DEGREE PROJECT IN

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT
REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
MASTER OF SCIENCE
30 CREDITS, SECOND LEVEL
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN, 2021

Investigating
Construction 4.0
integration in the Greek
AEC Industry:
Perceptions and societal
analysis of the AEC industry
ILIAS LOKOVITIS

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
i
Master of Science Thesis
Title Investigating Construction 4.0 integration in the
Greek AEC Industry: Perceptions and societal
analysis of the AEC industry
Author Ilias Lokovitis
Department School of Architecture and Built Environment
Master Thesis number TRITA-ABE-MBT-21362
Supervisor Tina Karrbom Gustavsson
Keywords Forth Industrial Revolution, Construction 4.0,
Construction Management, Social Construction of
Technology, Integration, Implementation

Abstract
The Architecture, Engineering & Construction industry (AEC) is considered one of the largest
sectors worldwide and complexed due to the complexity and uniqueness of construction projects.
In contradiction to other industries, AEC illustrates high fragmentation, resistance to change, and
significantly lower adoption rate of new technology solutions than other industries. The highly
disruptive nature of the upcoming technological revolution of the Fourth Industrial Revolution
(4IR) in the AEC sector and the need for effective implementation of technological innovations is
reified in the concept of Construction 4.0. The technological wave that is expected to arise with
the 4IR may subsequently entail both opportunities and threats in technological, organizational,
individual, societal and sustainability perspectives.

This thesis focuses on two major steps. The first step is the assessment of the AEC industry towards
the successful implementation of 4IR in the industry. The second step is dedicated to a horizontal
and vertical integration of Construction 4.0 contemplating the social perspective of technology.
Qualitative research methods such as literature review and interviews using the PESTELE
framework have been applied to gather data that will be analyzed with TOE and Social
Construction of Technology Theory (SCOT). This study has realized the necessity to develop a
comprehensive approach of the AEC industry based on the societal structure and identified the
need for horizontal and vertical assessment of the involved social and professional groups.

ii
Acknowledgement

Dedicated to those who spend years on research only to be called ‘’et al’’.

Ilias Lokovitis

Thessaloniki, Greece, June 2021

iii
Examensarbete
Titel Undersöker integration av Construction 4.0 i den
Grekiska AEC industrin: Uppfattningar och
samhällsanalys av AEC industrin
Författare Ilias Lokovitis
Institution Skolan för arkitektur och byggd miljö
Examensarbete Master nivå TRITA-ABE-MBT-21362
Handledare Tina Karrbom Gustavsson
Nyckelord Fjärde Industriella Revolutionen, Konstruktion 4.0,
Byggledning, Social Konstruktion av Teknik,
Integration, Genomförande

Sammanfattning
Arkitektur, teknik, och byggindustrin (AEC) anses vara en av de största sektorerna världen över
och komplexa på grund av byggprojektens komplexitet och unikhet. I motsats till andra industrier
illustrerar AEC hög fragmentering, motståndskraft mot förändringar och betydligt lägre antagande
av nya teknologilösningar än andra industrier. Den mycket störande karaktären hos den kommande
tekniska revolutionen i den fjärde industriella revolutionen (4IR) i AEC sektorn och behovet av ett
effektivt genomförande av tekniska innovationer förnyas i begreppet Construction 4.0. Den
tekniska vågen som förväntas uppstå med 4IR kan därefter innebära både möjligheter och hot i
tekniska, organisatoriska, individuella, samhälleliga och hållbarhetsperspektiv.
Denna avhandling fokuserar på två huvudsteg. Det första steget är bedömningen av AEC-industrin
mot ett framgångsrikt genomförande av 4IR i branschen. Det andra steget är tillägnad en
horisontell och vertikal integration av Construction 4.0 som överväger teknikens sociala
perspektiv. Kvalitativa forskningsmetoder som litteraturgranskning och intervjuer med PESTELE
ramverket har tillämpats för att samla in data som kommer att analyseras med TOE och Social
Construction of Technology Theory (SCOT). Denna studie har insett behovet av att utveckla ett
omfattande tillvägagångssätt för AEC-industrin baserat på samhällsstrukturen och identifierat
behovet av horisontell och vertikal bedömning av de involverade sociala och yrkesgrupperna.

iv
Förord

Tillägnad dem som spenderar år på forskning bara för att kallas '' et al ''.

Ilias Lokovitis

Thessaloniki, Grekland, Juni 2021

v
vi
Table of Content

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem formulation ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Aim and objectives ........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 3
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 4th Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 ....................................................................... 4
2.2 4th Construction ................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Technological Frames ...................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Digitalization and Visualization ......................................................................................... 5
2.3.2 Physical Domain/Automation, Robotics & 3D printing .................................................... 6
2.3.3 Simulation & Modeling...................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Societal perspective .......................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Sustainability Perspective ................................................................................................ 9
2.6 Hindering Nature of AEC industry .............................................................................. 10
2.6.1 Implementing new technologies in AEC industry ........................................................... 10
2.6.2 Disruption in the AEC industry ........................................................................................ 11
2.7 Holistic approach, and integration. .............................................................................. 12
3. Theory ................................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 TOE: Technology, Organization, and Environment framework............................... 14
3.1.1 Technological aspect ........................................................................................................ 14
3.1.2 Organizational aspect ....................................................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Environmental aspect ....................................................................................................... 15
3.2 SCOT: Social Construction of Technology .................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Relevant social groups ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Interpretative flexibility.................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Closure ............................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.4 Stabilization...................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.5 Technological Frame ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2.6 Micro political power strategies ....................................................................................... 17
3.2.7 Semiotic power................................................................................................................. 17

vii
 3.2.8 Semiotic Structures .......................................................................................................... 17
4. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Research approach and strategy ................................................................................... 18
4.2 Collection of Data ........................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 Literature study ................................................................................................................ 19
4.2.2 Empirical data collected by interviews. ........................................................................... 20
4.2.3 Considerations on the investigated national market ......................................................... 21
4.2.4 Case selection for interviews............................................................................................ 22
4.2.5 Quality and reliability assurances of the abductive theory study ..................................... 23
4.2.6 Ethical considerations ...................................................................................................... 24
4.2.7 Interview structure: PESTELE ......................................................................................... 24
4.3 Analysis methodology .................................................................................................... 25
5. Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 27
6. Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 36
6.1 Technology Organization Environmental Theory (TOE) .......................................... 36
6.1.1 Technology ....................................................................................................................... 36
6.1.2 Organization ..................................................................................................................... 37
6.1.3 Environment ..................................................................................................................... 38
6.2 Social Construction Of Technology (SCOT)................................................................ 39
6.2.1 Relevant Social Group ..................................................................................................... 39
6.2.2 Interpretive flexibility ...................................................................................................... 39
6.2.3 Closure ............................................................................................................................. 40
6.2.4 Stabilization...................................................................................................................... 40
6.2.5 Technological Frame ........................................................................................................ 41
6.2.6 Micro political power strategies ....................................................................................... 42
6.2.7 Semiotic power................................................................................................................. 42
6.2.8 Semiotic structures ........................................................................................................... 43
6.3 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 44
6.4 Recommendations for further research ....................................................................... 45
7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 46
8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 48
9. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 57

viii
List of Abbreviations
AEC- Architecture, Engineering, and Construction

AECO- Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations

AI- Artificial Intelligence

AR/VR- Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality

BIM- Building Information Modelling

CE- Circular Economy

CDE- Common Data Environment

CPM- Construction Project Management

ICT- Information and Communication Technologies

IoT- Internet of Things

IPD- Integrated Project Delivery

LC- Lean Construction

OSC- Off-Site Construction

PESTELE- Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal, and Ethical

RSGs- Relevant Social Groups

SCOT- Social Construction of Technology

SDGs- Sustainable Development Goals

SMEs- Small Medium Enterprises

TOE- Technology, Organization, and Environment framework

4IR- Forth Industrial Revolution

ix
 1. Introduction

1.1 Background
The construction industry, also known as architecture, engineering, and construction industry
(AEC), is considered as a complex environment combining various actors participating in the
construction project development process. Conflicting interest and roles within projects,
inefficiency and discrepancy hinder the cooperation between the involved parties in a project. As
Fernie et al (2006) insightfully state, the AEC industry is constantly urged for its malfunctioning
and underperformance. Reports have criticized the AEC industry for cost violations, late delivery,
unsafe working practices, and slow uptake to innovate (Wolstenholme, 2009), attributing this
criticism to the fragmented project delivery of the industry. Building information modelling (BIM)
was considered as the solution tο address the perceived past performance failings, which has been
focused on establishing informational streams to connect the industry participants and increase the
productivity of their cooperation. Nonetheless, the digital transition and dematerialization of
building from the lowest to the highest level of BIM integration has divided the industry and
shaped conflicting opinions about its performance and necessity (Dainty et al, 2017).
The technological transition is expected to continue with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR),
which delves in new technologies and techniques that will reform the products, processes, and
supply chains of the manufacturing industry. The 4IR as an amalgamation of advances in artificial
intelligence (AI), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, generative engineering, and
computing design. has already transformed the industry through the embedment of information
and digitization in the decision-making process (Perrier et al, 2020). In recent years, the use of 4IR
technologies in the construction industry has increased, mostly due to the immense potential of
digitalization for improving the performance of construction projects and structuring their
underlying management processes. According to Schönbeck et al (2020), the application of 4IR in
the construction industry is mostly closely aligned with the construction phase, and the most resent
topics seem to be related to the management processes of quality, risk, and health and safety, while
the value of digital processes, automized construction is still essentially unexplored (Oesterreich
et al, 2016).

1.2 Problem formulation

The application of 4IR in the construction industry entails not only new technologies but also
aspects such as organizations, management, and processes (Oesterreich et al, 2016). The role that
unifies these different perspectives in the industry is the role of a construction project manager
(CPM). In a microscopic level a CPM is responsible to oversee all aspects of the building process,
working closely with engineers and architects to develop plans, establish timetables, and determine
labor and material costs. In a macroscopic view, construction project managers may fill several
different roles within each specific project, where their responsibilities are key to success in a

1
construction project. The interdisciplinary approach of construction project management guides a
project to success, combining the proper value streams within a project which requires advanced
technical and organizational skills. The latest arrival of the 4IR applications have provided new
opportunities and priorities in the delivery methods of a project, which are assessed and valuated
by CPMs to create the maximum possible value.

The interdisciplinary approach of CPM will be facilitated by technological developments starting

with the analysis of large amounts of data, which should be transferred to measurable acceptance
criteria before engineers and designers start design (Toor et al, 2010). AI technologies that process
and learn from a large amount of data may optimize the design solutions which can provide data
and evident driven solutions, independent on implicit knowledge (Hamledari et al, 2018).
Information, communication, and automatization technologies combined may have synergy
effects in construction projects, and managers should encounter technologies to assure the
successful integration of different technologies (Schönbeck et al, 2020). These effects enables the
creation of detailed and accurate building information, which is a prerequisite to implement robot
techniques (Bock, 2015), which proves the integration of end to end processes in the life cycle of
a project. Subsequently, digital processes and automated construction require the realization
methods before production starts. Therefore, the integration of technologies should be considered
from several perspectives, such as horizontal between organizations, vertical within organizations
and lastly end-to-end to interrelate methods and technologies through the entire process (Liao et
al, 2017).
This interdisciplinary approach is supplemented by societal aspects and sustainability purposes to
be assessed and understand their motivational aspect in the industry. Inevitably, the arrival of 4IR
will add new challenges in implementing new philosophies and project delivery methods, requiring
extensive changes in business models and new skills (Schneider, 2018). The fragmentation and
the sequential processes within construction projects require both horizontal and vertical
integration with transparency and integration (Liu et al, 2017), while the end-to-end integration
requires interorganizational cooperation with technologies to be combined (Munoz et al, 2020).
The societal perspective of each organization and cluster in the industry influences the
implementation of 4IR, since different traditions, mentalities, and ethics will inevitably merge to
serve the end to end informational transition. The research regarding Construction 4.0 is mainly
on a conceptual level and focus on new applications of existing technologies, where the realization
of management and organizations are still unexplored (Maskuriy et al, 2019).
According to research, the implementation of technological innovations of 4IR is received
reluctantly in the AEC compared to other industries. While manufacturing and other sectors have
already transformed their productivity performance resulting evolutionary leaps in production
process, AEC has progressed at a glacial pace (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017), hesitating to
change (Charef et al, 2019) and adopt 4IR in construction, namely Construction 4.0. The dawn of
Construction 4.0 reveals several challenges that come along with interdisciplinary and innovative
additions. One of the main challenges is to achieve the integration of digitalization and automation

2
in the project delivery processes and leverage the technological advances to secure a competitive
position within the industry (Ahmad, 2019). Disappointingly, the key actors of the industry
worldwide, are uninformed and still unsure how this technological transition can be materialized,
while the academic research is focused on the positive impact of the technology itself.

