increase sustainability [1], productivity [2], and project
quality [3], and decrease life-cycle cost [4], manage project delays [5],
and reduce waste [6]. Over the last decades, improving environmental
quality and productivity and reducing waste have been considered
challenges in the construction industry [7]. Furthermore, high pro-
ductivity has been recognised as a driving force towards increasing the
competitive advantage of business organisations [8]. Contemporary
construction practices should not be limited to technical aspects of the
process, but should integrate green, lean, and Six Sigma (GLS) ap-
proaches for sustainable growth [9]. The concepts underlying GLS are
well recognised in the manufacturing industry [10] and have attracted
the attention of academics as well [11]. However, these concepts only
more recently gained impetus in construction practices [9].
Green construction processes (GCP) are concerned with environ-
mental impacts, in contrast to traditional approaches, which ignore the
environmental implications of the construction process and focus on
profitability and technical quality [12,13]. GCP has attracted the at-
tention of academics, customers, professionals, and governments
worldwide [14–16]. Companies focusing on GCP are moving towards
the use of green material that reduces environmental issues pertaining
to construction including energy consumption and pollution generated
by materials during the construction process [17]. GCP depends on
using environmentally friendly materials. Environmentally friendly
construction processes comprise activities that protect the environ-
mental integrity and have no harmful effects on ecosystems, and are
designed to provide optimal energy efficiency [18]. Green construction
is a synchronised structure framework, which combines various activ-
ities to reduce environmental cost from the development to demolition