1.3 Aim and objectives

While contemplating these facts focusing on the Greek AEC industry as the main topic of interest
of this thesis, the followed research questions have emerged.
Q1: ‘’How the AEC participants perceive the upcoming technological wave?’’
Q2: ‘’How could the industry implement Construction 4.0?’’
Q3: ‘’How ready is the Greek AEC industry for Construction 4.0?’’
The aim of this study is to investigate the reaction of the AEC professionals and relevant social
groups within the industry towards the newest 4IR developments from a CPM perspective and
formulate recommendations to construction project managers regarding the needed strategies to
support a faster and more efficient transition. Supplementary, this research aims to assess the
reflections of the industry regarding Construction 4.0, encourage stakeholders to engage in
conversation, and provide a broader perspective on 4IR and its effects on the AEC industry.

1.4 Delimitations
This study is delimited to the Greek AEC industry, focused on interviewing professionals from the
national industry , analyze, conclude, and recommend on the implementation of Construction 4.0
to the Greek AEC industry. This delimitation was advocated by the restrictions of the latest
pandemic outbreak, the cultural and project delivery methods gap between the Swedish and Greek
national AEC industry, and the need to eliminate informational non-compliance and data
asymmetries.

3
 2. Literature Review

This literature review attempts a diagnosis of the AEC industry by reviewing its characteristics
and complexities, describes the environment of implementation and the pre-existing research that
prove the research gap to be investigated. It consists of (1) the description of 4IR and (2)
Construction 4.0 concepts, (3) the technological frames of Construction 4.0, (4) the societal and
(5) sustainability perspectives, (6) the complexities of the AEC industry, and lastly (7) the need for
holistic approach to facilitate the integration of Construction 4.0.

2.1 4th Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0

Nowadays, standing in front of the rice of a new industrial revolution known as Industry 4.0 (4IR),
is built upon the notion where technology and people are connected. This technological outbreak
demonstrates its abilities by connecting the physical, digital, and biological entities (Park, 2018).
The term of 4IR it could be considered consequently to the previous technological outbreaks but
refers to the entire transformation of manufacturing via digitization, and automation (Afrianto,
2018), which mainly focuses on the use of computer and cyber-physical systems (Boyes et al,
2018). The expression, Industry 4.0, refers to cyber-physical systems (CPS) in which connected
systems of software, smart networks, automated machines, sensors, workpieces, communication
technologies, Internet of Things (IoT), augmented reality, and virtual reality (AR/VR) that interact
and communicate with one another, interacting with humans in real-time (Afrianto, 2018; Chaka,
2020; Drath and Horch, 2014; Hariharasudan and Kot, 2018; Imran et al, 2018; Pereira and
Romero, 2017; Sackey et al, 2017; Schwab, 2016). Despite the previous description, Industry 4.0
concept remains complex and unclear, with no specific interpretation on its instance and context
(Cotet et al, 2017; Pereira and Romero, 2017; Slusarczyk, 2018).

2.2 4th Construction

Construction 4.0 is the equivalent expression of the new technological stream in the Architecture,
Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry (Craveiro et al, 2019) This concept
was inspired by the awareness of construction firms on digitization of the construction industry,
embracing four key concepts: automation, connectivity, digital data, and digital access.
Interestingly Sawhney et al (2020) describe Construction 4.0 as a “transformative framework”
including digital technologies, industrial construction, and cyber-physical systems. Some
examples of digital technologies are Building Information Modelling (BIM), Common Data
Environment (CDE), unmanned aerial systems, cloud-based project management, Augmented
Reality/Virtual Reality (AR/VR), artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, Blockchain, big data
and analytics related to Data Science. Within the category of cyber-physical systems are robotics
and automation, sensors, Internet of Things (IoT), equipment and workers with wearable sensors,
additive manufacturing, offsite & onsite construction (Chaka, 2020).

4
Digitization and automation are explored already by the manufacturing industry within the concept
of Industry 4.0 to improve internal processes (Lasi et al, 2014), but the effect of digitalization,
automation, and industrialization in construction is still unexplored (Oesterreich, 2014). The
concept of Construction 4.0 suggests a comprehensive transformation of construction firms
through the harvest in real time data and use of them with existing technologies for instant
decision-making (Dallasega et al, 2018). In the context of organizations within AEC, new
technologies might offer new opportunities to increase their competitiveness, quality, on schedule
completion, and new offered services (Oesterreich, 2014; Sbiti et al, 2021). Digitalization enables
increased control over design, and data driven design simulate building lifecycles and increase
usability (Pärn et al, 2017). In other words, the implementation of Construction 4.0 in the industry
can improve efficiency and accuracy during design and construction through automation (Viana
et al, 2017), but the industry does not correspond entirely to Construction 4.0 through new or
existing technologies.

2.3 Technological Frames

The three main frames of the 4IR applications to be applied in the AEC will be presented to
understand their role and necessity in the industry. According to research, Construction 4.0 can be
classified in technological terms attending to the following three frames (Bock, 2015; Parvan et
al, 2015; Kim et al, 2015):
• Digitalization and Visualization,
• Physical Domain/Automation,
• Simulation and Modelling.

2.3.1 Digitalization and Visualization

The incremental development of structural architecture and MEP designs in construction projects
causes inefficiency and complicates the information flow. Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) enable the digital process of big data and share it throughout construction
phases in real time in reliable and coherent way (Monticolo et al, 2015). The digital process in the
AEC industry is mostly associated with Building Information Modelling (BIM), but Construction
4.0 includes digital technologies that improve processes in construction projects like Artificial
Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, Blockchain and augmented reality (AR/VR)
(Chaca, 2020).
Construction projects have issues with the insufficient definition of functional requirements in an
initial stage of a project (Kim et al, 2015). The use of data from design to operation can facilitate
decisions on design, where the data driven representation using AR/VR enables stakeholders to
test various design scenarios (Santos et al, 2017). Additionally, visualization techniques transfer
data to end-users and professionals in construction process during handover phase, enabling the
verification of the product configuration with proactive measures to prevent deviations. (Pärn et
al, 2017)

5
On construction sites, IoT enables continuous transmitting, monitoring and control of building
performance during construction and operation (Ding et al, 2017). Data from IoT sensors can
contribute to an optimization of building design and proactive activities in operational use
(Oesterreich et al, 2016). The remote supervision of construction sites is applicable with 5G
technology because the implementation of 5G networks offers fast and reliable connections,
increased responsiveness, enabling the use of digital devises remotely in construction sites. 5G is
currently under implementation, which can improve the management and sustainability during a
building lifecycle (Craveiro et al, 2019). In conclusion, it is evident that the establishment of new
informational streams allows the dematerialization of buildings and the fast and accurate
intervention on the implementation of a project. To achieve the pillar of “connectedness”, existing
and new digital technologies are required in combination in a connected holistic architecture. As
a result, the Construction 4.0 technologies will not work in isolation but will operate together in a
complex cyber–physical system.

2.3.2 Physical Domain/Automation, Robotics & 3D printing

This complex cyber–physical system continues with introducing robotics in construction is often
driven by goals such as improvements in productivity, safety, and product quality (Chu et al, 2013;
Dritsas and Soh, 2018). Until today, the traditional production methods in construction are
determined by implicit knowledge of individuals in construction projects (Sun et al, 2006). This
mentality in constructions is already outdated because of the automated processes, prefabricated
products, and customized production methods (Asún et al, 2015). The production shift in
automated construction includes different techniques, such as prefabrication of building parts and
off/site construction providing ready-made modules and robot techniques such as 3D printing.
These processes are associated with the described technologies, where the products should be
developed, defined, and associated with realization technologies before production starts (Boton,
2018), adding pressure on the early design and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) procurement.
Off-Site construction & Pre-fabrication
Starting with the off-site construction (OSC), is known as a construction method of high efficiency
that saves time, reduces time and waste of resources, and overall improve productivity. Coupled
with technologies associated with the Industry 4.0, such as robotics, and modeling processes of
parametric design, OSC can offer increased productivity and safety. A big part in the OSC is
dedicated to prefabrication, where construction industry is already using prefabricated building
parts and modules, which enables the faster development and testing before construction. (Turner
et al, 2021). It has been proved that prefabricated parts and modules produced off site can
potentially increase efficiency (Viana et al, 2017), and the adaptation of robotics on & off site
could optimize constructions (Craveiro et al, 2019). Additionally, the use of robots facilitates
automation and interconnection to a more industrialized construction process (Bock, 2015) while
the cooperation of robotics with ICT applications enables the use of robotics in situs. In other
words, the use of 5G networks allows connection between different robot systems to form a
production chain (Bock, 2015) accelerating the construction process, and replacing labor work

6
(Bruckmann et al, 2016). Lastly, the combo of automated production methods can customize the
comprehension of a building and reduce the risk for product deviation.
3D printing
Additive manufacturing using robotics will allow the efficient fabrication and construction in large
scale. The combination of subtractive and additive fabrication processes will merge speed and big
aspects (Schönbeck et al, 2020). 3D printing has the most capable method since it enables the fast,
efficient, automated, and bespoke production in large scale. This production shift allows the use
of parametric tools and generative design, which are the most promising ideas to revolutionize
design and minimize waste. In construction industry the designer’s mental paradigm in design is
still very much biased by the technorational modalities of standardized mass industrial production.
Regardless the existence of some architecture examples by major architecture studios there is still
an implicit paternalism in design in linear profiles, planar stock surfaces, laminate composition of
functional characteristics, mechanical tectonics, top–down hierarchical assemblies and generous
construction tolerances.
One of the most prominent examples of incorporating the described technological frames with 3D
printing and robotics on site is the experimental project of DFAB HOUSE by ETH University
(Zeiba, 2019). This experiment is cutting-edge research and experimentation in architecture,
engineering, and construction, which has successfully managed to incorporate the latest
developments in technology into the construction environment. It was designed as a showcase
to robotics, 3D printing, computational modeling, and parametric design, leading with
interconnected issues of ecology, economy, and architecture value. One of the central innovations
is using robots that build onsite, rather than create prefabricated modules offsite. This In-Situ
Fabricator (IF) technology minimizes waste and maximize safety during the construction process,
since many of the concrete forms are built with what the researchers are calling Smart Dynamic
Casting, an automated prefabrication technology achieving high optimization and efficiency.

2.3.3 Simulation & Modeling

In continuation of the complex cyber–physical system of Construction 4.0, simulation and
modeling is one of the most fundamental technological frames in the AEC industry because allows
to process of data and verification of designs into construction plans. Most construction projects
go over budget due to scheduling issues, poor planning, and lack of adequate information at the
initiation phases of a project (Turner et al, 2021). This results in the reduced o productivity and
deviations of the entire project. As described in previous technological frame, the connected
databases and analytic tools will enable more accurate lifecycle estimations with obtained data
from previous projects. For instance, Bayram et al (2015) developed artificial neural network
models for preliminary construction cost estimation, and Asadi et al (2015) investigated the
development of delay prediction models. In a data driven neural network, software can be
integrated for automated planning, route planning of autonomous vehicles onsite, clash and risk
detection, and many others. All the above can only be achieved if data from sensors are connected
and used in a centralized analytics system.
7
The system to manage all the harvested data and direct production methods is the Building
Informational Modeling. The proposed methodological framework by Munoz et al (2020)
incorporates the principles of Industry 4.0 to the AECO industry, contemplating the Lean
Construction (LC), Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Building Information Modelling (BIM).
This framework, supported by other researchers, identified the significance of BIM through the
entire lifecycle of a construction project, which bridges the procurement with the operation of the
facilities. The most significant aftermath is that BIM philosophy works as a framework that
materializes both IPD and Lean management into a centralized informational grid. In other words,
BIM works as a fundamental structure to plug in and manage the technological developments of
4IR and become the central digital neural system for collecting information on a project (Craveiro
et al, 2019) that uses computational data to improve efficiency (Yanagawa, 2016). BIM is not only
a new technological development but a new culture to industrialize the construction industry,
creating centralized communication and information centers for more productive assessment and
interpretation of data. The successful implementation of BIM is a key aspect for the new era of the
industry. Strategy, implementation plan, and clear vision are perquisites for successful
implementation of BIM (Chunduri et al, 2013; Succar et al, 2013).
Innovation in automated construction is still in infant stage (Maskuriy et al, 2019; Niu et al., 2016),
and the increasingly complexity of construction projects requires Construction 4.0 as a transition
to new business models (Alaloul et al, 2018; Bock, 2015). BIM is undeniably in the center of
construction digitization together with Industry 4.0. Both can bridge the existing digital gap and
assist the impact on future building processes. According to Munoz et al (2020), the integration of
advanced 4IR technologies such as AI can mitigate existing limitations of BIM applications.
However, one application cannot handle all issues, and current technologies have been assessed
and used independently and not as a coherent system. It is understood that the latest stream of the
4IR in the construction industry could be researched to facilitate embedment of BIM, which is a
key aspect for modernizing the industry. Therefore, instead of proceeding into a pragmatic
research to measure the increase in performance and effectiveness, a more holistic approach is
needed to formulate a productive structure too fully utilize the transition into the new era.

2.4 Societal perspective

4TH Construction is poised to transform the AEC industry from a project-based to a market-based
industrialized process, and Its slow uptake can be attributed to the neglecting technological
adoption (Chan, 2020). It is argued that ignoring non-technical aspects such as the social and
ethical choices results in Construction 4.0 failing to innovate in the AEC. Rather than focus on
technology, questions have risen around comprehensive change considering people and their
issues. Furthermore, instead of focusing on the calculative value of Construction 4.0, there is need
to consider ethical values when making decisions in the data-driven world of Industry 4.0.
In every new revolution or a new paradigm shift, there is an aura of hype associated with its
forthcoming arrival (Chaka, 2020). Construction 4.0 is accompanied by warnings for new

8
behaviors, new orientations, new practices, new mindsets on societal and individual perspective
(Drath and Horch, 2014; Frey and Osborne, 2013; Liao et al, 2018; Razak et al, 2018). Moreover,
the main challenges of Construction 4.0 are the automatization of the construction industry,
dematerialization of buildings, and the interdisciplinary nature of new construction.
Automatization as discussed will upgrade efficiency, but issues have arisen regarding the social
parameter associated with unemployment and the ethical paradoxes of AI decision making (Chaka,
2020).
Certain skills have been dedicated specifically to Industry 4.0 skill palette. Soft skills such as
communication, creativity and problem solving, and hard skills, like programming and information
literacy, feature predominantly as the 4IR skills from the reviewed articles. The enrichment in hard
skills is supported by Coskun et al (2019) who add that programming courses in engineering should
incorporate low level programming languages, but also new programming languages that are more
common in artificial intelligence and data science like Python and R. To this context, as Li et al
(2017) and Sacks et al (2013) explain, the high cost for training and education in new skills is a
hindering factor for enterprises. Additionally, Bermudez and Juarez (2017) point that problem
solving will be one of the required skills for Industry 4.0 and skills such as flexibility, adaptability,
self-direction, and entrepreneurial skills are crucial (Kazancoglu and Ozkan-Ozen, 2018). It is
subsequently understood that the combination of soft and hard skills will question the structure of
academics and their impact on societal needs.

2.5 Sustainability Perspective

As it was previously described, the implementation of Construction 4.0 may increase efficiency
through speed, minimum waste, and reduce use of resources during construction. The impact of
the construction industry is apparent, since AEC is responsible for more than 10% of gas
emissions, 6% of energy consumption in overall (IEA, 2018), and almost for two thirds of non-
metallic mineral extraction (Bringezu, 2019 ). Construction 4.0 technologies can simulate the
lifecycle of a project, which is identified by United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) as
essential to reduce the AECO industry environmental impact. Additionally, both literature and
recent studies indicate that Circular Economy (CE) strategies might support productivity,
creativity, cost and energy reduction, competitiveness, and resource utilization by emphasizing on
technology (Schroeder et al, 2018).
Researchers believe that they are two possible outcomes regarding the impact of 4IR on
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). On the one hand, Construction 4.0 improves the
effective use of resources and business operations, while on the other hand, there might cause
deleterious impact on sustainability. Over production, electronic waste, consumerism, and
extensive use of raw materials are associated with the possible hinders on sustainability. In a recent
study (Vinuesa et al, 2020), 4IR technologies had a strong positive impact on SDGs, but one out
of three initiatives had a negative impact across all goals. Unsurprisingly, developed countries
have adopted concepts such as CE but, low and middle-income nations have significantly lower

9
adoption rate, where there is not sufficient understanding on the contribution of CE activities on
economic growth, employment, and sustainable development (Wright et al, 2019). According to
Hoosain et al (2020) this lack of application might have caused by the followed parameters:
• Lack of governmental interventions,
• Supportive policies on collaborative culture,
• Financial support for businesses with incentive policies,
• Assessment of economic, social, and environmental impact,
• Need for updated education,
• More data to support the technologic firms,
• More talent to improve existing technologies.
These parameters form a critical and balanced agenda for adopting philosophies into an industry
or society. A more detailed insight is required to explore the differential implications of
Construction 4.0 and policy approaches across the varying groups of the industry that are likely to
inspire implementing policies contemplating sustainability. Examining the institutional factors of
Construction 4.0 implementation could reveal synergies and asymmetries with sustainability
goals. Sustainability is deterministically approached ignoring that this technology enhancement
inevitably connects disparate mentalities from architecture, engineering, and construction groups.
These mentalities will be presented thoroughly in the findings of this thesis.

2.6 Hindering Nature of AEC Industry

Each industry has its own complexities and biases that restrict growth, efficiency, and
sustainability goals, which are crucial not only for the construction industry but mostly for society.
The Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and lately Operations (AECO) industry seems to be
far belated on adopting the latest technological trends compared to other industries. How the
construction industry has been developed can be attributed to the strong dependent sequential
processes, the overlapping roles of various actors on projects, the low familiarity with
management, the routinely activities, and an overlying culture of resistance to change (Mohd et al,
2014). Most of the construction processes are traditionally manual, required labor work, organized
with simple management tools, and low incorporation of technology. According to Sacks et al
(2013) the low incorporation of technology is attributed to lack of knowledge. This environment
gets even more complicated considering the fragmentation, the upcoming disruption attributed to
4IR, personal resistance, and the traditional culture of construction that jeopardizes change
(Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016).

2.6.1 Implementing new technologies in AEC industry

Construction often imports technological innovations from other sectors (Pavitt, 1984) however,
they are more efficient than AEC in leveraging the followed digital thread (Papadonikolaki et al,
2020). Construction sector is infamous for not being innovative or using innovations, and the
technological advances are slowly adopted (Davies and Harty, 2013) ignoring the high product

10
and demand variability (Ballard et al, 2001), time limitations of each project, and the project-based
nature of construction accompanied with a slow uptake of innovation (Pinto et al, 2004).
Unsurprisingly, McKinsey Global Institute (2017) categorizes construction sector as the least
advanced one in terms of digital transformation. Minding the example of the hegemonic impose
of Building Information Modeling in the UK described by Dainty et al (2017), criticizing the
insufficient use of BIM, a question has arisen regarding how to implement a new technology in an
industry. The recent arrival of BIM applications has caused the severe disapproval from small to
medium enterprises (SMEs), which are unable to invest in these applications and understand the
increased performance on their projects (Dainty et al, 2017). It is also supported that the wealthier
enterprises as early adopters, will gain earlier and greater benefits, resulting the increased
inequalities in the market. This is generally known in the digital-divide literature as the ‘’Matthew
Effect’’ (Pearce and Rice, 2013), resulting the dichotomization of the market into a two-tier market
where the already most privileged capitalize the benefits and the less powerful are marginalized
(Cushman and McLean, 2008).

2.6.2 Disruption in the AEC industry

Considering the upcoming innovations from 4IR, innovation is divided in two main categories
(Christensen, 2013). The first category sustains technologies focusing on optimizing existing
methods by enhancing performance, and the second category represents the disruptive
technologies, which urges the industry to produce entirely new products for specific market
segments, using radical methods driven by the technological innovation. In the case of
Construction 4.0, the main challenge brought by the digital transformation in any industry is the
risk of disruption (Papanikolaki et al, 2020), resulting the replacement of organizations who are
unable in adopting the digital changes by the more adaptive ones (Christensen, 2013) and the
significant changes in the entity of the AEC industry (Henderson and Clark, 1990). Additionally,
AEC industry is characterized by the factor of individual resistance to technological change such
as the use of BIM, supplementing by Rahman (2014) who identified 26 distinctive barriers in
attempting to implement new methods. Personal and digital disruption combined result an inherent
impact on the AEC industry, and as McKinsey Global Institute (2017) has forecasted, AI will
reshape society multiple times faster and more intensively than the previous industrial revolution,
considered as one of the most disruptive periods to date. Considering the unique nature of
construction projects, their requirements, and the complexed team of stakeholders, the consistent
and unified change adoption throughout the entire project delivery process, is an increasingly
challenging goal for the AEC industry (Teicholz et al, 2001).
This transformation entails a variety of opportunities and is reified through actionable
implementation process of technology on various organizations. In an initially stage, it is important
to identify whether the suggested technological innovation is epitomized as either incremental and
evolutionary, requiring gradual minor changes, or radical and revolutionary requiring new
processes and methods to capitalize it (Abernathy and Clark, 1985; Burns and Stalker, 1961).
According to Ellul (1954) and Sherratt et al (2020) the technological innovation in general is not

11
entirely neutral resulting in both intended and unintended consequences. Nowadays, the emerged
technological innovations and developments are presented in an “exponential pace” as described
by Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014). Although the AEC industry appeared to underperform in
innovation comparing to other industries, the Construction 4.0 concept is already underway (WEF,
2018, p. 8), urging the industry to change. This change is not only desired but also inevitable as
Sherratt et al (2020) point. Therefore, contemplating these facts it is necessary to act proactively,
investigate, assess, formulate, and deliver a more suitable environment for this upcoming change
in the AECO industry.

2.7 Holistic approach, and integration.

In a such complicated environment, where multiple participants have conflicting interests and
overlapping duties, the transition into a new reality such as the Construction 4.0 should be
established in all sectors of the AECO but in a way to unify the industry and facilitate the
integration. Exploring the qualitative and quantitative reviews of Construction 4.0 presence in
constructions, it has identified the slow pace of implementing digitalized and automated
developments, the existing use of these technologies took place separately and not in a coherent
way. Approaching the implementation of the new philosophy of 4TH Construction more holistically
remains an unexplored necessity described by several researchers.
The described challenges regarding Construction 4.0 must be addressed by all involved social
groups considering multiple contributing factors to integrate the information, theories, ideas, and
models to develop multi-level interventions that are logical and potentially effective. There is an
active discussion about Construction 4.0, where studies are focused on the possibility of adopting
Industry 4.0 in the construction industry rather than providing a solid theoretical framework to
grasp the adoption. According to Schroeder et al (2018), new technologies are addressed
separately, and synergy perspective is essentially underexplored. Therefore, more research is
needed to understand the nature of Construction 4.0, and deal with it as a coherent entity and not
just with its components (Sawhney et al, 2020). Lastly, a bibliometric and scientometric mapping
by Safura Zabidin et al (2020) has highlighted the gap in integrating the elements of Construction
4.0, recognizing collaboration and lean construction as crucial areas of improvement in
construction (Safura Zabidin et al, 2020).
Unfortunately, despite of the acknowledgement of the significance of the preparation for the
adoption of new technologies, the academic community has not yet expressed a specific approach
on adopting the technological disruption as a major factor of the project management process while
creating useful strategies across the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations
(AECO) industry (Chan & Ejohwomu, 2018). The interest is depicted in some recent literature,
which is focused on the perspective of BIM and its implementation in the industry through various
applications (Liu et al., 2019). Given the fact that the AEC industry is quite a problematic
environment, it is important to approach the issues from a holistic standpoint as it has already been
identified above. As it can be inferred, the nature of the AEC industry combined with the

12
challenges derived from the upcoming technological stream creates a highly risky environment for
the enterprises and the individuals of the AEC sector. Under the pressure of this imminent change,
both the drastically reformed technological environment and the inherent biases of the AEC
industry require a more sensitive and careful approach. The approach process needs to begin with
the methodological assessment of the end users of the Construction 4.0 as reported by Sherratt et
al (2020), and contemplate facts such as the alignment of technological innovation with business
plans to organize a strategic management of IS/IT solutions (Peppard and Ward, 2016).
The aforementioned factors highlight the need for practical and academic adoption of a holistic
approach towards digitalization as well as the use of a socio-technical point of view (Orlikowski,
2000) that entails behavioral factors. Mander (1996, p. 344) points out that a more detailed focus
on the working force, who will be the recipients of the impact of the 4IR innovations of utmost
importance. Furthermore, he notes that the society accepts the innovation waves with an alarming
passivity without taking into systematic consideration all the social and political changes they
might entail. A holistic approach is also the subject of research for various interdisciplinary papers
concerning innovation and sociological factors. According to Lloyd-Walker et al (2012),
innovation is undeniably connected to collaboration, and true collaboration is inextricably linked
with several behavioral drivers. Moreover, the dual interest theory of Beretti et al (2013) is an
example of how a thoughtful framework can allow the integration of behavioral innovations
related to environmental issues, supporting that some of the limitations of technological
innovations could be handled with behavioral innovations. Into this accordance, Yang et al (2014)
have concluded in theoretical results that can help project managers to proactively understand
stakeholder performance, place emphasis on behavioral attributes and create appropriate strategies
under different circumstances. It becomes therefore apparent that it is useful to approach this
research from an interdisciplinary perspective. Lastly, all these thoughts are incorporated in the
followed statement of Dainty et al (2017):

‘’Too much technocratic optimism could have damaging consequences for the industry should the
digital divide be opened up in other ways, and so must be sensitively considered in relation to the
structural and cultural contexts that it is supposed to benefit.’’ (Dainty et al, 2017, p. 706).