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kramat381@tju.edu.cn (K. Hussain), zhhe@tju.edu.cn (Z. He), naveedahmad@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (N. Ahmad), m.shah@tju.edu.cn (M. Iqbal),
taskheer@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (S.M. Taskheer mumtaz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106225
Received 15 March 2019; Received in revised form 21 May 2019; Accepted 20 June 2019
Available online 24 June 2019
0360-1323/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Hussain, et al.
of the project [19]. To handle ecological problems in GCP, it is vital that
construction organisations persuade all stakeholders to cooperate [20].
Lean construction (LC) provides organisations with a method to
provide assistance in removing waste, improving performance, and
reducing costs [21]. Similarly, the Six Sigma approach may offer a
thorough and organised way to synchronise customer needs in the first
stage of the construction process, integrating productivity features into
construction projects [3].
In the literature, many researchers pay attention to sustainable
construction practices individually with the emphasis on green
[4,15,22], lean [5,23], or Six Sigma [24,25]. Some combined lean and
Six Sigma approaches [9,26–28], and others integrated green and lean
approaches [29–32]. However, less attention has been paid to com-
bining lean, green, and Six Sigma approaches in construction [7,33].
Dealing with green construction projects have been considered chal-
lenging due to presence of significant obstacles [14]. Furthermore,
compared to developed countries, developing countries are facing more
challenges in construction industry [34], because of significant ob-
stacles [14,35,36] that need investigation. Studies identifying barriers
to GLSCP in developing countries are scarce, especially in Pakistan,
where no research has thus far been conducted to explore this issue.
Therefore, because of the lack of studies and the fact that Pakistan is
facing challenges to incorporate GLS concepts in construction pro-
cesses, the primary goals of this study are as follows:
1. To explore the barriers that may hinder the adoption of GLS in the
construction process.
2. To discover contextual relationships among the barriers and develop
a hierarchal model to comprehend the various impacts of these
barriers, which may hinder the successful integration and im-
plementation of GLS initiatives.
Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) methodology is used to ex-
plore the significant variables of a system and identify their dynamics
systematically [37]. Few studies have used the ISM technique in the
construction sector; for example, Bhattacharya and Momaya [38] em-
ployed it to discover enablers for growth strategies in construction and
their contextual relationships. Ahuja, Yang and Shankar [39] applied it
to identify the application benefits of information communication
technology (ICT) in building projects, while assessing the dynamics of
these benefits related to other benefits. ISM is a suitable methodology to
identify the interrelationships between explored elements and develop
a model based on the driving forces and dependencies among barriers.
The core competency of the ISM methodology is to change an ambig-
uous model into a well-structured one through a precise technique [40].
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 pro-
vides a review of the literature and highlights the research gaps. Section
3 explains the problem and explores barriers in the implementation of
the GLS approach in Pakistan's construction sector. Section 4 presents a
step-by-step description of the ISM methodology, experts' feedback re-
garding developing a questionnaire, and data collection from con-
struction sector professionals, and explains the application of ISM
methodology to establish a hierarchal structure of GLSCP barriers.
Furthermore, section 4 describes the driving and dependence forces of
the elements through a MICMAC analysis. Finally, the findings and
conclusions of the research are discussed.
2. Literature review
This section briefly describes the literature on GLS approaches and
identifies gaps for the current work.
2.1. Green construction process (GCP)
The majority of earlier studies underscore the environmentally fo-
cused process and LCA concepts of the construction process. Several
2
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
studies considered the impacts of construction processes on environ-
mental compatibility [41,42]. Wong, Chan and Wadu [17] focused on
green procurement in construction projects because of the benefit of
environmental performance. Green construction projects pose
minimum environmental hazards, in contrast to those that use tradi-
tional materials for construction [14]. The environmental effect of the
construction process has been assessed throughout the project life-
cycle, from the stages of design, procurement of raw material, trans-
portation of materials, inventory, delivery, and construction to the
demolition of the project [42,43]. Environmental issues pertaining to
the construction process emerge in the initial step, when procurement
and plans are decided. Here, a project's design defines its environmental
cost [44]. GCP is the best available solution in terms of ensuring a
sustainable construction design and efficient use of resources by mini-
mising energy consumption and waste [45–47]. Ahn, Pearce, Wang and
Wang [18] identified multiple barriers that influence green construc-
tion projects in China, including higher costs, irregular policies, lack of
competent personnel, and technical complexities during the construc-
tion process. A construction firm's involvement in GCP is regulated by
laws and demands for sustainable construction [48,49].
2.2. Lean construction process (LCP)
LCP follows lean principles in construction, identifies and eliminates
unnecessary processes or flows, stabilises workflow, and increases the
company's response while reducing waste and improving performance
[50]. According to Bajjou and Chafi [5], organisations are reaping
multiple benefits by implementing LCP in the construction industry: for
example, by increasing quality and worker safety, and decreasing pro-
ject duration, cost, and pressure on the environment. Many researchers
have indicated that LC projects improve performance for customers,
optimise construction design, and control the project life-cycle [51].
Numerous surveys revealed the following most commonly used
methods in LC: the just-in-time method (JIT), FMECA (failure modes,
effects, and criticality analysis), Kanban system, five whys, 5S process,
Ishikawa diagram, increased visualisation, error proofing (Poka-Yoke),
standardisation, total quality management (TQM), standard operating
procedures (SOP), and waste elimination to achieve the objectives of LC
[51–54].
2.3. Six Sigma construction process (SCP)
Six Sigma has become globally accepted over the last two decades
and has already been implemented in many companies in developed
countries [36]. Using a Six Sigma approach, firms not only optimise
financial and operating performance but also satisfy customers by re-
ducing faulty products or services [55]. Six Sigma emphasises the
quality aspects of processes that are most significant to customers.
Considering these aspects, detecting and removing variations, faults,
and errors in the process are important [25]. By adopting Six Sigma in
construction, it is possible to identify and remove flaws in the con-
struction process, ensuring the firm can transform the process into a
direction that leads to customer satisfaction. Six Sigma in construction
projects is a useful methodology for developing and improving the
construction process for business excellence, while considering cus-
tomer satisfaction at the expected cost [25]. Six sigma models such as
DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, and Control) can be used
to analyse construction processes and explore opportunities for im-
provement, which will smooth the process and help achieve customer
satisfaction [24]. However, the concept of continuous improvement and
effective use of the DMAIC model may enable organisations to improve
customer values by delivering world-class projects [56,57]. Single-track
usage has been the central element in recognizing Six Sigma in con-
struction projects to decrease costs and emphasize innovations to en-
sure customer satisfaction. The objectives of Six Sigma in the con-
struction process should be combined with the goals of LCP to achieve
K. Hussain, et al.
Table 1
Similarities and differences between green, lean, and Six Sigma concepts.
Parameters Green approach
Goals To apply eco-friendly methods and decrease
environmental impact.
Concepts Green construction, sustainable development, green
design, green infrastructure, green building, green
manufacturing, etc.
Similarity Entails increasing environment performance to
enhance quality.
Differences It considers environmental impacts.
Advantages Eco-friendly, efficient use of resources, decreases
environmental pressure, etc.
Disadvantages Elevated production cost, lack of information and
funds.
Implementation areas Manufacturing, green construction, automotive sector,
product design, etc.
Adopted from Ref. [10]
the advantages of both [33].
2.4. Green, lean, and Six Sigma construction process (GLSCP)
GCP increases environmental and financial performance as well as
competitive advantages by identifying waste [58]. LCP introduces in-
novative methods to deal with construction projects by decreasing
waste, cost, and boosting performance [59], while Six Sigma elevates
the efficiency and flexibility of the process [24]. Six Sigma provides
solutions to eliminate waste and improve the quality and sustainability
of projects by reducing flaws in the construction process [60]. Table 1
presents the similarities and differences between GLS approaches.
To garner the benefits of productivity, quality, cost reduction, and
sustainability in construction projects, based on the previous discus-
sion, we suggest the integration and application of GLS initiatives. The
concepts of GLSCP are shown in Fig. 1.
2.5. Research gaps
While green and lean approaches have gained momentum as vital
concepts in effective business processes, less attention has focused on
the integration of GCP, LCP, and SCP. Actually, this has been ignored in
the literature thus far. Cost efficient and sustainable construction is an
issue for construction organisations. Previous research on the con-
struction industry emphasised how to decrease waste [61,62], improve
environmental performance [63,64], or improve productivity [25];
however, less is known about how to combine and reap the benefits of
all three in the construction process. One study noted that GLS im-
plementation is not straightforward, because of impeding factors [10].
Fig. 1. Integration of GLS in the construction process.
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
Lean approach Six Sigma approach
To explore and remove waste and other non- To enhance the quality of process, products, and
value-added activities. services through continuous improvement.
Kanban system, the 5S process, waste DMAIC method (define, measure, analyse,
elimination, pull system, visual control, improve, and control), statistical process control
continuous flow, etc. (SPC).
Entails elimination of waste and non- Decreasing the defects in the process to enhance
productive works to enhance quality. quality.
Considers waste and its removal. It considers a continuous focus on quality by
decreasing defects in products and services.
Decreases cost, enhances performance, saves Enhances quality, decreases rejection of
time, and decreases waste in production. products, improves efficiency, and saves costs.
Massive cost of application, supply issues, Higher project cost, time consuming, funds,
and resistance from employees. workers, etc.
Service sector, public sector, supply chain, Manufacturing industries, construction sector,
construction sector, etc. service industries, supply chain, product
development, etc.
GLSCP can be considered a significant approach to reap the advantages
of green and lean combined with Six Sigma approaches. According to
the authors’ knowledge, little effort has been made to identify the cri-
tical barriers of GLSCP application in the construction industry of de-
veloping countries. There is a gap in the literature regarding elements
impeding the implementation of GLS in the construction sector and
their contextual relationships. Thus, to fill this gap, this study provides
empirical evidence to enhance understanding of GLS barriers in con-
struction processes, which will help construction companies focus on
environmental and construction issues to provide a healthy and safe
environment for all stakeholders.
3. Problem description
The construction sector in Pakistan is the fastest growing sector in
the country. After the inception of the One Belt One Road initiative
(OBOR), the role of the construction sector has changed dramatically,
although it is not functioning at its full potential [3]. Construction
projects worth a billion dollars are underway consequent to the af-
filiation of OBOR with Pakistan. Furthermore, this can be considered a
significant factor for industrial and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
growth. The share of the industrial sector in the GDP of Pakistan is
20.3%, 12% of which belongs to the construction sector [3]. In 2018,
the construction sector growth rate was 9.13% [65], and as such it can
play a significant role in the GDP growth of Pakistan if contemporary
methodologies are timeously adopted. Furthermore, by incorporating
GLSCP, Pakistan's construction sector can address problems such as the
improper use of environmental resources and lack of quality in con-
struction processes and inability of the industry to achieve sustain-
ability. For sustainable development, GLSCP will certainly assist Pa-
kistan's construction sector in achieving their sustainable development
objectives and satisfying customer demands. Significant barriers are
posing challenges to the country's construction sector in terms of ap-
plying GLSCP. Thus, to ensure the economic, environmental, and social
benefits, there is a strong need in the construction sector to explore the
barriers in GLSCP application. Thus far, little is known about the bar-
riers impeding the performance of the construction sector in Pakistan.
We hope this study will play an essential role in identifying the barriers
that hinder the application of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction sector.
To this end, we employ the well-known ISM and MICMAC techniques.
4. Methodology
To identify the importance of the barriers impeding the application
of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction sector, the current study followed
different steps to develop a GLS barrier structure using the ISM
3
K. Hussain, et al.
Fig. 2. Step by step study approach.
technique. The overall step-by-step approach is shown in Fig. 2.
4.1. Exploring barriers to GLSCP
A barrier can be defined as an obstacle or impeding factor that halts
organisations in the integration and successful application of GLS [5].
GLS is currently not progressing in developing countries because of the
presence of barriers [10]. Therefore, there is a need to explore and
remove these barriers to ensure the successful implementation of
GLSCP [66–68]. To achieve the aim of exploring barriers in the appli-
cation of GLS, a literature survey was conducted using different words
and a combination of keywords as follows: ‘Green, Lean, Six Sigma’;
‘barriers’; ‘obstacles’; and ‘sustainable construction in Pakistan’. Dif-
ferent keywords were combined as follows: 1) ‘Green and sustainability
implementation barriers in construction’, 2) ‘Lean implementation
barriers in construction’, 3) ‘Six Sigma implementation barriers in
construction’, 4) ‘Green and Lean and Six Sigma and barriers and
construction sector’, and 5) ‘Green and Lean and Six Sigma and barriers
and construction sector and developing countries’. The keywords were
searched in the following databases: Google scholar, Scopus, Taylor &
Francis, Emerald, Springer, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, and Wiley online
4
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
library, and related studies collected. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were
input as follows: a) English language peer-reviewed studies and b) peer-
review studies and conference proceedings excluding books and edi-
torials. As a result, 515 papers were identified using the databases.
Initially, by following the criteria recommended by Groening, Sarkis
and Zhu [69], a forward and reverse snowball methodology was used to
screen the studies found. In the next step, the abstracts and titles of the
selected papers were thoroughly evaluated. In the final stage, 39 papers
with high relevancy and that met the research objective were selected.
After the extensive literature review and experts' opinions, this study
identified 24 barriers in the implementation of GLSCP. These are de-
scribed in Table 2.
4.2. Questionnaire development and data acquisition
To explore the barriers to GLS implementation in Pakistan's con-
struction industry, 24 barriers were identified through the literature
review and discussed with a selected group of 8 professionals. Experts
in the construction industry were approached through emails, tele-
phone, and visits to their offices. Initially, 13 experts were approached,
and the GLS concepts explained to them. Afterwards, 6 of the 13 experts
K. Hussain, et al.
Table 2
Barriers to GLSCP.
No. Barriers to GLSCP
1 Lack of training and workshops
2 Inefficient utilisation of infrastructure
3 Lack of advanced facilities and technology
4 Lack of customer involvement and awareness of GLSCP
5 Lack of top leadership support for GLS adoption
6 Inefficient and traditional material management and logistics
7 Lack of coordination and communication among team members
and departments
8 Lack of funds
9 Inefficient time management
10 Inefficient human resources
11 Lack of a supportive organisational culture and reward system
12 Lack of awareness about GLS philosophies
13 Lack of a kaizen environment
14 Inadequate mechanism to identify activities in the construction
process to implement, green, lean, and Six Sigma
15 Supplier's resistance to change
16 Resistance to change
17 Lack of government support
18 Lack of a mechanism to assess environmental impacts
19 Lack of technical experts
20 Unstable political environment
21 Lack of belief in environmental benefits
22 Lack of responsibility about environmental issues
23 The uncertainty of return from GLS adoption
24 Low-quality raw material
agreed to participate in the study. Furthermore, two of ten academics
were interested in taking part in this research. Finally, a group of eight
professionals was formed. Of the eight professionals, one was a senior
construction manager, one an environmental expert, one an architect,
one a project manager, one was a professor specialised in operations
management, one specialised in quality management, one had a lean
Six Sigma green belt, and one was a construction engineer. The selected
experts were highly skilled and experienced in their fields and decision-
making. After examining the issue and discussing the objective of the
study with group members, the ISM technique was selected.
After exploring initial barriers to GLSCP from the literature review,
and filtering barriers with the help of experts' opinion to develop a
questionnaire, the next step is to interrelate variables using ISM. The
ISM technique is based on professionals' views about the contextual
relationships among the explored factors. However, in this study,
brainstorming sessions were held with group members to analyse the
contextual relationships among selected barriers in the implementation
of GLSCP. To develop contextual relationships among impeding factors,
experts were asked to select ‘leads’ to type relationships. The experts'
opinions were based on the significance and relevance of the selected
impeding factors on a scale of low, moderate, and high, according to the
guidelines of Ref. [10], as shown in Table 3.
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
Comments Sources
An inefficient training program may hinder personnel from being well [6,18,66,70–72]
equipped with GLSCP skills.
Not utilising infrastructure to its full capacity may result in non-value-added [35,67,67,70]
costs.
Quality-based construction requires advanced facilities and technology to [70,72–75]
fulfil customer needs.
Customer engagement and awareness of GLS is important in gaining [18,68,71–73]
competitive advantage.
Top management support and commitment are vital for the implementation of [2,6,66,75–77]
GLS concepts.
Inventory and material handling through traditional methods result in [36,75]
environmental pressure and financial loss.
The application of GLSCP concepts requires efficient team management and [66,72,78,79]
team coordination at various levels.
Financial resources must be utilised from the first step of GLSCP application to [3,6,10,72,78]
reap the environmental, social, economic, and quality benefits.
Poor time management may lead to the inefficient utilisation of resources. [6,10,77,80,81]
Sufficient and skilled workers are critical to organisational success and in [5,6,68,74,82]
addressing the quality of construction projects.
A supportive organisational culture can help achieve organisational [6,26,66,70,76]
objectives.
GLS philosophies can promote quality and multiple social, economic, and [36,66,70–72,77,83,84]
environmental benefits.
Philosophies of continuous improvement like kaizen lead to quality [85–87]
improvement and eco-friendly benefits.
Extracting and investigating data are critical after operations are identified to [72,84,87,88]
elevate efficiency.
Value creation through GLS is necessary from the consumption of raw [18,49,75,78]
material to the successful completion of the project.
Resistance to change is a crucial factor in any improvement program of any [26,66,77–79]
organisation.
Incentives and benefits offered by the government can facilitate GLSCP [3,6,10,66,72,89]
adoption.
To gauge the environmental impacts of industries, a continuous focus on R&D [72,90,91]
and innovation is required.
Experts provide technical competencies for the successful implementation of [6,71,72,75,83,92]
GLSCP.
A stable political environment is important for long-term policies to support [6]
GLSCP.
Industries are sceptical about the environmental benefits of GLSCP. [84,89,93]
Organisations are not serious and do not consider it their duty to focus on [75,84,94]
environmental problems.
GLSCP implementation increases the cost of construction and may result in a [72,84]
low return on investment for a short period.
Low-quality materials increase scraps and waste and decrease the value of [68,84,95]
each process of a construction project.
Based on the response of expert about significance and relevance of
barriers, a questionnaire was developed. A qualitative approach was
adopted to evaluate the barriers manually. In the presence of the au-
thors, experts, and a moderator, all interactions between the barriers
were discussed, and all responses added to the structural self-interac-
tion matrix and then transferred into a hierarchal structure of barriers.
More information on the ISM is provided next.
4.3. Application of ISM approach
To understand the complex relationships among elements in a
system, ISM methodology is well-recognised in management and en-
gineering research. ISM methodology utilises the information and ex-
perience of experts to delineate complex and connected elements into a
well-defined multilevel structured model. The ISM technique assigns
direction and arranges the relationships of related and unrelated ele-
ments of a system [40].
The stages of the ISM methodology are as follows [96]:
Stage 1. Elements influencing the system under consideration are
explored. In this study, barriers hindering the implementation of
GLS concepts in Pakistan's construction sector were considered as
5
K. Hussain, et al. Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Table 3
The significance of barriers in GLSCP in the construction sector of Pakistan.
S.no Barriers in GLSCP Importance in Construction Process