13
 3. Theory

This section describes the theories that have been taken into consideration to formulate the
theoretical framework for this paper. This chapter consists of the description (1) Technology,
Organization and Environment framework (TOE) and (2) the Social Construction of Technology
(SCOT). The two proposed theories to be used are combined due to the comprehensive character
of this thesis and the simultaneous horizontal and vertical insight on social and professional
groups in the AEC. Additionally, SCOT is the main theory of interest for analysis to investigate
the societal interpretation of Construction 4.0 in the Greek AEC industry. The analysis is
supplemented by the TOE framework to provide a more comprehensive insight and contemplate
the external environment of each organization as a response to criticism on SCOT theory. and (2)
SCOT theories.

3.1 TOE: Technology, Organization, and Environment framework

The TOE framework examines how an organization, and its context influences the adoption of
technological innovations, such as Construction 4.0. A literature review by Oliveira & Martins
(2011) has identified that TOE framework is a solid method and easy to use method that includes
the environment aspect, while other applicable theories on this thesis subject like SCOT do not.
The TOE framework has been proved flexible and adaptable in different industries in nature, but
as Oliveira & Martins (2011) have pointed, TOE performs better combined with another theory.
This is an additional reason to combine TOE with SCOT for a more in depth insight in societal
perspective. The three key elements of this theory, as described by Baker (2011), that explain the
adoption of technologic innovation are the technology, organization, and environment aspects.

3.1.1 Technological aspect

The technological aspect considers all the relevant technologies to the examined industry that are
available, and in this case the three technological frames described in the literature review. It
includes the already used technologies, which set a limit on the rate of technological adoption,
and those that are available on the market but not presently used, which represent the possibilities
on innovation and development of new products.

3.1.2 Organizational aspect

The organizational aspect considers features such as the available resources in an organization,
communication links within the organization, the size, its structure, and philosophy. According to
studies, there is a relationship between the organizational aspects with the adoption of innovation
in an organization, where decentralized structures are more flexible when it comes to adoption of
innovation. Additionally, structures that identify the roles and the formal relationships in an
organization are more suitable for adopting innovative technologies.

14
 3.1.3 Environmental aspect
The environmental aspect refers to the external environment and internally to the organization.
The general structure of the industry, the access to technology sources, the reaction from
competition and the regulatory environment consist the macro-environmental perspective.
Researchers on the industry has shown that competition and legislation would lead to voluntary
or imposed stimulation of adoption of innovation creating hegemonic environment described by
Dainty et al., (2017).

3.2 SCOT: Social Construction of Technology

As it was discussed in the literature review, the implementation of the newest forms of
technologies in the AEC have been examined in a deterministic way ignoring the social aspect of
the investigated topic. SCOT supporters point that technological determinism is bases on a poor
research strategy, because it uses ‘’a teleological, linear, and one-dimensional view of
technological development’’ (Prell, 2009). SCOT is a theory within the field of science and
technology studies and a response to technological determinism. The main idea behind, is that
technology does not determine human action, but human action shapes technology (Pinch and
Bijker, 1984;1986;1987). Researchers who want to understand the reasons for acceptance or
rejection of technology should focus on social world and investigate what kind of criteria do the
social groups use to assess technology.
The fundamental initial hypothesis of SCOT is to assess how a technology is embedded in its
social context, which is the most controversial principal of this theory and widely criticized. One
of the arguments points that SCOT downgrades the effect of larger structural forces in society
such as institutions, economic and political environment (Klein and Kleinman, 2002; Prell,
2009; Russell, 1986; Winner, 1993). This is one of the reasons to supplement SCOT with TOE
because contemplates the external environment factors. The SCOT methodology consists of eight
concepts in its final form to use when a researcher analyzes the causes of technological failure or
success using the perspectives of the involved participants in the industry (Figure 1).

Figure 1. SCOT Concepts

15
 3.2.1 Relevant social groups
The relevant social groups (RSGs) refers to groups of actors from the same organization or not,
where all members of this group have the same interpretation of an artifact (Pinch and Bijker,
1984). Actors in the AEC industry can be members of different relevant social groups than their
initial professional group like architecture, engineering, and construction.

3.2.2 Interpretative flexibility

The concept of interpretative flexibility deals with the interpretation of technological artifacts from
various groups. As described, each relevant social group has each own interpretation of an artifact
or technology. Therefore, this interpretation indicates the interpretive flexibility of an artifact. The
author of this research allows interviewees to describe their own perceptions on technology using
semi structured questionnaires and suggests how actors and groups interpret a technology (Martin
and Scott, 1992).

3.2.3 Closure
Closure occurs between relevant social groups when the interpretative flexibility of a technology
from the groups declines. The three possible different forms of closure are the no single social
group to dominate the process leading to consensus, one social group that dominates the process
imposing its interpretation, and last two social groups that compete over the definition of a
technology or an artifact .

3.2.4 Stabilization
Stabilization refers to the degree to which a technology is accepted by a relevant social group. The
more homogeneous the interpretations to a particular technology, the higher is the degree of
stabilization for this technology within that relevant social group (Bijker, 1993). The degrees of
stabilization are different in each relevant social group and suggest how these meanings can reach
closure.

3.2.5 Technological Frame

When actors within a social group interact, they formulate a common interpretation of technology,
and create a technological frame. If actors fail to shape a similar interpretation, then they fail in
shaping a technological frame and establish a social group. If a technological frame gets
formulated, it orientates behaviors, and interactions among actors in that social group.
Technological frames consists of problem solving strategies, values, goals, thoughts, material,
technical, social, and cognitive elements in a technological frame. These elements do not belong
to individuals or organizations, and technological frames are represented as bonds or synergies
between actors with common interpretation on technology. These synergies accounts for material
and nonmaterial structures that influence socio-technical design (Bijker, 1993, pp. 120-121).

16
 3.2.6 Micro political power strategies
Micro political power strategies are a variety of practices used to influence social groups and form
the technological frames. In other words, these strategies are the reason behind the framing.
‘’Enrolment’’, ‘’Rhetorical arguments’’, and ‘’Forming alliances’’ are common micro political
strategies discussed in SCOT literature. (Aibar and Bijker, 1997; Bijker and Bijsterveld, 2000).

3.2.7 Semiotic power

Closely related to technological frames is the notion of semiotic power, a process where meanings
become reified in certain forms through interactions among actors and relevant social groups. In
other words, semiotic power is the representation of interpretations in specific forms of technology.
3.2.8 Semiotic Structures
The reified forms from semiotic power act as a semiotic structure that constrains and guide how
actors and groups interpret and influence an artifact (Bijker, 1995, p. 263). Consequently, as a
technological frame becomes more agile, it forms the interpretations of an artifact, and this
formation represents both the semiotic structure and the power of this structure.

17
 4. Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the underlying methodology and strategy that have been
used to conduct this research in the most productive way. This chapter focuses on the motivation
of the research design and the methods selection to collect data and relate them on the purpose,
aim and the research questions in clarity, validity, and reliability. It describes the (1) the research
approach and strategy, (2) the collection of data, and (3) the analysis methodology.

4.1Research approach and strategy

Research Approach
The general research approach in this thesis is the abductive approach. As Saunders et al (2016)
describe, the abductive approach is a simultaneous application of induction and deduction. This
approach shifts from deduction to induction and vice versa, combining both developments, moving
from theory to data and from data to theory, or from deduction to induction correspondingly.
In a qualitative research in nature as this thesis, the inductive strategy is used to develop a new
theory, and the deductive strategy is used to test a theory. In this thesis, the deductive approach is
applied to collect the needed data with the PESTELE framework and identify the main themes
derived from the collected data. Moving in the inductive approach, the used theoretical
frameworks in this report are the TOE to verify or not previous research described in the literature
review, and SCOT to understand the societal structure of the industry and formulate an actionable
theoretical framework for the implementation of Construction 4.0 in the national Greek market.

Ontological approach
The constructivism perspective is used, contemplating the fact that the societal perspective of the
topic varies and depends on individual perception. This study is focused on conducting a holistic
approach on the adoption of Construction 4.0 in the AEC industry, focusing on the social structure
of the industry and interpret the perceptions of the main actors, who are responsible to implement
and realize the concept of Construction 4.0. This approach has been considered as the proper one
to investigate the AEC industry towards the technological transition and is significantly more
valuable than a technocratic and numeric approach at this point.

Epistemological approach
Interpretivism is the epistemological position to support the ontological approach and the aim of
this study. This decision is supplemented by the unique mentality, experience, opinions , and
technological interpretation of individuals in the AEC industry and participants on this this thesis
study via the interviewing process.

18
Nature of research
The ontological and epistemological position of this research strategy has resulted the selection of
the qualitative methodology, focusing to collect qualitative data to support the interpretation of
social structure of the AEC industry.

Methods
Interviews were selected along with the literature review as the research method to collect
qualitative data, considering the purpose of the research and the selected research approach.

Sources
The sources of data for this research are the literature review and the transcribed interviews.
Further explanations regarding the sources and the data collection process will be described in the
sub chapter 4.2 Collection of Data.
Table 1. Scientific Methodology

Research Ontological Epistemological Nature of

Methods Sources
Approach Approach Approach Research

Social Qualitative Literature/

Abduction Interpretivism Interviews
Constructivism Research Interviews

4.2 Collection of Data

4.2.1 Literature study

The first step for data collection is the literature review, conducted to get a better understanding of
the subject area, and to provide the context and theoretical background for the research. The needed
literature is acquired from published articles in scientific journals using relevant search tools.
According to Saunders et al (2016) the critical analysis of literature contributes to achieve a solid
and reliable base of knowledge. This approach gives a broad understanding about previous
research and helps the author to identify gaps to be further investigated, not limited to a type of
research methodology and geospatial restrictions. This will reinforce the universality and test the
cultural biases in the industry towards the 4IR disruption.
This literature review has been conducted searching in an initial stage for peer-reviewed articles
and relevant research topics. Relevant titles and keywords to the context of the topic have been
used in searching engines. These keywords included: 4IR, 4th Construction, Construction 4.0,
Digitalization in construction, AI in construction, 3D printing, Automation in construction,
Building Information Modeling in 4IR, BIM and Construction 4.0, Social aspect of 4IR, and
several variations also.
The primary sources of this thesis were the KTH search engine PRIMO and Google Scholar, with
focus on the Web of Science and Research Gate, where several related articles were recommended

19
in every selected publication. Additionally, initial contacts with experts in the context of
technology were made for a more insightful view on the industry and the technology related to
Construction 4.0. Additionally, an in depth understanding of the nature of the 4TH Construction
and the future of the digitalized construction industry was facilitated by the gained expertise of the
author in Python programing, data science principals, and applications of BIM.

4.2.2 Empirical data collected by interviews.

The second stage involved semi structured interviews (SSIs) for a detailed insight in the AEC
industry. Initially, the preliminary contacts with specialists and early technology adopters enabled
the author to gain a clearer view on the topic and form a basic questionnaire for the semi structured
interviews to follow. This process has added more accuracy and robustness to the research.
According to Saunders et al (2016, p. 505) ‘’the design of your questionnaire will affect the
response rate and the reliability and validity of the data you collect’’. A basic guideline has been
used, but the interviewer could change the sequence of the questions when needed, adding
flexibility, and gaining more details from the participants (Doody and Noonan, 2013; Keller and
Conradin, 2019). Corbetta (2003) states that SSIs allow the interviewer to act in a more casual
way, by selecting the questions, giving explanations, and asking for clarification if the answer is
not satisfying. The process is supplemented by record and transcription of the interviews for
further analysis. On the drawback, Newcomer et al (2015) point that SSIs are time-consuming,
labor intensive, and require interviewer sophistication. Interviewers need to be sharp, sensitive,
poised, and nimble, as well as knowledgeable about the relevant substantive issues. Some of these
prerequisites are questioned because of the self-biases and low familiarity of the author on
conducting interviews.
Because of the pandemic outbreak, video calls and phone connection were the only available
options for data collection. Any possible interview face to face was cancelled to secure the equal
conditions of all the interviews. Each respondent was asked to have at least one free hour available
for the purposes of the interview. There was not time limitation on answering the questions, to
facilitate the relaxed conversation and expression of believes. The questions were open ended for
free interpretation, as the perception of the respondents was the main interest of the author. The
author used a set of 15 to 20 questions that were slightly modified for the needs of each group
(Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Appendix 3). A total of 15 interviews were conducted, with 15
respondents from 15 organizations, distributed evenly in the three sectors of architecture,
engineering and construction (Table 2). Lastly, Operations sector has not included because of the
non-existing applicability in Greek national market.

20
 Table 2. Summary of Organizations

Code Nature of actor Description

A1 Architecture Small size, focus on residential projects
A2 Architecture Small size, focus on residential projects
A3 Architecture Large size, focus on commercial and hotel projects
A4 Architecture Small size, focus on restoration and residential projects
Medium size, focus on residential and commercial
A5 Architecture
projects
E1 Engineering/Consulting Medium size, MEP
E2 Engineering/Consulting Small size, Structural engineering
E3 Engineering/Consulting Small size, Electrical engineering
E4 Engineering/Consulting Small size, Surveyor services
E5 Engineering/Consulting Large size, MEP, surveyor, management
C1 Construction Large size, infrastructure, national & abroad
C2 Construction/Development Small size, residential projects
C3 Construction/Development Medium size, hotel development
Medium size, private & public projects, national &
C4 Construction
abroad
C5 Construction Small size, residential & commercial projects

4.2.3 Considerations on the investigated national market

Additionally, the topic of Construction 4.0 is still tangled and sufficiently explored in the context
of integration in the AEC industry. The exploration of Construction 4.0 integration in the Greek
national AEC industry must overcome multiple limitations derived from, low technological
acceptance, fragmented project delivery methods, and outdated methods compared to other
nations. Therefore, descriptive facts regarding the structure of the Greek AEC industry will be
presented to supplement the case selection of interviewees and form a more robust theoretical
background on this thesis research.
Starting with the context of Architecture, is perceived as is the art of building concepts where
creativity, synthesis, and design are meeting together to conceptualize ideas into shapes that adapts
to people and their surroundings, considering environmental, social, and political parameters. The
so called Architecture Engineers focus on grasping the concept of a building project and provide
the needed blueprints for the building permission process.

21
These designs are reified into reality with the intervention of Civil Engineering that deals with the
verification of design, structural analysis, construction methods, energy performance and
reasonable costing of the project to minimize the use of building materials and energy. Civil
Engineers along with Mechanical Engineers are responsible to materialize the architecture
concepts into specific measurable values, construction methods, costs, and schedule, using
scientific models and applications. Their work supplement the work of architects to fulfill the
requirements on the building permission process before construction.
Lastly, Construction sector, just like other national AEC industries, is responsible to materialize
the architecture and engineering work. There is no involvement on the permitting process and the
role of constructors is limited to deliver a building project within the agreed budget and time with
the client. The implementation of each construction project proceeds with the supervising of both
architects and engineers who issued the building permission and verify the right realization of a
project.
It is understood that the involvement of all three parts is demanded to both issue the permission
and delivery a construction project. The roles are predefined by legislations and vary regarding the
size of a project, allowing the engineering group to issue architecture designs in private projects
and infrastructure projects. Considering these facts, the role of Engineering group is centralized,
having a close cooperation with the Construction group to deliver construction projects mostly
restrained by cost, time, and quality, neglecting qualitative facts defined by the architecture groups.

4.2.4 Case selection for interviews

In organizational level, the selected of interviewees are employed in organizations which take part
in all stages of a construction project. Architecture, engineering/consulting, and construction firms
were approached and formulated the three groups with equal number of participants. These
organizations are responsible for housing, and commercial developments, and infrastructure
projects both in Greece and abroad. Size, structure, and presence on the market were considered
equally in all three groups to ensure homogeneity.
In interviewee level, the participants are not considered as experts in the field, but representatives
of their sector. The 15 interviewees were selected from 15 different organizations, 5 each in from
every on the three sectors in the AEC industry to secure the homogeneity of data in all three sectors
(Table 3). The requirements for the selection are:
• Representative presence of each of the three sectors in the national market,
• Adequate experience in the industry,
• Academic background relevant to their roles in their organization and industry,
• The roles in their organization,
• Sufficient knowledge on the main topic of the thesis.

22
 Table 3. Summary of Interviews

Code Academic Background Role/Position Contact Date Duration Age

PM, Junior
A1 Arch. Eng., MArch. Phone call 26/3/21 41:01 31
Arch.
PM, Senior
A2 Arch. Eng., MArch. Video call 22/3/21 51:01 30
Arch
PM, Senior
A3 Arch. Eng., MArch. Phone call 26/3/21 33:35 37
Arch
CEO, Senior
A4 Arch. Eng., MArch. Video call 23/3/21 40:59 30
Arch
PM, Junior
A5 Arch. Eng., MArch. Video call 23/3/21 47:38 28
Arch
Mech. Eng., MSc CTO, Senior
E1 Phone call 23/3/21 44:12 42
Aeronautics Eng.
Senior
E2 Civil Eng., MEng., Phd Phone call 29/3/21 19:58 32
Structural
E3 ECE, MEng., MSc CEO, PM Phone call 26/3/21 20:57 52
Surveyor Eng., MEng.,
E4 CEO Phone call 24/3/21 31:50 53
MSc
ECE, MEng., MSc Data
E5 CTO Video call 25/3/21 35:17 30
Science
PM,
C1 Civil Eng., MEng. Video call 27/3/21 33:26 27
Supervisor
Civil Eng., MEng., MSc PM,
C2 Video call 24/3/21 46:49 31
CPM Supervisor
CEO, General
C3 Arch. Eng., MArch. Phone call 26/3/21 27:52 58
PM
C4 Surveyor Eng., MEng. CEO, PM Video call 25/3/21 23:18 33
PM,
C5 Arch. Eng., MArch. Video call 24/3/21 41:00 29
Supervisor

4.2.5 Quality and reliability assurances of the abductive theory study

There are important assurances in maintaining the quality of the abductive theory procedures and
general principles of this qualitative research. The following points describe what was taken into
consideration for this study to achieve quality and reliability.
During data collection
• Only phone and web video interviews were used because of health and safety restrictions
due to the pandemic.
• Both phone and web video interviews had similar length and depth, using the same semi

23
 structured questionnaires to ensure homogeneity.
• All interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed in detail at first stage.
• The interviews were transcribed right after each round of the three groups.
• Keeping memos during each interview has allowed the researcher to capture the main
ideas, responses, and feelings of the participants. These memos allowed the researcher to
make comparison among the reflections of participants in each group.
During data analysis
• Detailed analysis records were kept identifying the main themes.
• The analysis strategy was supplemented by initial communication with experts in the AEC
industry, experts in 4IR technology and application developers to discuss and conceptualize
the topic of this thesis research. Additionally, the regular communication with the
responsible supervisor verified the key points of the methodology and the structure of the
research.

4.2.6 Ethical considerations

All participants were informed about the purpose and the context of this research during the first
contact, concerning on the level of anonymity, their GDPR rights, the use of transcriptions for
further analysis and the possibility to public access to the final paper. All participants agreed on
voice or camera recording of interviews via phone or camera. Moreover, all of them had concerned
on using the transcriptions from their interviews without their follow up approval.

4.2.7 Interview structure: PESTELE

The PESTELE framework was used as a main structure for the interviews to facilitate the
comprehensive nature of this paper. This structure also enables the author to gather a vast range of
data regarding the topic and later manipulate this data using the most suitable theoretical
framework for this study. Lastly, this framework was selected to secure the high quality of the
needed information and because of the early fulfilment of the interviews before the final selection
of the theoretical framework.
The PESTEL analysis, and more recently PESTELE, is an acronym for a tool used to identify the
macro (external) forces facing an organization. The letters stand for Political, Economic, Social,
Technological, Environmental, Legal, and Ethical. (Oxford, 2016). According to Oxford College
of Marketing (2016), in marketing, before any kind of strategy or plan to be implemented, it is
fundamental to conduct a situational analysis. This methodology is a productive way to assess the
situation of the architecture, engineering and construction organizations of the AEC industry and
understand their reaction towards the new challenges from their external macro-environment,
which is represented by the 4IR in the AEC.

Political Factors: These factors determine the extent to which governmental policies may impact
on an organization in specific industry. This can include government policy, legislation, and
various restrictions.

24
Economic Factors: These factors might affect the financial situation of the organization including
the profitability, investment policy, and the budget on research and development, which is highly
related to the context of Construction 4.0 and the technological upgrade in organization level.
These factors could be divided into micro-economic and macro-economic factors contemplating
both the internal and external environment of the organization.
Social Factors: The social environment and the emerging trends are related with the social factors,
where demographics, education, cultural trends, mentality, and personal resistance shape the social
are some of the parameters to contemplate in the analysis.
Technological Factors: These factors consider the technological level within an organization, the
rate of technological innovation and adoption that could affect the AEC industry and its market.
Environmental Factors: The environmental factors focus on the impact of ecological aspects in the
organization and vice versa. Additionally, market demands, competition, and sustainability goals
are also included.
Legal Factors: Legal factors include legislation, health and safety issues, equal opportunities,
working rights and laws, and contract forms.
Ethical Factors: The most recent addition to PESTEL considers ethical principles and moral or
ethical problems that can arise in a group of people because of the automation in the industry.

4.3 Analysis methodology

The chosen analysis methodology in this research is the thematic analysis. Saunders el al (2016)
point that thematic analysis is a flexible systematic method to analyze qualitative data for
comprehensive explanations. Thematic analysis enables researcher to assess of large amount of
qualitative data and gain a deep understanding by creating themes from transcripts. The
methodology of forming themes in thematic analysis is described by Braun and Clarke (2006) and
consists of six different phases.
Becoming familiar with data: In this thesis, the initial stage refers to becoming familiar with the
data by reading the transcriptions and notes multiple times. A key aspect in this the step is
memorizing details and categorizing the interviewees into preliminary social groups for the
purposes of SCOT theory.
Creating initial codes: In the second stage, relevant data are connected forming a code. According
to Charmaz (2006, p. 46), '’coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an
emergent theory to explain these data’’. Coding is a repetitive process divided in stages. Starting
with the initial coding, the researcher locates similarities and contradictions in transcriptions from
early data. In a second stage, a more detailed coding takes place and clears the entire dataset. In
the last phase of coding, the researcher refines the categories, and regarding to the used
methodology and strategy, these categories are connected to certain theory or not.
Identifying themes: The third step is all about creating themes using the initial codes. The
combination of codes to shape themes and their interpretation request experience in manipulating
and categorizing data. How biased and capable is the author in theming determines the outcome

25
of the research because this step is the transition point to utilize data in a managed form. This step
also entails the highest risk for the research because is highly independent on the author and the
quality of the selected method to harvest data.
Reviewing themes: In the fourth phase, the author has tested the relevance of themes with codes.
The final identification of themes comes also in accordance with the PESTLE framework. It must
be noticed that the final review of themes is an iterative process, and its closure depends on the
level of in-depth insight of each author.
Naming themes: The fifth phase of the process is all about naming the themes that represent the
general context of the theme and guide the reader through the findings from the interviews.
Generating the final analysis: The final step refers to conduct the final analysis and relate the results
to the research questions and literature (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The identified themes were used
in combination with the selected the selected theories of TOE and SCOT.

26
 5. Findings

The purpose of this chapter is to present the identified themes after the process of data from the
conducted interviews during this thesis research.

Familiarity
Most of the participants have an increased familiarity and knowledge on the main subject of 4TH
Construction and its technologies related to modeling, automation via robotics and 3D printing,
data science and BIM. The most advanced and well informed group is the sector of engineering,
followed closely by the construction. The interviewees have identified the main topics by
themselves, and some of them both in engineering and construction understand the nature of these
technologies and have already invested in implementing them. More specifically the participant
C3 and E5, in prominent organizations in their sectors locally, supported correspondingly that:
‘’Eventually we will use everything… in Hotel Developments we already discuss using robotics
widely in post covid season for cleaning, decontamination, and some other applications on site.
We use big data, AI, and ML to understand what our clients need harvesting data from smart
devices … 3D printing parts have been used in our latest project with the help of robotics and of
course AI.’’ (C3)
’’Almost with everything like Blockchain, IoT, ML, Big Data… we mostly use more advanced
tech in another sector of the company specialized for geospatial analysis and GIS with drones for
photographing… in our projects we must consider these new techs because of auto piloted vehicles
and EVs.’’(C5)
Architecture sector has way lower understanding on technology and use of already existing
applications, and their familiarity is mostly based on previous academic knowledge and not
implementation, for example BIM.