Green Lean Six Sigma GLS

1 Lack of training and workshops High High High High

2 Inefficient utilisation of infrastructure High High High High
3 Lack of advanced facilities and technology Low High High Moderate
4 Lack of customer involvement and awareness of GLSCP High High High High
5 Lack of top leadership support for GLS adoption High High High High
6 Inefficient and traditional material management and logistics High High Low Moderate
7 Lack of coordination and communication among team members and departments High High High High
8 Lack of funds High High High High
9 Inefficient management of time High High High High
10 Inefficient human resources High High High High
11 Lack of supportive organisational culture and reward system High High Low Moderate
12 Lack of awareness about GLS philosophies High High High High
13 Lack of kaizen environment
14 Inadequate mechanism to identify activities in the construction process to implement, green, lean and Six Sigma Low High High Moderate
15 Suppliers resistance to change High High High High
16 Resistance to change High High High High
17 Lack of government support High High High High
18 Lack of a mechanism to assess the environmental impacts High High Low Moderate
19 Lack of technical experts High High High High
20 Unstable political environment High High High High
21 Lack of belief in environmental benefits High High High High
22 Lack of responsibility about environmental issues High High High High
23 The uncertainty of return from GLS adoption High High High High
24 Low quality raw material High High High High

elements.
Stage 2. Contextual relationships among the explored elements are
developed.
Stage 3. A structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) is established for
the elements to show the pairwise relationships among elements of
the system under observation.
Stage 4. An initial reachability matrix is developed from the SSIM,
which is checked for transitivity. The transitivity rule of the con-
textual relation is an underlying assumption made in ISM. It states
that if variable A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is
necessarily related to C.
Stage 5. In this stage, the transitivity rule is applied to the reach-
ability matrix obtained in stage 4 to construct the final reachability
matrix, which is divided into several levels.
Stage 6. On the basis of the relationships assigned in the reachability
matrix, a digraph is prepared and transitivity links removed.
Stage 7. The final digraph is changed into an ISM by converting
element nodes with statements.
Stage 8. The ISM model established in stage 7 is revisited for any
ideological discrepancies, and changes made if necessary.
4.3.1. SSIM development
In this research, to assign contextual relations among barriers, a
group of professionals from the construction sector and academia was
formed. The contextual relationships among factors (i and j) were
considered and their relationship directions analysed. Four signs were
employed to show the relationships among barriers (i and j): where V
means barrier i is influencing barrier j, A means barrier j is influencing
barrier i, X means barrier i and j are influencing each other, and O
means barrier i and j, are not influencing each other.
V. Barrier i leads to barrier J
A. Barrier j leads to barrier i
X. Barrier i and j lead to each other
O. Barriers i and j are indifferent
SSIM was established on the basis of the contextual relations among
barriers, and the signs mentioned above were utilised. Table 4 shows
Table 4
Guidelines for converting SSIM into initial reachability matrix (IRM).
SSIM Initial reachability matrix
Elements (i, j) Elements (i, j) Elements (i, j)
V 1 0
A 0 1
X 1 1
O 0 0
the implications of the signs (X, V, A, O) in composing SSIM. The SSIM
by experts is shown in Table 5.
4.3.2. Initial reachability matrix formation (IRM)
The SSIM was further transformed into an initial reachability matrix
by converting the values of the SSIM into binary values. There are rules
to transform SSIM values into an initial reachability matrix, which are
explained in the table. Suppose the value of barrier (i and j) in the SSIM
is V; then the value for (i and j) in the initial reachability matrix will
change to 1 and the value for the barrier (j and i) will be 0. The initial
reachability matrix for barriers to GLSCP is provided in Table 6.
4.3.3. Final reachability matrix formation (FRM)
According to stage 4 of the ISM methodology, final reachability
matrix (FRM) was developed by removing the transitivity from the IRM,
as presented in Table 7.
4.3.4. Level partitions
After constructing the FRM, the next step is to extract the reach-
ability and antecedent sets from the matrix to develop different levels of
each variable. The reachability set consisted of itself and the other
variables it may help achieve, and the antecedent set consisted of the
variable itself and other variables that may assist in achieving it.
Variables with the same reachability and intersection sets were in-
cluded in the top-level hierarchy of the ISM. When a variable attains a
level, it is removed from the variable set, and the process is repeated for
the remaining variables. This process is not completed until all vari-
ables are assigned to a level. The distinguished levels are then utilised

6
K. Hussain, et al. Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Table 5
SSIM of barriers in the in GLSCP in the construction sector of Pakistan.
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 A A A A V V A V V V V X V O A A V A O V V O O
2 A O A V A O X A A A A V O A O V A O O A O O
3 O A V V A V O A A A V O A A V V A O O A O
4 V O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O V O O O
5 V V V V V V V V V V A O O V O V V V V
6 V A V A O A A A X A A O A O O A A V
7 A X A A V V V O A O V O O O X O O
8 V V V V V V V V A V V A O O V V
9 A A O O V O V O O A O O A O O
10 V V V V O V O V X O V V O O
11 V V V O A O V O O A A O O
12 V V V A A V A O V A V O
13 V V V O V A O A O A O
14 O A O X A O A A A A
15 A A O O O A A O V
16 A V V O V V O O
17 V V A V V O O
18 A O A A O O
19 O O A A O
20 O O O O
21 A A O
22 V V
23 O
24

to build the digraph and final ISM design. The level partition for ob-
stacles in the application of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction sector is
shown in Table 8. The process of assigning levels to the barriers was
completed in 11 stages. However, the level iterations included 11 stages
and 11 sub-tables, but because of space it was compiled in a single
table. Table 8 shows that an unstable political environment as barrier is
assigned to level one. Thus, it is placed at the top of the model. This
process is continued until all variables have been assigned to a level.
The assigned levels are further employed in constructing a model and
digraph for the ISM.
4.3.5. Construction of the ISM model
On the basis of final reachability, a structural model was con-
structed, which was finalised as a digraph. In the next step of transi-
tivity, links were removed on the basis of the transitivity rules of the
methodology, resulting in the digraph and ISM model in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively. Fig. 4 shows that the most critical barrier in the im-
plementation of GLS in Pakistan's construction sector is the unstable
political environment, which forms the foundation of the ISM model at
the bottom level of the model. The lack of government support for
GLSCP application can be attributed to the unstable political environ-
ment, and forms the next level of the hierarchy shown in the ISM
model. This unstable political environment and lack of government
support may further cause the lack of customer involvement and
awareness of GLS, which may be the reason for the lack of top lea-
dership support for GLS adoption. Lack of funds and top leadership
support for GLS adoption are on the same level in the ISM model and
influence each other. The lack of top leadership support for GLS
adoption and funds may be another cause of the lack of responsibility,
which may lead to the uncertainty of returns from adopting GLS. At the

Table 6
IRM of barriers in GLSCP.
Sr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
5 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
6 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
11 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
13 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
16 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
17 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
22 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
23 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