BIM foundation
As described in the literature review, a prominent place in the transition and implementation of
4TH Construction is BIM. Almost all responders have already implemented various forms of BIM
in their organizations but only a few of them have understood the meaning behind this philosophy.
Most responders do not use BIM on its fully potentials but use only the simplest tools which can
also be found in less complexed applications. Only a few organizations in engineering and
construction try to fully capitalize BIM according to C3 and E1.
‘’ We use BIM and parametric in our projects.’’(C1)
‘’ I use BIM for mechanical design in an advanced level. I am an expert in BIM 3 LEVEL at this
moment.’’(E1)
In contradiction to the other organizations only the participant A1 use Revit in BIM level 1,
identifying the lowest maturity level of architecture among all. Interestingly, the A3 participant

27
from one of the most successful and awarded organizations in the European stage described the
absence of any kind of BIM in their organization.
‘’ I am familiar with BIM Revit. I use it in some projects to create the 3D model, do some
measurements.’’(A1)
‘’We do not use any BIM but only 2D design. We also use separate apps for 2d and 3d which are
not connected.’’(A3)

Cooperation
All participants from all three groups agreed that BIM and the technologies from 4IR like 5G,
Blockchain enable the cooperation because of speed, responsiveness, and access on data from
everywhere. Engineering and construction groups understand this upgrade in technology in a more
technocratic way, where they can improve their work directly by saving time (E4), increase quality
and reduce cost (C4).
‘’Obviously, it will make my work easier. I would use these new technologies and applications in
many ways.’’(E4)
‘’BIM with the added tech is a perfect way to reduce costs in constructions, but you cannot
eliminate it.’’ (C4)
On the other side, the architecture group has reacted reluctantly supporting both the collaboration
and communication (A2) and failure of the newest tech in the communication part because of lack
in education (A5). Additionally, according to A4, new tech combined with the already established
technology like BIM indeed facilitates the faster connection in real time and collaboration with
even greater number of participants but requires similar level of understanding from everyone.
‘’Absolutely yes. Huge yes. It is all about the abilities you must represent the information and
make your vision more understandable. Everything happens faster and more productive even with
the most uneducated workers on site.’’ (A2)
’’This new revolution will make it even easier… no, it is impossible to achieve that cooperation
due to lack of education.’’ (A5)
’’Yes it would make the difference… fast connection and the collaboration in zero time ….
Multiple participants can work at once…but that requires similar level from all the participants.’’

Unsupportive Market
One common idea among all groups and participants is that there are no supportive ideas or
requirements from the market to innovate or require aspects on projects that demand the use of
high tech solutions and technology derived directly from the 4IR. Interestingly almost the entire
body of professionals agreed that an upgrade in technology of that scale it is unlike to be happen
in the local market of Greece (C5).
‘’There is no market to support this change’’ (C5)

28
‘’ Our market cannot support these exotic applications which create unique products just like the
creations of Bosco Verticale.’’ (A4)
‘’The 4IR will arrive maybe in 30 to 40 years in Greece… Not sure for Greece. If I were abroad
in the UK I would answer differently. Not yet’’ (E1)

Added value.
New tech for both engineering and construction groups might increase their profits or create new
products entering a new market (E2) or make their services and products easier to produce. The
architecture group said that the upgrade would mostly improve the marketing of their work or
make it easier for their clients to understand their designs using 3D printing models and AR/VR.
Architecture group and the smallest organizations said that the new services due to the newest
technology will be provided with an extra cost or will be used to persuade their clients to increase
their budget (A1,A2,A5). Interestingly, it was pointed that applications due to its complexity has
diminished the architectural context and creativity, leading to oversimplified designs and
recreation of design concepts from the early 20th century (A4, A5)
’’I do not believe that will increase our profitability and every new technology will be charged as
an extra to our clients.’’(A1)
This contradiction on how the participants understand the meaning of added value is more apparent
when the entire construction and engineering group confirmed that will facilitate their work by
creating more bespoke solutions and educate their staff for the most demanding projects.
‘’I don’t think that it would improve my income directly, but it would allow me to create new
products or enter in a new market.’’(E2)
The organizations higher on the pyramid verified that automatization would increase the quality
of their services and create more value for their companies by saving costs due to faster design and
less labor (A3, E5, C3).

Cost considerations
All participants said that they would invest and some of them have already. The participants from
the largest organizations considered the cost as reasonable, depending on the applicability of
technology or the kind and complexity of their projects. A3, E3, C3 representing the biggest
organizations are not considered for the price at all.
‘’I would invest in new tech…I am not worried about the price.’’ (A3)
‘’I would invest in new tech absolutely. You must be updated otherwise you yourself out of order.
It is expensive but the price is relevant to the quality and complexity.’’(E3)
‘’We already invest in new technology and we will invest in 4IR tech. Otherwise we will be out
of market soon.’’(C3)
On the other side, the smallest organizations, think that it is extremely expensive, and it is
impossible to invest at this moment. The last comment was supported by C2, who is the only

29
certified Construction Manager, expert in BIM, and the only one with experience in technologic
management in the industry.
’’For now, it is impossible to implement in our organization and in others any form of the newest
technology considering the price. I am also talking about using a more advanced BIM foundation
in a company.’’

Inequalities
Agreed by everyone, the pressure on SMBs will be dramatically increased resulting their vanishing
in a few years because of the competition and the high cost of the needed technology. New strong
monopolies will emerge and expand even in the market of smaller projects because of technology
(A4). Gaps will get wider and stratification on the pyramid of organizations will be disrupted,
creating some strong poles worldwide (C1).
‘’ … only a few organizations will be able to use all this technology. Already established
companies will grow even more. It will widen the gap between the companies even more. It will
formulate new and stronger monopolies. 5 or 10 or 100 companies around the world controlling
everything and deciding.’’(C1)
The inequalities will expand among professionals, isolating the elder participants because of their
age or personal resistance to upgrade. Inevitably, they will shift into consulting and management
teams in their organizations (A3), supported by all three teams.
‘’ The older pros will change their role and work mostly like head managers. The younger arch
will be down on the hierarchy having new roles.’’(A3)

Policies
Politics is a common response of the participants regarding the future of the industry and its
transition to the 4TH Construction. Political initiatives were identified by engineering and
construction groups, pinpointing the need for supportive legislation (C2).
‘’ … we absolutely need that! Obviously. It is all about politics. In a capitalistic world, if we
continue to act like this It is going to be a disaster for all of us. Legislation is evolved to slow
comparing to technology. Maybe ten times faster.’’(C2)
It is supported that there is not an organized initiative to act proactive and guide the AEC industry
in a productive way (E1).
‘’but there is not an organized policy behind it. We need a centralized policy and a less complicated
legislation. We need a stable framework where we can move freely and regardless the size of the
company.’’(E1)
The idea of incentive policies was widely proposed by the partitioners and described as a necessary
step for technological upgrade (C2). Moreover, this initiative policy should focus on funding the
modernization and creation of a solid production base from all the involved members.

30
‘’We need supportive incentives, and they will be especially useful and will create a stable base in
production’’ (C2)
Additionally, a framework for implementation new form of technology is important to inspire and
work as reason and not a goal to achieve (E2).But, this framework must be supplemented by
education to minimize personal resistance (A5), and protocols that define the applicability of
modeling applications in BIM (E1).
Lastly, the hegemonic stance from different perspectives was commented starting from the
unproductive horizontal implementation of BIM (A5), the need for specification and requirements,
depending on the importance of a project (E4), and the need for supervision from the state (C3) to
eliminate unethical operations (C4). The respondent A1 was opposite on the idea of protocols and
technologic frameworks reporting:
‘’It is impossible to create a framework because we need to have similar vision, ethics,
methodology. This framework would be practical and a bit hegemonic and threading. In our
profession which is creative, we cannot force ourselves to work in different way and change our
principals in synthesis just because of 4IR. Especially in arch which is an objective view and
art.’’(A1)

Sustainability Issues
Most of the respondents agreed that the developments of 4IR will facilitate the sustainability goals
by minimizing waste, early clash detection, and faster production. This notion of sustainable future
should be supported by legislation and not so by technology according to A1 responder.
‘’Here is the part where the legislation is needed and not so the technology. This policy will impose
the clients to ask for greener projects and the engineers will be free to use new technology to
revolutionize the industry.’’ (A1)
On the other side, there are voices warning that the implementation of 4IR technology into
construction such as automation and robotics with 3D printing will make the production easier and
we will overproduce (A5). Replacing humans with robots or any kind of machinery require extra
energy and use of pollutants like heavy metals in chips and transistors (C5)
‘’ That really scares me. There are too many positives, but it could be an initiative to
overconsumption in wrong hands.’’ (A5)
‘’ There will not be any sustainability without using renewable sources…we need energy to mine,
process, manufacture, and use. All this new hardware is a new pollutant.’’ (C5)
Lastly, digital waste was commented where the only informed participants about this term support
that there are several no useful applications, and the produced data isolate the team from the
process of creativity.

31
Disruption
Some of the respondents agreed that implementing 4IR technologies will put some stress internally
to their organizations and to themselves regarding their age and position. Age is highlighted by all
participants as a burden for the individuals and not for the organizations because automatization,
and AI were agreed to replace professionals (C2).
‘’ Maybe some of the older guys will be isolated… Unemployment is inevitable in this industry
and not only in this one. Structural engineers might be the first victims. In theory and in 500 years
from now maybe all of us will be unemployed’’(C2)
According to some respondents like E1, unemployment is not the case and redeployment within
the industry will happen. Shifting into management is possible outcome for the elder engineers
and architects. The elder responders E3 and C3 in contradiction to the younger ones, stated that
the transition into 4IR is a personal choice and the urge the complexity of construction projects
and the unique nature of engineers as implementors of science into everyday tasks and problems
into construction projects.
‘’Well, the experienced engineers can take advantage of it into shifting into management and
consulting. They can supervise the younger engineers into this digital world. It is obvious that this
will happen because of the complication of these applications.’’ (E1)
‘’We are a unique race that can be adapted to anything. We will act like the professionals in the
70s. We will purchase the apps; we will get familiar and use them. We will fight.’’ (E3)
‘’ The older engineers will manage to be adapted to the new reality. It is in their nature because
they are engineers. This is the nature of our education. The positive sciences is all about knowing
fundamental methods, reaching, and then applying. ‘’ (C3)
Various factors, such as old routines and habits decelerate the transition and has jeopardized the
implementation of BIM. The already fragmented AEC industry combined with these factors
formulates a complexed environment with luck of applicability. The innovation or upgrade in
technology in one organization depends on the support from cooperative organizations and their
level in technology according to E2 participant.
‘’Yes BIM and new tech will facilitate cooperation, but it is a burden sometimes if someone of the
participants is outdated. In this case you must replicate the same process in another protocol and
share it. Older engineers and construction sector are not that familiar with new tech. Mostly after
a certain age is more often to locate this lower acceptance of technology.’’ (E2)

Fragmentation
Further fragmentation in the industry was a common answer among the participants regarding the
future of the industry. Already new roles have emerged and even more will be created due to the
complexity and future necessity of technology (A1, A5).