7
K. Hussain, et al. Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Table 7
FRM of barriers in GLSCP.
Sr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

a a a a a a
1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1a
2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1a 0 1 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 1a 0 1 0 0 1a 1a 0 1a
3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 1a 0 1 1 0 1a 1a 0 1a
4 1 1a 1a 1 1 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 0 1a 1a 0 1 1a 1a 1a
5 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1a 0 1a 1 0 1 1 1 1
6 1a 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 0 1a 0 0 0 1a 0 1
7 1a 1 1a 0 0 1a 1 0 1 0 1a 1 1 1 1a 1a 0 1 1a 0 1a 1 1a 1a
8 1 1a 1 0 1a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1a 1a 1 1
9 1a 1 1a 0 1a 1a 1 0 1 0 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 1 0 1a 1a 0 1a 1a 0 0
10 1a 1 1a 0 1a 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1a 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1a 1a
11 1a 1 1 0 0 1a 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1a 1a 0 1 1a 0 1a 1a 1a 0
12 1a 1 1 0 0 1 1a 0 1a 0 1a 1 1 1 1 1a 0 1 1a 0 1 0 1 1a
13 1 1 1 0 1a 1 1a 0 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 1 1 1 0 1 1a 0 1a 1a 0 1a
14 0 1a 0 0 0 1 1a 0 1a 0 0 0 0 1 1a 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1a
15 0 1a 0 0 0 1 1a 0 1a 0 0 0 0 1a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
16 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1a 1a 1 1 1a 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1a 1a
17 1 1a 1 0 1a 1 1a 1 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 1a 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1a 1a
18 0 0 0 0 0 1a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 1 1 1a 0 0 1 1a 0 1 1 1a 1 1 1 1a 1a 0 1 1 0 1a 1a 1a 1a
20 1a 1a 1 0 0 1a 1a 1 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 1a 1 1a 1a 1a 1a
21 1a 1a 1a 0 0 1a 1a 0 1a 0 1 1a 1 1 1 1a 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1a
22 1a 1 1a 0 0 1 1a 0 1 1a 1 1 1a 1 1 1a 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
23 1a 1a 1 0 0 1 1a 0 1a 1a 1a 1a 1 1 1a 1a 0 1a 1 0 1 0 1 1a
24 0 0 0 0 0 1a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1a 0 0 0 0 0 1

a
Values inserting after checking transitivity.

next level of the hierarchy of barriers are the lack of advanced facilities
and technology, inefficient human resources, and limited technical
experts, which can be attributed to the uncertainty of returns from
adopting GLS. These three barriers may lead to the next level of barriers
such as a lack of training and workshops; inefficient utilisation of in-
frastructure; lack of a supportive organisational culture and reward
system; lack of awareness about GLS philosophies; lack of a kaizen
environment; resistance to change; and lack of a belief in environmental
benefits. Barriers such as lack of coordination and communication
among team members and departments as well as suppliers' resistance
to change are due to the barriers mentioned above.
Inefficient time management and low-quality raw material con-
stitute the next level of barriers in the ISM model, which leads to in-
efficient and traditional material management and logistics; inadequate
mechanisms to identify activities in construction to implement lean,
green, and Six Sigma; and limited mechanisms to assess environmental
impacts. These comprise the top level of barriers in the ISM model in
this study.
4.3.6. MICMAC analysis
The MICMAC analysis articulates and examines the elements in the
system under consideration according to their driving and dependence
power. The driving force of a barrier is calculated on the basis of the
final reachability matrix by adding all values in the row of that element.
Dependence power is calculated by adding all values in the column
corresponding to that element. In this analysis, the driving force of an
element is equal to the elements it is driving, while the dependence
force of the element means that other elements influence this element.
However, MICMAC differs from the ISM methodology, as it does not
partition elements to establish a structural model. The MICMAC ana-
lysis of the driving and dependence power of elements was explored,
and the results provided in Table 9.
Fig. 5 shows the MICMAC analysis (driving and dependence power).
The categories of barriers in the implementation of GLS in Pakistan's
construction sector are delineated in Fig. 5. Considering these de-
pendencies and driving forces of the elements estimated in the MICMAC
analysis, all elements in this study were classified into four categories.
• First quadrant: Elements in this category have weak driving and
dependence power. These are called autonomous elements. In our
research, no element belonged to this category or quadrant.
• Second quadrant: The elements in this category have a weak driving
force and strong dependence force. Four barriers belong to this ca-
tegory or quadrant: ‘suppliers’ resistance to change’; ‘low-quality
raw material’; ‘inadequate mechanism to identify activities in the
construction process to implement green, lean, and Six Sigma’; and
‘lack of mechanisms to assess environmental impacts’.
• Third quadrant/category: The elements in this category are con-
sidered to have strong driving and dependence force and are re-
ferred to as linkage elements. In this study, 15 barriers were con-
sidered part of this category or quadrant. These were ‘inefficient and
traditional management of material and logistics’; ‘inefficient man-
agement of time’; ‘lack of coordination and communication among
team members and departments’; ‘lack of awareness about GLS
philosophies’; ‘lack of belief in environmental benefits’; ‘resistance
to change’; ‘lack of continuous improvement environment’; ‘lack of a
supportive organisational culture and reward system’; ‘inefficient
utilisation of infrastructure’; ‘lack of training and workshops’; ‘lack
of technical experts’; ‘lack of advanced facilities and technology’;
‘inefficient human resources’; ‘uncertainty of return from GLS
adoption’; and ‘lack of responsibility’.
• Fourth quadrant/category: Quadrant 4 comprises independent ele-
ments having weak dependence and strong driving power. Five
barriers including ‘lack of top leadership support for GLS adoption’,
‘lack of funds’, ‘lack of customer involvement and awareness of GLS’,
‘lack of government support’, and ‘an unstable political environ-
ment’ were confirmed as independent and driver elements.
After analysing the driving and dependence force of the barriers in
the application of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction sector based on the
MICMAC analysis, and delineating them into four categories of barriers
may help describe which category of barriers influences or is influenced
by other categories. According to experts' opinions regarding the
driving variables, the category affects the linkage variables while
driving, and the linkage variable categories jointly influence the de-
pendent variables, resulting in obstacles in the GLSCP application
process.
The role of these factors according to the categories of driving,

8
K. Hussain, et al. Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Table 8
Partitioning of barriers in GLSCP.
No. Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12, IV

13,14,15,16,18,19,21,22,23,24 11,12,13,16,17,19,20,21, 13,16,19,21,22,23
22,23
2 1,2,6,7,9,10,11,12,13, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21,22,23 1,2,6,7,9,10,11,12,13, IV
14,15,16,18,21,22,24 14,15,16,21,22
3 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12, 1,3,7,9,10,11,12,13, V
13,14,15,16,18,19,21,22,24 13,16,17,19,20,21,22,23 16,19,21,22
4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 4 4 IX
11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19,21,22,23,24
5 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19,21, 22,23,24 4,5,8,9,10,13,16,17 5,8,9,10,13,16 VIII
6 1,2,6,7,9,12,13,14,15,16,18,22,24 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,6,7,9,12,13,14,15,16,18,22,24 I
12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23,24
7 1,2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13,14, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,21,22,23 III
15,16,18,19,21,22,23, 24 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,
20,21,22,23
8 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19,21, 22,23,24 4,5,8,17,20 5,8 VIII
9 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,11,12,13, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,11,12,3,14,15,16,19,21,22 II
14,15,16,18,19,21,22 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,
20,21,22,23
10 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,2,3,4,5,8,10,13,16, 1,2,3,5,10,13,16,19,22,23 V
13,14,15,16,18,19,21, 17,19,20,22,23
22,23,24
11 1,2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13, 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,7,9,11,12,13,16,19,21,22,23 IV
14,15,16,18,19,21,22, 12,13,16,17,19,20,
23 21,22,23
12 1,2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13,16,19,21,23 IV
14,15,16,18,19,21,23, 12,13,16,17,19,20,21,
24 22,23
13 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,16,19,21,22 IV
13,14,15,16,18,19,21, 12,13,16,17,19,20,21,
22,24 22,23
14 2,6,7,9,14,15,18,24 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 2,6,7,9,14,15,18,24 I
12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23,24
15 2,6,7,9,14,15,24 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 2,6,7,9,14,15 III
,12,13,14,15,16,17,19, 20,21,22,23
16 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12, IV
13,14,15,16,18,19,21, 12,13,16,17,19,20,21, 13,16,19,21,22,23
22,23,24 22,23
17 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 17,20 17 X
12,13,14,15,16,17,18,
19, 21,22,23,24
18 6,14,18 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 6,14,18 I
12,13,14,16,17,18,19, 20,21,22,23,24
19 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12, 1,3,7,9,10,11,12,13,16,19,22,23 V
13,14,15,16,18,19,21, 13,16,17,19,20,22,23
22,23,24
20 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 20 20 XI
13,14,15,16,17,18,19,
20,21,22,23,24
21 1,2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13, 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11, 1,2,3,7,9,11,12,13,16, 21 IV
14,15,16,18,21,24 12,13,16,17,19,20,21,
22,23
22 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,13,16,19,22 VII
13,14,15,16,18,19,21, ,13,16,17,19,20,22
22,23,24
23 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12, 1,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,16, 1,7,10,11,12,16,19,23 VI
13,14,15,16,18,19,21,23,24 17,19,20,22,23
24 6,14,18,24 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,13, 6,14,24 II
14,15,16,17,19,20,21,22,23,24

linkage, or dependence in implementing GLSCP is depicted in Fig. 6.
5. Results and discussion
This paper proposed integrating GLS methodologies and explored
barriers in the application of GLSCP. After defining significant barriers
in GLSCP, these were investigated separately to decrease or remove
their strength. All barriers or factors impeding GLS were studied in-
dividually, and the recommendations of the experts’ group applied in
amending the barriers and making them appropriate for GLSCP.
After the analysis, the ISM model and results of the MICMAC were
discussed with the experts’ group, which agreed on the results and
accepted them as an appropriate representation of current barriers.
The results are discussed in two ways. First, in Section 5.1, a
structured discussion is provided in accordance with the levels of bar-
riers extracted from the ISM model. Second, in Section 5.2, the top five
barriers to GLSCP in Pakistan are compared to those in previous studies.
5.1. Hierarchy of barriers
The investigation revealed ‘unstable political environment (B20)’ as
the most important barrier in GLSCP application in Pakistan's