32
‘’ Absolutely we will have new roles and many more intermediaries. For example, nowadays we
have architects doing only 3D modeling, or renders, or videos. This new reality makes it more
complicated.’’ (A1)
‘’ There will be absolutely fragmentation. With the 4IR we all try to super analyze something and
expertise on that thing. There is no other way.’’(A5)
New roles and more specialization will happen, creating at the same time a confusion in
responsibilities, and relocations in organizations according to the respondent C1. Necessities in
projects and organizations have changed, where digitalization in the biggest organizations is more
necessary than engineering. Lastly, as several participants said in all three groups, technicians like
BIM specialists and 3D printer programmers will become the laborers of the future.
’’ … BIM guys are paid more and considered as more useful, and they don’t even solve any real
problems in a project like an engineer. BIM is just connecting and shearing data, it is not the
process of solving the problem. It is nothing. The magic part is how the engineer programs
BIM.’’(C1)

Education
Change in education is inevitable and it must be organized as soon as possible.. Data science will
become an unextracted part in engineering and construction, while architecture group is focused
on cultivating a new culture and ethics. More specialization in science was discussed and new hard
skills are necessary. Coding and programming in a life lusting education are in the center of the
upgrade in academic level. Interestingly, E3 participant stated:
‘’Changes in educational system are needed where you can fill a template of skills having
engineering as a goal. You must use your hands and pencil to understand the mechanism first, but
you should move on the newest tech the sooner possible after that.’’ (E3)
According to the most experienced participants, talent over technical expertise in technology is
needed because the complexity of construction projects and the numerous problems on cite. Soft
skills, critical thinking, and deep knowledge in engineering are the fundamentals for the future
according to participants with both national and international education in the UK and USA. The
needs of each organization will define what professionals are needed, but according to C2, the
most specialized participant into CPM and BIM, academics should keep distance from the market.
Over specialization in technology matters was negatively commented also (E4).
‘’…uneducated, super specialized in one thing, doing only that. Human tools, just to execute,
operators, doing a routine job.’’ (E4)
‘’I was educated both in Greece and UK…academics in Greece is way… they keep distance from
the market and create scientists that can apply multiple methods to solve any problem and not be
educated to solve only one type of problem …It is unacceptable to formulate the educational
system to the needs of corporations and the market… create specializations in science and not
specialization in one part of a process… UK universities are huge parking lots for employees,

33
where there are no civil engineers or scientists but graduated AECOM employees… no critical
thinking at all. Education is the new commodity.’’ (C2)

Societal Aspect
A vast majority of participants agreed that this technologic transition should focus on the
prosperity of society, and we should all respect its lower pace in change and evolution. New
opportunities and roles through technology will enable multiple social groups into the dialog of a
construction project. A few participants, in contradiction to the aforementioned, stated that
technologic innovation and implementation of 4IR in the AEC should continue without any
hesitation because of the low implementation pace and the lack of justifiable societal pros (E3).
‘’Innovation for innovation of course (laughing). It is all about our profession and science. The
effect on society is more like a literature review.’’ (E3)
On the other hand, new forms of discrimination will emerge, where the least technological
educated will be isolated, and consist the new illiterate. The newest technology should be used to
enable more participants and protect the human capital (E5). The discrimination will spread among
all three groups, and it will widen the gap between small, medium, and large organizations.
Inequalities will eradicate even more because of the financial pressure on the new technology, and
experience or talent will not be a priority anymore (E1).
‘’…they feel like totally uneducated, unable to write… we have the tools like AI to make more
user friendly applications and help the experienced and better engineers. We need everybody for
the next step. AI will never replace humans and the experience and the talent of the older
engineers… an ideal combination would be to use AI to take advantage of it and not isolate them.
It has not to be a panacea.’’ (E5)
‘’Unfortunately, it is all about money. Only the financially equipped will survive on the business
and talent and experience will not be the case anymore. Money over scientific background… into
this 4IR there will not be any equality in financial level.’’(E1)

Ethics
Ethics was discussed and several aspects of it was commented. Starting with Corporate Social
Responsibility, which could be dramatically improved using robotic devises and AI applications
for danger detection with autonomous robots. Construction group shared this idea with enthusiasm,
but the national market and culture cannot inspire the investment. The luck in CSR culture and
supervision from the state were mainly commented by the architecture group, pointing that 4IR
unfortunately is not related to health and wellbeing.
The creation of new monopolies and hegemonies will question the meaning of 4TH Construction,
and its capitalization will put aside ethics, culture, and the right for occupation because the lowest
levels on the pyramid will suffer the most. Additionally, according to A5, E4, C1, the creation of
a oligopoly will hurt democracy and polyphony.

34
‘’The way this 4IR is used is for profit and not for helping the people. It is innovation for profit
and not innovation for society…. we must investigate it more holistically in a macroscopic
perspective. I feel that we use it for personal wealth and nothing else.’’(A5)
‘’The most important is how to engage society again. More human on process and free time to
participate in discussions and democracy. We can use this technology for changing the history...
It is all about how you use technology, and it starts from political initiatives.’’ (E4)
‘’… only a few organizations will be able to use all this technology. It will widen the gap between
the companies even more. It will hurt the polyphony and democracy as well and formulate new
and stronger monopolies.’’ (C1)

Perception
Anticipation and fear for the future are the two stated feelings of the participants. Architecture
group is mostly worried about the formulation of monopolies and their eventual replacement due
to automation and AI applications (A1). The fear of the unknown and stopping the quality thinking
because of technology is also sighted (A2).
‘’ I am worried that there are barriers and limits. I am afraid of the big corporations that we cannot
compete.’’ (A1)
‘’ I am afraid of the unknown…. there is always a fear that that we will stop the quality thinking
if we rely on technology.’’ (A2)
In engineering group opinions are divided. Political initiatives and the control of the technology
itself are commented by E4 and E5 participants. As it was stated by both, a safety net is needed to
prevent from fraudulent actions and manipulative actions. Lastly, thrill and anticipation for the
future and the transition to 4th Construction describe the construction group. This is supported by
the notion of the over complex construction sites and the multiple issues during construction that
demand critical thinking and creativity.
‘’ I am afraid mostly on who sets the rules. Is the society or a lobby in Brussels?’’ (E4)
‘’Absolutely scared. Just go back and check history with nuclear energy and the nuclear bombs. I
am afraid that it will fell on the wrong hands. AI and IoT is a new super weapon. If something
goes wrong then this innovation will be demonized… need to prepare some limits, safety barriers,
united framework, and control center.’’ (E5)

35
 6. Discussion

The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of the data from interviews and literature
review. Two theoretical frameworks described in Chapter 3 have been used to fulfill the aim of
this study and answer the research questions. This chapter provides the analysis with (1)
Technology, Organization, Environmental theory, (2 analysis with Social Construction of
Technology theory, (3) limitations and (3) recommendations for further research.

6.1 Technology Organization Environmental Theory (TOE)

6.1.1 Technology
As it was described in TOE theory, technology refers to the already used and not used technology
available on the market. Starting with the technologic background of the actors and their
organizations, most of them are familiar with the offered technology like BIM, design and
modeling applications, automated production using robotics and 3D printing, and their needed
infrastructure like 5G, Blockchain, IoT. Unfortunately, only 3 out of 15 have grasped the meaning
and the actual potential of BIM. As it was described in the literature review and the topic
’’Simulation & Modeling’’, BIM is in the center of upgrading the industry and successfully
implementing the 4TH Construction (Muñoz et al., 2020). Some of the organizations have already
invested in BIM, however still the organizations and the interviewees do not use BIM in its full
potentials, they do not understand the nature of N-size designs and limit its use in increasing their
collaboration with other participants and creating 3D designs without information for scheduling,
etc.. This is in accordance with Chong et al (2017) who state that there is a lack of usefulness of
BIM in the whole life cycle of a project. This technologic background describes the low maturity
level, low implementation rate of new technology, and unprepared technologic environment for
implementing 4IR.
Continuing with the not used technology, the responders illustrated high familiarity and experience
in using 3D printing, AR/VR applications and devises in academic level. Their professional life
has not provided them the opportunity to use them in projects, excepting one organization in
construction, the most advanced one and the largest on this research. Moreover, cost of ownership
is a significant burden for almost everyone. Considering the non-added value or increased
profitability on their projects, architecture group is more resistant and unlike to upgrade. This
comes into accordance with Dainty et al (2017) pointing the risks associated with the return on
investment in such technology. As it was described, not only BIM, but also technologies referring
to the 4TH Construction are unlikely to be adopted because of the nature of architecture and the
creative process through art, which will be highly disrupted by AI and automated modeling in the
future. On the other hand, both engineering and construction group are equally technological
reluctant, but mentally prepared since they have understood the necessity and positive impact of
4IR in their projects.

36
Lastly, having in mind the different levels of technological acceptance, personal resistance,
implementation pace and acceptance of change, the implementation of 4TH Construction already
occurs unevenly in the AEC industry, widening the gaps between the three groups. The disruptive
nature of 4IR, as described in the literature review, will question even more the collaboration
between the three main participants, since the different acceptance of technology will disrupt the
fully capitalization of the automated construction methods, and digitalization of constructions.

6.1.2 Organization
The nature of organizations has its own effect on the acceptance and implementation of new
technology. Architecture organizations are more reluctant than engineering and construction
organizations. According to the respondents, their organizations neglect the technologic
innovations because they cannot fully understand the positive affect on their work since they still
focus on creativity and brainstorming. The sophisticated nature of architecture cannot be reshaped
by new tech, focusing more on art, ethics, and social aspect of their projects. On the other hand,
engineering and construction firms have understood that 4TH Construction will facilitate their
work, save time and funds during a project. It is apparent that the personal perceptions of the
responders are depicted also on organizational level, where data driven perspective is conflicting
the social and art driven thinking of architecture.
The cost considerations were widely mentioned by most respondents. Their organizations consider
the cost of significantly high to absorb it in their projects instead of the two major firms in
architecture and construction group that are not worried at all about it. The biggest firms on this
research, have already implement BIM, started investing in 3D printing and automated production,
and use of ML and Big Data. Most of the participants stated that investment in new technology is
risky for the liability of their firm and may not provide direct value, in accordance with the
literature review. As Sacks et al (2013) explain, the high cost for training and education is a
hindering factor. The smaller organizations do not have the resources to upgrade on innovative
applications, and as such invest in proven solutions. As a result, the added cost for software and
hardware will cause extra financial pressure and question the liability of SMEs and oligopolies
will inevitably emerge. This comes in accordance with Dainty et al (2017) pointing the digital
divide phenomenon, which inevitably will divide the market and the less privileged will be
marginalized (Cushman and McLean, 2008)
More fragmentation and new roles will reform the structure of all kind organizations in all three
groups to facilitate the faster and more productive implementation of 4th Construction. This
opinion is partially attributed to the lack of knowledge regarding BIM, coding, and assessing big
data. Moreover, the complexity of some applications and the future necessity of them might
impose the firms to reform their internal procedures and reorganize their teams. The addition of
BIM experts, programmers and technicians specialized in one form of technology or applications
might be the answer regarding their needs. Architecture group is more positive on hiring experts
in technology, whilst both engineering and construction conclude that the technological transition
could be implemented by themselves when it is necessary. Their familiarity with technology,
37
scientific background, and education in new hard skills will be deployed for the transition and
share the new roles internally. This contradiction between them could be attributed to the different
maturity level and understanding of the necessity of technology. According to Sacks et al (2013)
the usage of such technologies is limited due to lack of knowledge, therefore the least familiar
groups will seek for experts on new tech. As it was mentioned by architecture representatives, they
still want to remain focused on synthesis and creative process of architecture and import tech-
experts on their organizations.

6.1.3 Environment
The structure of the industry regarding Environmental aspects could be studied through evaluating
the tendency of organizations to innovate (Baker, 2011). Using the findings from the processing
of the interviews the three major facts from the environment of the AEC industry are the market,
the state, and the partnership between the three sectors.
Starting with the market, all participants stated that there is no requirement from their clients for
any of the described technologies like AR/VR, BIM, AI, 3D printing, IoT, digital twin, automation
and Data Science applications. The lack of demand from clients might be also one of the reasons
that already existing technologies have not widely used, and it is highly unlike to use more
advanced technology from the 4IR in the future if the market is not more supportive. This comes
into accordance to Peppard and Ward (2016) consolidating the technological and business goals
alignment to facilitate the strategic implementation of innovative technology within an
organization. In another perspective, it is highly unlike for the market to demand a certain use of
technology as a prerequisite to New regulations and more demanding design solutions on projects
might inspire the industry for upgrade. As several participants mentioned, most clients are not
informed about the process, and the lowest possible cost is their focus. Thus, competition and
minimizing the costs on each project are the catalysts for upgrading, instead of adding value.
Policies and regulatory frameworks were discussed as necessary for the future of the industry
towards the 4TH Construction. It is believed that a supportive policy of incentives would be helpful
for the transition and decrease financial risk for SMEs, which is in accordance with Cushman &
McLean, (2008). Additionally, protocols and technologic frameworks are important to secure
connectivity and applicability of the informational models of each organization. Additionally,
according to some participants, this regulatory should prioritize the sustainability goals and the
protection of natural environment with the fully capitalization of the 4IR. In any different case,
they are pessimistic that this new revolution will be used as a trojan horse to secure the traditional
corporative goals of profitability over sustainability. This is known as ’’Jevon’s Paradox’’ or the
paradox of energy efficiency, and states that, in the long term, an increase in efficiency in resource
use will generate an increase in resource consumption (Giampietro and Mayumi, 2018). Thus, the
unregulated adoption of Construction 4.0 entails significant risks not only for the firms of the
industry, but also for the societal prosperity.