9
K. Hussain, et al.
Fig. 3. Diagraph of barriers.
construction sector. This means that the unstable political environment
is a major hurdle for the country's construction sector. The political
environment plays an important role not only in the construction sector
but also in other industries. Many authors have highlighted the im-
portant role of the political environment. According to Kundi and Shah
[97], key barriers for eBusiness in Pakistan are the unstable political
and legal environments, an inefficient framework for regulation, and
lack of technical expertise. Chan and Kumar [98] confirmed political
instability, the economy, and terrorism as important risk factors to
consider when selecting global suppliers for international construction
projects. Similarly, in their study, Jarkas and Haupt [99] noted political
instability as the most critical risk factor for construction. An unstable
political environment leads to the next barrier: ‘lack of government
support (B17)’.
‘Lack of government support (B17)’ is considered the second most
important barrier in the application of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction
sector, which is aligned with earlier studies by Shang, Sui Pheng and Jia
Hui [100]. They highlighted a lack of top management commitment
and support as a barrier in applying lean concepts in the construction
industry in the UK. Similarly, ‘lack of government support to adopt
environmental friendly policies’ was acknowledged as a significant
barrier in the implementation of green supply chain management by
Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, NoorulHaq and Geng [89], and corrobo-
rated by AlKhidir and Zailani [101], who concluded that a lack of
government support was an important barrier to going green and
10
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
achieving environmental sustainability. Likewise, Luthra, Mangla, Xu
and Diabat [102] employed an analytic hierarchy process in their study
to identify barriers in sustainable manufacturing and consumption,
confirming government support as a barrier. The absence of govern-
ment regulations, policies, and support for environmentally friendly
practices in Pakistan means that GLSCP is not being implemented in the
construction sector. Therefore, strategies, policies, and regulations must
be designed and implemented to encourage GLSCP.
‘Lack of customer involvement and awareness of GLS (B4)’ is also a
driver barrier. In Pakistan, customers' lack of awareness of and de-
mands for GLSCP means that the construction sector does not make
efforts to implement GLSCP concepts. In Ref. [89], a lack of customer
awareness and pressure was found to be a barrier to implementing
green supply chain management. This barrier results in the next level of
barriers: ‘lack of top leadership support for GLS adoption (B5) and ‘lack
of funds (B8)’. These two barriers result in a ‘lack of responsibility
(B22), leading to the next level, which consists of three barriers: ‘lack of
advanced facilities and technology (B3)’, ‘inefficient human resources
(B10)’, and ‘lack of technical experts (B19)’. These three barriers in-
fluence each other and impede the implementation of GLSCP concepts.
Furthermore, they form the next level, which comprises seven barriers:
‘lack of training and workshops (B1)’; ‘inefficient utilisation of infra-
structure (B2)’; ‘lack of a supportive organisational culture and reward
system (B11)’; ‘lack of awareness about GLS philosophies (B12)’; ‘lack
of a kaizen environment (B13)’; ‘resistance to change (B16)’; and ‘lack
of belief in environmental benefits (B21)’. These seven barriers then
lead to the two barriers on the next level: ‘lack of coordination and
communication among team members and departments (B7)’ and
‘supplier's resistance to change (B15)’. According to Ref. [103], without
the co-operation of suppliers, eco-friendly products cannot be pro-
duced. These two barriers result in the two barriers ‘inefficient man-
agement of time (B9)’ and ‘low-quality raw material (B24)’. Finally, this
study found that all barriers culminate in the last three: ‘inefficient and
traditional management of material and logistics (B6)’; ‘inadequate
mechanism to identify activities in the construction process to imple-
ment GLS (B14)’, and ‘lack of a mechanism to assess environmental
impacts (B18)’.
5.2. Comparison with other countries
In addition, the top five barriers to GLSCP in the construction sector
of Pakistan were compared with those identified in earlier studies in
different countries, as shown in Table 10. The results of the current
study are interesting, because an unstable political environment
emerged as the top barrier. However, as Table 10 indicates, it does not
feature among the top five barriers of other countries. According to The
Global Economy [104], the political stability index of Pakistan is −2.4,
where −2.5 indicates severely poor political conditions and +2.5
shows a positive political climate. Earlier studies identified the lack of a
long-term philosophy [66], its time-consuming nature [105], and ad-
ditional costs due to green requirements [67] as top-ranked barriers to
GLS. This study found that an unstable political environment further
leads to a lack of government support for GLS adoption. Lack of gov-
ernment support is reported as a critical barrier in the literature; for
example, a study in Ghana ranked lack of government support the fifth
most important barrier to sustainable construction practices. However,
while there could be different reasons for a lack of government support,
in this study, it was driven by an unstable political environment. It will
be interesting to determine the reasons for the lack of government
support to GLS adoption in different countries with different conditions.
A stable political environment is not only needed when successfully
formulating and implementing policies, but also when signing con-
struction contracts with the government.
Lack of customer involvement in and awareness of GLS was the
third main barrier to GLSCP adoption. It also does not feature in the top
five barriers highlighted in earlier studies. In the construction sector,
K. Hussain, et al.
Fig. 4. ISM model of barriers.
the importance of the government increased, because it can simulta-
neously be a regulator and customer. A lack of top leadership support
for GLS and lack of funds were ranked fourth and fifth, respectively in
this study. A study on the construction sector of Saudi Arabia stated
lack of leadership (ranked second) and convincing top management
(ranked fourth) as barriers to lean Six Sigma implementation. Earlier
studies highlighted financial barriers. For example, a study in Hong
Kong ranked additional costs due to green requirements first and a
higher final cost third. However, in this study, a lack of funding was
ranked fifth.
6. Policy recommendations and study implications
This section provides policy recommendations to overcome the
11
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
barriers to GLSCP in Section 6.1, and highlights managerial implica-
tions in Section 6.2.
6.1. Policy recommendations to address barriers to GLSCP in Pakistan's
construction sector
In this section, the policies and implications for the implementation
of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction sector are discussed.
Removal of first-level barriers: Although the unstable political en-
vironment is a macro factor and cannot be controlled by the con-
struction sector, it can be addressed by the government and public. The
election commission of Pakistan and other public awareness institutes
can create awareness to select the appropriate governing party in the
country, which could help improve the political environment.
K. Hussain, et al. Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Table 9 rewards, and strictly implementing regulations and policies to ensure

Driving and dependence power of barriers. environmentally friendly practices in the construction sector.
Barriers Driving force Levels Dependence force Levels relating to Removing the third-level barrier: The third-level barrier can be
(total entries relating to (total entries in dependence addressed by arranging programs to increase customers’ knowledge and
in row of driving column of barrier in force awareness of environmental and quality issues.
barrier in force FRM) Removing fourth-level barriers: Two barriers were found at the
FRM)
fourth level. The first, ‘lack of top leadership support for GLS adoption
1 19 VIII 20 IV (B15)’, can be addressed by organising brainstorming programs, pro-
2 16 VIII 22 IV viding advisory services, and elaborating the advantages of GLS phi-
3 18 VII 18 V losophies to top leadership in the construction sector. Top leadership
4 22 III 1 IX
support will facilitate the implementation of GLS concepts in the entire
5 21 IV 8 VIII
6 13 XI 24 I construction process. The second, ‘lack of funds (B8)’, may be removed
7 18 IX 22 III by obtaining funds from all available sources and utilising these stra-
8 21 IV 5 VIII tegically after garnering top leadership's commitment to GLS im-
9 17 X 22 II
plementation. In addition, loans could be provided at a low-interest rate
10 20 VII 14 V
11 17 VIII 19 IV
for GLS adoption. The lack of funds is a driving barrier to implementing
12 17 VIII 20 IV GLS in Pakistan's construction sector. A study conducted by Antony and
13 19 VIII 20 IV Desai [36] noted ‘top management support’ and ‘availability of funds’
14 8 XI 24 I as essential enablers for Six Sigma. Therefore, the availability of funds
15 7 IX 22 III
is crucial in the implementation of GLS concepts.
16 20 VIII 20 IV
17 22 II 2 X Removing the fifth-level barrier: ‘Lack of responsibility for en-
18 3 XI 23 I vironmental issues (B22)’ can be removed by providing consultations
19 19 VII 17 V and brainstorming sessions, and making organisations aware of their
20 22 I 1 XI essential role in minimising the impacts of the construction process on
21 15 VIII 19 IV
22 19 V 17 VII
society and the environment.
23 18 VI 14 VI Removing the sixth-level barrier: In this study, ‘uncertainty of re-
24 4 X 21 II turn from GLS adoption (B23)’ is considered a linkage barrier that can
be minimised by addressing the driving barriers. If there is government
support and customer demand for eco-friendly and quality construc-
Essentially, the political environment cannot be stabilised through or- tion, organisations will no longer be uncertain about GLS issues and will
ganisational policies; however, incorporating corporate governance and reap long-term benefits. Furthermore, the government can encourage
corporate social responsibility in the construction sector may mitigate direct foreign investment in the construction sector and facilitate re-
the effect of this significant barrier [106,107]. Possibly, an independent search in implementing environmentally friendly and quality practices
association can be established to support GLS concepts. therein.
Removing the second-level barrier: The government can overcome Removing seventh-level barriers: Three barriers comprise this level:
the second-level barrier by offering tax concessions, subsidies, and

Fig. 5. Categories of barriers through MICMAC.

12
K. Hussain, et al. Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225

Lack of strategy to promote sustainable

Lack of Government support

Lack of Public awareness
Higher final cost
Lack of Demand

construction
Ghana

Lack of support from top management

Absence of a lean culture in the
Lack of a long-term philosophy

Insufficient management skills

Multi-layer subcontracting
Fig. 6. Relationship between the categories of barriers.

‘lack of advanced facilities and technology (B3)’, ‘inefficient human

organisation
resources (B10)’, and ‘lack of technical experts (B19)’. A lack of ad-
vanced facilities and technology can be managed by involving in-

China
novative construction technology, being equipped with information,
and ICT. These innovative technologies will result in better decision-

Lack of awareness of LSS benefits to the

making and the efficient management of cross-functional teams.
Furthermore, when employees are aware of GLS concepts, the organi-
sation's plans, goals, objectives, tools, and techniques will contribute

Convincing top management

towards increasing organisational performance. The second barrier on
this level can be mitigated by hiring employees with skills and
knowledge pertaining to GLS concepts and providing training for fur-

Internal resistance
Lack of leadership

ther development. The third barrier can be addressed by hiring foreign

Time-consuming

professionals, entering joint ventures, and through international colla-

Saudi Arabia

borations.
business

Removing eighth-level barriers: Seven barriers were identified at

this level: ‘lack of training and workshops (B1)’; ‘inefficient utilisation
of infrastructure (B2)’; ‘lack of supportive organisational culture and
reward system (B11)’; ‘lack of awareness about GLS philosophies
Limited knowledge on green technology and
Limited availability and reliability of green
Additional costs due to green requirements
Possible delays due to green requirements

(B12)’; ‘lack of a kaizen environment (B13)’; ‘resistance to change

Unachievable specification requirements

(B16)’; and ‘lack of belief in environmental benefits (B21)’. Organising

training programs and workshops may contribute to the efficient use of
infrastructure. Furthermore, instilling a supportive organisational cul-
ture and reward system in the implementation of GLS thinking will also
benefit the organisation. Motivating and encouraging employees to
learn about GLS concepts will help eliminate the barrier of resistance to
change. The last barrier on this level can be addressed by benchmarking
Hong Kong

environmentally friendly practices and launching a certification system

materials
suppliers

in Pakistan's construction sector.

Removing ninth-level barriers: Two barriers were explored at this
level: ‘lack of coordination and communication among team members
Comparison of GLSCP barriers with earlier studies.

and departments (B7)’ and ‘supplier's resistance to change (B15)’. The

first barrier can be minimised by introducing sophisticated commu-
Lack of top leadership support for GLS

nication technology and teamwork training. The second can be con-

Lack of customer involvement and

trolled through brainstorming and consultation sessions commu-

Unstable Political environment

nicating the benefits of the GLS approach for all stakeholders. Suppliers
Lack of government support

are concerned about the costs incurred by adopting environmentally

friendly practices and consider it a threat to competitiveness. This can
awareness of GLS

be mitigated through R&D, business-to-business co-operation, and ef-

ficient practices, as well as through the reusability, durability, fixing,
Lack of funds

and recycling of materials used in the construction sector. This can be

Pakistan

achieved through communication and sharing information on opera-

tions with all stakeholders in every stage of the construction process.
Removing tenth-level barriers: Two barriers were identified at this
Table 10

Ranking

level: ‘Inefficient time management (B9)’ and ‘low-quality raw material

(B24)’. Time can be better managed through information sharing and
1
2

13
K. Hussain, et al.
coordination among all departments and employing sophisticated
technology and facilities. The second barrier can be managed through
suppliers' understanding, communication, and cooperation. Suppliers
need to understand GLS philosophies to manage their operations and
products according to requirements.
Removing eleventh-level barriers. There are three barriers on this
level: ‘Inefficient and traditional management of material and logistics
(B6)’; ‘inadequate mechanism to identify activities in the construction
process to implement GLS (B14)’; and ‘lack of a mechanism to assess
environmental impacts (B18)’. These can be addressed by changing
inefficient and traditional non-environmentally friendly material and
logistics management to the latest and environmentally friendly sys-
tems and by incorporating data and inventory management software.
Besides this, hiring skilled personnel for the optimum utilisation of
materials and logistics alongside sound time management will also be
helpful. Visual recording and statistical software with prompt notifi-
cations should be installed to control operations and identify activities
for the implementation of GLS methodologies. A mechanism to assess
the environmental impacts of the construction process could be devel-
oped to address environmental issues arising in the construction process
in a timely manner. Environmental impacts need to be measured and
also effectively controlled and minimised.
The GLSCP must be implemented immediately to cope with en-
vironmental issues like global warming and water shortages. Resource
allocation and utilisation should be made efficient using new tech-
nology and implementing reforms in the construction sector.
6.2. Managerial implications of the study
Considering the discussion above and analysis employing the ISM
model and MICMAC technique, we infer the following managerial im-
plications.
Initial step – Introduce GLSCP concepts into construction compa-
nies, because these concepts will contribute towards increasing quality
and green benefits. Continuously improving and strategically prior-
itising GLSCP will contribute towards achieving competitiveness and
increasing support for sustainable development.
Consistent improvement – Eliminating all waste from the process,
logistics, or activities without value for the process and customers, and
paying attention to arranging, modifying, investigating, and rectifying
efforts based on data and accurate information will contribute to con-
sistent improvement.
Consumer-related activities – Recognise the demand of customers,
as they are king for a business and can undermine the success thereof.
Customers’ needs should be carefully dealt with, ensuring their inputs
in the GLSCP, keeping them aware, and updating them about GLS
concepts.
Relationship interpretation – On the basis of the ISM model and
MICMAC analysis, we can understand the value and importance of
barriers such as driving, linking, and dependent variables and the
hierarchy of these variables. Keeping in mind these relationships and
the hierarchy of variables, the managerial policies focused on these
variables can be identified.
Central learning – By removing the barriers explored in this research
and implementing GLS philosophies in the construction process, the
construction sector will be able to adopt sustainable practices.
It is essential to incorporate GLS philosophies into the culture of
construction firms to ensure they are competitive, cost-efficient, and
achieving eco-friendly construction goals. GLS concepts should be
carefully dealt with at each level of the construction process to ensure
all stakeholders and customers understand GLS. Barriers at all levels
and the relationships identified in this study must be carefully analysed
for their significance in each stage of the construction process.
Furthermore, the construction process must be monitored in the three
stages of design, development, and the final stage.
Addressing the driving barriers may help when applying the GLS
14
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
approach in the design stage. Controlling linkage barriers may help in
the development stage of the construction process, and knowledge
about dependent barriers may aid in the final stage of the construction
process.
7. Conclusions, limitations, and future directions
Because of increasing concerns about environmental and quality
issues in the construction sector, companies are trying to adopt GLS
concepts. GLS includes the three concepts of GLS proposed to improve
the construction process, productivity, efficiency, quality, profitability,
consistency, cycle time, sustainability, and competitiveness. However,
in developing countries like Pakistan, the implementation of GLSCP is
difficult because of critical barriers including the political environment
and lack of government support. With this in mind, this research at-
tempted to identify essential barriers, explore their contextual re-
lationships, and establish a hierarchy of barriers to the implementation
of GLSCP in the context of Pakistan. Usually, practitioners pay attention
to one or more barriers considered important in the application of GLS.
However, the existence of driving and dependence power and inter-
active relationships means that one barrier may influence others when
implementing GLSCP. To address this issue, the ISM and MICMAC
techniques were employed in this study.
On the basis of a literature review and experts' opinion, 24 barriers
to the implementation of GLSCP in Pakistan's construction sector were
considered. The ‘inefficient and traditional management of material
and logistics (B6)’; an ‘inadequate mechanism to identify activities in
the construction process to implement GLS (B14)’; and ‘lack of a me-
chanism to assess environmental impacts (B18)’ are the least important
barriers in the ISM model, while an ‘unstable political environment
(B20)’ was confirmed as the base of the ISM model in the application of
GLSCP in Pakistan.
This study identified 24 barriers in the application of GLSCP in
Pakistan's construction sector; however, there is room for further ex-
ploration of these barriers. The implications of this work may not be
suitable for other industries that may have other valid issues. The in-
tegration of the ISM model and MICMAC technique does not inter-
pretively explain why one barrier influences or is influenced by other
barriers. Thus, to illustrate the interpretive logic for interactions among
barriers, total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) could be em-
ployed in further research. To practically analyse and verify the find-
ings of this work, structural equation modelling (SEM) could also be
applied in the future. The results of this study can be further in-
vestigated using methodologies such as DEMATEL, AHP, ANP, and the
fuzzy approach.
References
[1] N. Chugani, V. Kumar, J.A. Garza-Reyes, L. Rocha-Lona, A. Upadhyay,
Investigating the green impact of lean, six sigma and lean six sigma: a systematic
literature review, Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 8 (1) (2017) 7–32.
[2] J.J. Dahlgaard, S. Mi Dahlgaard-Park, Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM
and company culture, TQM Mag. 18 (3) (2006) 263–281.
[3] F. Ullah, M.J. Thaheem, S.Q. Siddiqui, M.B. Khurshid, Influence of Six Sigma on
project success in construction industry of Pakistan, TQM J. 29 (2) (2017)
276–309.
[4] L.N. Dwaikat, K.N. Ali, Green buildings life cycle cost analysis and life cycle
budget development: practical applications, J. Build. Eng. 18 (2018) 303–311.
[5] M.S. Bajjou, A. Chafi, Lean construction implementation in the Moroccan con-
struction industry: awareness, benefits and barriers, J. Eng. Des. Technol. 16 (4)
(2018) 533–556.
[6] M.A. Marhani, A. Jaapar, N.A.A. Bari, M. Zawawi, Sustainability through lean
construction approach: a literature review, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 101 (2013)
90–99.
[7] A.-A. Banawi, M. Bilec, Applying lean, green, and six-sigma framework to improve
exterior construction process in Saudi Arabia, J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. 4 (2)
(2014) 12–22.
[8] A. Pekuri, H. Haapasalo, M. Herrala, Productivity and performance manage-
ment–managerial practices in the construction industry, Int. J. Perform. Meas. 1
(1) (2011) 39–58.
[9] N.O. Erdil, C.B. Aktas, O.M. Arani, Embedding sustainability in lean six sigma
K. Hussain, et al.
efforts, J. Clean. Prod. 198 (2018) 520–529.
[10] S. Kumar, S. Luthra, K. Govindan, N. Kumar, A. Haleem, Barriers in green lean six
sigma product development process: an ISM approach, Prod. Plann. Contr. 27
(7–8) (2016) 604–620.
[11] A. Cherrafi, S. Elfezazi, A. Chiarini, A. Mokhlis, K. Benhida, The integration of lean
manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future re-
search directions for developing a specific model, J. Clean. Prod. 139 (2016)
828–846.
[12] A.M.I. Raouf, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, Building information modelling and green build-
ings: challenges and opportunities, Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 15 (1) (2019)
1–28.
[13] K.W. Green Jr., P.J. Zelbst, J. Meacham, V.S. Bhadauria, Green supply chain
management practices: impact on performance, Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 17
(3) (2012) 290–305.
[14] B.-G. Hwang, W.J. Ng, Project management knowledge and skills for green con-
struction: overcoming challenges, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2) (2013) 272–284.
[15] J. Ying Liu, S. Pheng Low, X. He, Green practices in the Chinese building industry:
drivers and impediments, J. Technol. Manag. China 7 (1) (2012) 50–63.
[16] N.Z. Abidin, Sustainable Construction Practices in Malaysia, Global Warming,
Springer, 2010, pp. 385–398.
[17] J.K.W. Wong, J.K.S. Chan, M.J. Wadu, Facilitating effective green procurement in
construction projects: an empirical study of the enablers, J. Clean. Prod. 135
(2016) 859–871.
[18] Y.H. Ahn, A.R. Pearce, Y. Wang, G. Wang, Drivers and barriers of sustainable
design and construction: the perception of green building experience, Int. J.
Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 4 (1) (2013) 35–45.
[19] F. Li, T. Yan, J. Liu, Y. Lai, S. Uthes, Y. Lu, Y. Long, Research on social and hu-
manistic needs in planning and construction of green buildings, Sustain. Cities Soc.
12 (2014) 102–109.
[20] J.K.W. Wong, J.K. San Chan, M.J. Wadu, Facilitating effective green procurement
in construction projects: an empirical study of the enablers, J. Clean. Prod. 135
(2016) 859–871.
[21] S.A. Abbasian-Hosseini, A. Nikakhtar, P. Ghoddousi, Verification of lean con-
struction benefits through simulation modeling: a case study of bricklaying pro-
cess, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 18 (5) (2014) 1248–1260.
[22] S. Connop, P. Vandergert, B. Eisenberg, M.J. Collier, C. Nash, J. Clough,
D. Newport, Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multi-
functional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure, Environ. Sci. Policy 62
(2016) 99–111.
[23] A. Tezel, L. Koskela, Z. Aziz, Lean thinking in the highways construction sector:
motivation, implementation and barriers, Prod. Plann. Contr. 29 (3) (2018)
247–269.
[24] M.F. Tchidi, Z. He, Y.B. Li, Process and quality improvement using Six Sigma in
construction industry, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 18 (2) (2012) 158–172.
[25] R.A. Stewart, C.A. Spencer, Six‐sigma as a strategy for process improvement on
construction projects: a case study, Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (4) (2006) 339–348.
[26] S. Albliwi, J. Antony, S. Abdul Halim Lim, T. van der Wiele, Critical failure factors
of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 31
(9) (2014) 1012–1030.
[27] M.P. Pepper, T.A. Spedding, The evolution of lean Six Sigma, Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag. 27 (2) (2010) 138–155.
[28] R. Al-Aomar, A lean construction framework with Six Sigma rating, Int. J. Lean Six
Sigma 3 (4) (2012) 299–314.
[29] J.A. Garza-Reyes, Lean and green–a systematic review of the state of the art lit-
erature, J. Clean. Prod. 102 (2015) 18–29.
[30] J.A. Garza-Reyes, G.W. Jacques, M.K. Lim, V. Kumar, L. Rocha-Lona, Lean and
Green–Synergies, Differences, Limitations, and the Need for Six Sigma, IFIP
International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems,
Springer, 2014, pp. 71–81.
[31] R. Dhingra, R. Kress, G. Upreti, Does lean mean green? J. Clean. Prod. 85
(2014) 1–7.
[32] K.A. London, R. Kenley, An industrial organization economic supply chain ap-
proach for the construction industry: a review, Constr. Manag. Econ. 19 (8) (2001)
777–788.
[33] J.A. Garza-Reyes, Green lean and the need for six sigma, Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 6
(3) (2015) 226–248.
[34] G. Ofori, Challenges of construction industries in developing countries: lessons
from various countries, 2nd International Conference on Construction in
Developing Countries: Challenges Facing the Construction Industry in Developing
Countries, November, Gaborone, 2000, pp. 15–17.
[35] H.M. Alinaitwe, Prioritising lean construction barriers in Uganda's construction
industry, J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. (JCDC) 14 (1) (2009).
[36] J. Antony, D.A. Desai, Assessing the status of Six Sigma implementation in the
Indian industry: results from an exploratory empirical study, Manag. Res. News 32
(5) (2009) 413–423.
[37] T. Tan, K. Chen, F. Xue, W. Lu, Barriers to Building Information Modeling (BIM)
implementation in China’s prefabricated construction: an interpretive structural
modeling (ISM) approach, J. Clean. Prod. 219 (2019) 949–959.
[38] S. Bhattacharya, K. Momaya, Interpretive structural modeling of growth enablers
in construction companies, Singapore Manag. Rev. 31 (1) (2009) 73–97.
[39] V. Ahuja, J. Yang, R. Shankar, Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption for building
project management, Constr. Innovat. 9 (3) (2009) 323–340.
[40] A.P. Sage, Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-Scale Systems,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1977, pp. 91–164.
[41] J. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, P. Walker, Building houses with local materials:
means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction, Build.
15
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
Environ. 36 (10) (2001) 1119–1126.
[42] S. Bernath Walker, T. Boutilier, K.W. Hipel, Systems management study of a pri-
vate brownfield renovation, J. Urban Plan. Dev. 136 (3) (2010) 249–260.
[43] G.K.C. Ding, Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment
tools, J. Environ. Manag. 86 (3) (2008) 451–464.
[44] J. Li Hao, V.W.Y. Tam, H. Yao, A checklist for assessing sustainability performance
of construction projects AU - Shen, Li‐Yin, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (4) (2007)
273–281.
[45] J. Zuo, Z.-Y. Zhao, Green building research–current status and future agenda: a
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 271–281.
[46] N. Kohler, The relevance of Green Building Challenge: an observer's perspective,
Build. Res. Inf. 27 (4–5) (1999) 309–320.
[47] W. Wang, H. Rivard, R. Zmeureanu, Floor shape optimization for green building
design, Adv. Eng. Inf. 20 (4) (2006) 363–378.
[48] M. Pitt, M. Tucker, M. Riley, J. Longden, Towards sustainable construction: pro-
motion and best practices, Constr. Innovat. 9 (2) (2009) 201–224.
[49] A. Varnäs, B. Balfors, C. Faith-Ell, Environmental consideration in procurement of
construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities in green
procurement in the Swedish construction industry, J. Clean. Prod. 17 (13) (2009)
1214–1222.
[50] O. Babalola, E.O. Ibem, I.C. Ezema, Implementation of Lean Practices in the
Construction Industry: A Systematic Review, Build. Environ. 148 (2019) 34–43.
[51] R.F. Aziz, S.M. Hafez, Applying lean thinking in construction and performance
improvement, Alexandria Eng. J. 52 (4) (2013) 679–695.
[52] L. Koskela, Lean production in construction, Lean Constr. (1997) 1–9.
[53] M. Höök, L. Stehn, Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized
housing production, Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (10) (2008) 1091–1100.
[54] L. Stehn, M. Höök, Lean principles in industrialized housing production: the need
for a cultural change, Lean Constr. J. (2008) 20–33.
[55] Y.H. Kwak, F.T. Anbari, Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach,
Technovation 26 (5–6) (2006) 708–715.
[56] H.J. Harrington, F. Voehl, H. Wiggin, Applying TQM to the construction industry,
TQM J. 24 (4) (2012) 352–362.
[57] J. Ferng, A.D. Price, An exploration of the synergies between Six Sigma, total
quality management, lean construction and sustainable construction, Int. J. Six
Sigma Compet. Advant. 1 (2) (2005) 167–187.
[58] X. Zhao, B.-G. Hwang, Y. Gao, A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk as-
sessment: a case of Singapore's green projects, J. Clean. Prod. 115 (2016) 203–213.
[59] J. Arleroth, H. Kristensson, Waste in Lean Construction–A Case Study of a PEAB
Construction Site and the Development of a Lean Construction Tool, (2011).
[60] L.S. Pheng, M.S. Hui, Implementing and applying six sigma in construction, J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 130 (4) (2004) 482–489.
[61] C.-S. Poon, A.T. Yu, L. Jaillon, Reducing building waste at construction sites in
Hong Kong, Constr. Manag. Econ. 22 (5) (2004) 461–470.
[62] L. Jaillon, C.-S. Poon, Y. Chiang, Quantifying the waste reduction potential of
using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong, Waste Manag. 29 (1)
(2009) 309–320.
[63] L. Shen, V.W. Tam, Implementation of environmental management in the Hong
Kong construction industry, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20 (7) (2002) 535–543.
[64] C. Tam, V.W. Tam, W. Tsui, Green construction assessment for environmental
management in the construction industry of Hong Kong, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (7)
(2004) 563–571.
[65] Finance Division Government of Pakistan, Pakistan Economic Survey, (2018)
http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_18/Economic_Survey_2017_18.pdf
Accessed November 13th 2018.
[66] G. Shang, L. Sui Pheng, Barriers to lean implementation in the construction in-
dustry in China, J. Technol. Manag. China 9 (2) (2014) 155–173.
[67] P.T. Lam, E.H. Chan, C. Chau, C. Poon, K. Chun, Integrating green specifications in
construction and overcoming barriers in their use, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.
135 (4) (2009) 142–152.
[68] J.R. Jadhav, S.S. Mantha, S.B. Rane, Exploring barriers in lean implementation,
Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 5 (2) (2014) 122–148.
[69] C. Groening, J. Sarkis, Q.J.J.o.C.P. Zhu, Green marketing consumer-level theory
review: A compendium of applied theories and further research directions, 172
(2018) 1848–1866.
[70] M. Gamal Aboelmaged, Reconstructing Six Sigma barriers in manufacturing and
service organizations, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 28 (5) (2011) 519–541.
[71] M.R. Esa, M.A. Marhani, R. Yaman, A. Arzlee, H. Noor Hanisah, N. Rashid,
H. Adnan, Obstacles in Implementing Green Building Projects in Malaysia, (2011).
[72] S.D. Djokoto, J. Dadzie, E. Ohemeng-Ababio, Barriers to sustainable construction
in the ghanaian construction industry: consultants perspectives, J. Sustain. Dev. 7
(1) (2014) 134.
[73] X. Zhang, A. Platten, L. Shen, Green property development practice in China: costs
and barriers, Build. Environ. 46 (11) (2011) 2153–2160.
[74] A. Chakrabarty, T. Kay Chuan, An exploratory qualitative and quantitative ana-
lysis of Six Sigma in service organizations in Singapore, Manag. Res. News 32 (7)
(2009) 614–632.
[75] S. Balasubramanian, A hierarchical framework of barriers to green supply chain
management in the construction sector, J. Sustain. Dev. 5 (10) (2012).
[76] R. Čiarnienė, M. Vienažindienė, Lean manufacturing implementation: the main
chalenges and barriers, Manag. Theory Stud. Rural Bus. Infrastruct. Dev. 35 (1)
(2013) 43–49.
[77] S.A. Albliwi, J. Antony, N. Arshed, A. Ghadge, Implementation of lean six sigma in
Saudi Arabian organisations, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 34 (4) (2017) 508–529.
[78] J. Antony, M. Kumar, C.N. Madu, Six sigma in small-and medium-sized UK
manufacturing enterprises: some empirical observations, Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
K. Hussain, et al.
Manag. 22 (8) (2005) 860–874.
[79] V.K. Mittal, R. Sindhwani, P. Kapur, Two-way assessment of barriers to lean–green
manufacturing system: insights from India, Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 7 (4)
(2016) 400–407.
[80] N. Fadly Habidin, S.r. Mohd Yusof, Critical success factors of Lean Six Sigma for
the Malaysian automotive industry, Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 4 (1) (2013) 60–82.
[81] S. Sarhan, A. Fox, Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction in the UK
Construction Industry, The Built & Human Environment Review, 2013.
[82] R.S. McLean, J. Antony, J.J. Dahlgaard, Failure of continuous improvement in-
itiatives in manufacturing environments: a systematic review of the evidence,
Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 28 (3–4) (2017) 219–237.
[83] L.B. de Souza, M. Pidd, Exploring the barriers to lean health care implementation,
Publ. Money Manag. 31 (1) (2011) 59–66.
[84] H.-T. Nguyen, M. Skitmore, M. Gray, X. Zhang, A.O. Olanipekun, Will green
building development take off? An exploratory study of barriers to green building
in Vietnam, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127 (2017) 8–20.
[85] M. Kurdve, M. Zackrisson, M. Wiktorsson, U. Harlin, Lean and green integration
into production system models–experiences from Swedish industry, J. Clean. Prod.
85 (2014) 180–190.
[86] S.W. Carleysmith, A.M. Dufton, K.D. Altria, Implementing Lean Sigma in phar-
maceutical research and development: a review by practitioners, R D Manag. 39
(1) (2009) 95–106.
[87] A. Cherrafi, S. Elfezazi, J.A. Garza-Reyes, K. Benhida, A. Mokhlis, Barriers in Green
Lean implementation: a combined systematic literature review and interpretive
structural modelling approach, Prod. Plann. Contr. 28 (10) (2017) 829–842.
[88] S. Kumar, N. Kumar, A. Haleem, Conceptualisation of sustainable green lean six
sigma: an empirical analysis, Int. J. Bus. Excell. 8 (2) (2015) 210–250.
[89] K. Mathiyazhagan, K. Govindan, A. NoorulHaq, Y. Geng, An ISM approach for the
barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management, J. Clean. Prod.
47 (2013) 283–297.
[90] M.A.N.M. Asri, N.M. Nawi, Actualizing lean construction: barriers toward the
implementation, Adv. Environ. Biol. (2015) 172–175.
[91] T. Häkkinen, K. Belloni, Barriers and drivers for sustainable building, Build. Res.
Inf. 39 (3) (2011) 239–255.
[92] L. Bamber, B. Dale, Lean production: a study of application in a traditional
manufacturing environment, Prod. Plann. Contr. 11 (3) (2000) 291–298.
[93] G.J. Hahn, W.J. Hill, R.W. Hoerl, S.A. Zinkgraf, The impact of Six Sigma
16
Building and Environment 161 (2019) 106225
improvement—a glimpse into the future of statistics, Am. Statistician 53 (3)
(1999) 208–215.
[94] S. Studer, R. Welford, P. Hills, Engaging Hong Kong businesses in environmental
change: drivers and barriers, Bus. Strateg. Environ. 15 (6) (2006) 416–431.
[95] A. Hashemi, H. Cruickshank, A. Cheshmehzangi, Environmental impacts and
embodied energy of construction methods and materials in low-income tropical
housing, Sustainability 7 (6) (2015) 7866–7883.
[96] G. Kannan, S. Pokharel, P.S. Kumar, A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy
TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54
(1) (2009) 28–36.
[97] G.M. Kundi, B. Shah, IT in Pakistan: threats & opportunities for eBusiness,
Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 36 (1) (2009) 1–31.
[98] F.T. Chan, N. Kumar, Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega 35 (4) (2007) 417–431.
[99] A.M. Jarkas, T.C. Haupt, Major construction risk factors considered by general
contractors in Qatar, J. Eng. Des. Technol. 13 (1) (2015) 165–194.
[100] G. Shang, L. Sui Pheng, W.J.I.J.o.C.M. Jia Hui, Drivers and Barriers for
Multiskilling Workers in the Singapore Construction Industry, (2018), pp. 1–16.
[101] T. AlKhidir, S. Zailani, Going green in supply chain towards environmental sus-
tainability, Glob. J. Environ. Res. 3 (3) (2009) 246–251.
[102] S. Luthra, S.K. Mangla, L. Xu, A. Diabat, Using AHP to evaluate barriers in
adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain,
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181 (2016) 342–349.
[103] S. Luthra, V. Kumar, S. Kumar, A. Haleem, Barriers to implement green supply
chain management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling
technique: an Indian perspective, J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 4 (2) (2011) 231–257.
[104] The Global Economy, Pakistan: Political Stability, (2017) https://www.
theglobaleconomy.com/Pakistan/wb_political_stability/ Accessed 3rd, November
2018.
[105] S.A. Albliwi, J. Antony, N. Arshed, A. Ghadge, Implementation of lean six sigma in
Saudi Arabian organisations: findings from a survey, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.
34 (4) (2017) 508–529.
[106] K. Heenetigala, A.F. Armstrong, The impact of corporate governance on firm
performance in an unstable economic and political environment: evidence from
Sri Lanka, Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference, 2011, 2012.
[107] L. Burke, J.M. Logsdon, How corporate social responsibility pays off, Long. Range
Plan. 29 (4) (1996) 495–502.