38
Lastly, partnering and collaboration of firms in a project from all three groups demands common
communication and data applicability protocols. The newest production methods require early
collaboration and programming. Therefore, common maturity level and level of used technology
are the prerequisites for the success of a project, where architecture, engineering, and construction
partitioners should exchange data end to end in total transparency, security, and applicability from
the design to operation. Having in mind that the disruptive nature of 4IR will multiply the gaps in
technology, all three main groups in construction should upgrade evenly to facilitate the
cooperation into the digital future of construction. The horizontal implementation of 4IR on the
entire industry, and the vertical implementation on each group will facilitate the successful
transition into the 4TH Construction, and form a less threatening environment for change.

6.2 Social Construction Of Technology (SCOT)

6.2.1 Relevant Social Group

According to the aforementioned, the research design, and how the AEC industry is structured, the
three proposed groups are the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. These groups have
their own boundaries, responsibilities in a construction project, and participants understand and
use technology in their own way.

6.2.2 Interpretive flexibility

Each of the identified RSGs has its own interpretation of new technology relevant to 4TH
Construction. The nature of work, academic backgrounds of responders, familiarity in technology,
and mindset are some of the parameters to describe the perception over technology. It is apparent
that the groups have different interpretation on the 4TH Construction technology having in mind
the future use, necessity, familiarity, added value on projects, adoption rate, and personal
resistance.
Architecture group is the least familiar, focusing on creative nature of architecture through
brainstorming, discussion, common mindset, and ethics on design. The group seems reluctant on
the meaning of the upcoming technologic revolution, illustrates increased resistant on
implementing new forms of technology, and added value on their work is recognized. Fear and
unwillingness describe the group regardless their behavioral boundaries and unwillingness to
change.
In contradiction to Architecture, Engineering group has formulated a more pragmatic approach on
the 4TH Construction. They have increased familiarity and understanding on technology, recognize
its applicability, and have started preparations to adopt them. Participants perceive the 4IR as an
opportunity, and a necessary step for improvement and general upgrade in software and skills.
Fear and anxiety for the future describe the group about their thoughts on the discussed technologic
stream.

39
Construction group, just like engineering is focused on the adaptation of the newest technology
and understand how to capitalize this opportunity. The entire group has increased familiarity with
the new production methods and the connectivity of devices. The 4IR is recognized as an
opportunity with a lot of challenges to overcome. The added future value on the construction
projects is stated in general by saving time, waste, and increase quality. The group anticipates for
the future to come, considering themselves as prepared.

6.2.3 Closure
Closure identifies the same perspective of all participants on the 4IR technology and is achieved
when the multiple interpretations described above stop to exist and interpretive flexibility
diminishes. Thus, the implementation of the newest forms of technology is easier and more
productive.
None of the groups has dominated the process imposing its definition of technology, and no
consensus is achieved among the different interpretations of 4TH Construction. Engineering and
Construction group though have shaped a strong pole supporting the necessity, added value and
applicability of the newest technology. Architecture on the other hand has formed the opposition
pole pinpointing as described before the disruptive character of 4TH Construction. It could be
assumed that these two poles are competing on interpreting over the nature and meaning of the
new technologic era. Having a more in depth insight, the closure is not achieved, since there is a
conflict between the pragmatic approach of Engineering & Construction groups and the adjective
approach of Architecture group.
The none closure leads to further investigation of the context of technology and its interpretation.
The followed concepts attempts to locate and describe the reasons of the unachieved closure and
the synergy effects between the relevant social groups and technological frames.

6.2.4 Stabilization
Stabilization has occurred at different points in all the groups of the AEC, and it is semiotic. All
relevant social groups have also different homogeneity on different meanings of technology.
Architecture has high degree of stabilization, the lowest acceptance of 4TH Construction and the
highest homogeneity on the given answers from the participants. Opinions converge on
understanding the 4IR as a drawback for architecture and the ethos behind it. The anticipated
disruption on creation and synthesis has created a strong denial on adopting digitalization and
automation. 4TH Construction is considered more like a threat that defeats the purposes of
architecture. This opinion though is reinforced by misleading understanding on BIM and the
applicability of digitalization on the future production methods like 3D printing on site.
Engineering has a medium degree of stabilization because of the least homogenous opinions. Even
though the participants lean on the positive impact and applicability of automation, some of them
consider the new era as an added pressure on SMEs and their profession in general. They support

40
that this challenge could be overpassed by learning new skills and adapted to new requirements by
enabling engineering because as they mention it is in their nature being flexible and solve
complexed problems. It should be mentioned that engineering group is the most informed and
updated among all, understanding both opportunities and future threats of 4IR.
Lastly, Construction group is more homogenous than engineering, leaning on the positive impact
and necessity of 4IR on their processes, The high stabilization is reinforced by the focus on
understanding the meaning of 4TH Construction, and slowly reach a state of closure. Participants
seem to understand the actual perspectives of 4TH construction and focus on adopting and fully
capitalizing the newest technology.

6.2.5 Technological Frame

The technological frames are seen as located between actors and at the same time technological
frames belong to relevant social groups. The first technological framing will be conducted
considering the structure of the AEC industry and its division into Architecture, Engineering,
Construction groups. Each one of them will be distributed to the most relevant frame. The framing
drew data from the findings and the identified themes.
First Technological Frame
The first technologic frame consists of Architecture group and one participant from Construction
group with academics in architecture. In this frame social issues, creativity, ethics, mindset, and
ethos are prioritized. The available technology as well as the current technological stream of 4IR
are contemplated as a burden to creativity and an unavoidable process to facilitate the cooperation
with the engineering group. This is apparent from the statements of the participants in architecture
group that technology like AR/VR and 3D printing are used for marketing reasons, and there is no
understanding on potentials in using BIM. Moreover, the increased personal resistance and beliefs
from interviewees create a behavioral barrier between the architecture group and the other two
groups. This argument is supported by the fact that some of the participants in architecture firms
consider themselves as troublemakers for engineers.
Second Technological Frame
The second technological frame consists of Engineering and Construction groups. Both groups
focus on cost and time reduction, increase in performance, and to become more competitive though
new technological solutions. Both are increasingly keen on technology updates and understand the
necessity of new forms of technology like BIM, automation, and robotics in their work. The main
characteristic of this framing is that technology is perceived as necessary stage to support data
driven solutions. Additionally, having an insight on the interviewees from engineering and
construction, they pointed the close cooperation and common opinions and the role of technology
in construction projects. Lastly, actors’ mindset on this frame seem more versatile, and less
unyielding than the first one, intertwining new skills with the scientific methodology of
engineering.

41
 6.2.6 Micro political power strategies
It is difficult to identify these strategies and how have influenced the technological framing
because of the sociocultural complexity of the industry. Examining this issue from a wider angle,
two strong poles have been formed within the three social groups enabling a discussion for the
issues of 4IR in AEC. Therefore, the strategies of rhetorical argument and forming alliances will
be examined.
Rhetorical argument
The architecture group seems enclosure, consolidating architecture and its ethical background.
This mindset is apparently illustrated in societal and sustainability considerations, where the actors
belonging on the first technologic frame have strongly expressed their arguments on how
technology is use and what should be its actual purpose. They support that the 4IR should be used
to build less, consume less, make our lives easier, and create a healthier society, while the second
frame is focused on improvement and added value. In other words, the first frame supports that
the approach of 4IR on sustainability goals might be fraudulent and its revolutionary profile will
be used as a panacea to overproduce and deplete natural resources even faster.
Forming alliances
There is an apparent close cooperation between Engineering and Construction groups, which is
depicted in the second technological frame. This alliance is formed because of the common
mindset and perception on technology and its societal aspect. Moreover, this unity has occurred
since most of the actors in the Construction group have engineering background or have moved
into administrative and managerial roles in major corporations. Additionally, the academic
background has created an innate behavior towards scientific driven solutions, whereby both
groups have created their own language and culture. Meanings like force, tension, cost, time,
performance, and speed can be represented by numbers and assessed by the actors in the second
technological frame, while design, space, wellbeing, ethos, and integrity cannot be represented in
this format.

6.2.7 Semiotic power

Starting with architecture group, their perception on current and future technology is represented
by the low level of BIM, and the use of AR/VR and 3D printing in small scale for marketing
purposes with extra charge on the client. Modeling and rendering applications are used to illustrate
designs into digital forms, but integrated information and data assessment are not involved in the
process. Their focus on the qualitative process of architecture reifies a form of technological denial
and luck of cooperation with the other two groups.
Continuing with engineering group, their thoughts on technology are materialized in medium level
of BIM (Level 1-2), BIM 360 and cloud data sharing for instant collaboration with the involved
engineers, GIS for incorporating information into space, drone scanning for site analysis, IoT and
applications related with data science. Some of the latest forms of technology already been used
by engineers in this group, which involves civil, mechanical, electronic, surveyor engineers. This
42
palette of applications are used simultaneously in a project to increase performance, facilitate
substantial cooperation, and interpret science into a feasible construction plan. Unfortunately, this
palette of technology cannot be applied in full perspective because of the uninformed and reluctant
market.
Lastly, construction group meaning on technology is illustrated in BIM layering, automated
production on and off site with 3D printing, instant data sharing via 5G, early clash detection, and
increased quality control. Having an insight on future constructions, this form requires exchange
of data end-to-end and is highly depended by the technological form of engineering group, which
initiates the dematerialization of a construction project into digital protocols.

6.2.8 Semiotic structures

Architecture form indeed constrains the group, jeopardizes both cooperation and implementation
of 4th Construction in architecture, and entrenches the technological frame as described. The
upgrade could be interpreted as a burdensome possession for the nature of their work, highly
disrupted for creativity and sophistication on design. In contradiction to the other groups,
sustainability and social matters affect the group and formulate the structure.
Engineering form on the other side could facilitate the adoption of 4IR in the sector because
technology and modeling applications are the substantial to apply engineering after the widespread
of personal computers in the late ‘80s. Unfortunately, the sector hesitates in upgrading because of
the amateur marker and outdated legislation. Subsequently, the implementation of 4TH
Construction still consists a risky leverage that is expensive to maintain, and most of the cases
unprofitable.
Lastly, construction form acts as an opportunity and challenge for the sector, which is mostly
constrained by infrastructure and applicability with the engineering form. Having in mind the
necessity for an end-to-end collaboration to gather, manipulate, assess, and exchange the needed
data for automation on site, the construction form is dependently related to engineering form. This
fact is supported by the identified technological framing.

43
 6.3 Limitations
This study has been conducted meticulously and has been presented through several
complementing analyses This study has also faced some limitations. First, being a review on a
very recent topic, concepts, technology, and knowledge are constantly evolving. During this
research prominent organizations have already implemented technological solutions regarding on
site robotic surveillance, which have been presented in public only a few months ago. Therefore,
topics and developments regarding this research might not have been included, and interpretations
might be outdated.
Second, this review has a comprehensive approach mainly from the point of view of civil engineers
and architects, which is in the view of the author. This short angle perspective might has limited
the research and biased the insight into the social structure of the AEC industry.
Third, Operation and Facility Management sectors have not been included in this research because
of the immaturity level of the sector in the Greek national market. Having an insight on the
operations sector would enrich this research and have a wider view on the involved social groups
in the AECO industry. As it was described, 4IR enables the integration of operations and facility
management into the design phase with the exchange of data end to end.
Forth, the most prominent countries promoting advancement in Construction 4.0 were not included
in this research. Considerations about the local contexts have been used in the study because the
latest pandemic out-brake. The luck of accessibility and increased restrictions have added extra
liability on the research, resulting the mitigation of risk.
Fifth, as discovered, the participated project managers from Greek AEC organizations have no
academic background related to construction project management accept one. This fact has its own
contemplations on the collected data, since major theories related to technological adoption and
CPM in general are not familiar to participants. Inevitably, the author had to interpret and
conceptualize the findings in multiple layers as it was described in the coding part. This process
might has disrupted the statements of the participants and manipulated the result of this research.
Last, within the above limitations, the author is aware of the possible limits caused by self-biases.
Information bias, selection bias on participants and theories, and confounding are the three types
that have limited this research.

44
 6.4 Recommendations for further research
This thesis research has been conducted thoroughly, complementing combined theories for
multilevel assessment of the AEC industry. Despite the analysis presented in this research giving
insightful societal perspective of the AEC industry, the author recognize the need for improvement.
In this regard, SCOT theory should be applied in each social group in the industry separately to
gain a more detailed overview of the interpretation of Construction form and identify relevant
social groups within each group.
More research is deemed necessary to clarify how Operation/Facility management and client
groups inspire the implementation of Construction 4.0. In this context, the selection of
interviewees should be project-based. This methodology will allow the analysis of the end to end
integration of Construction 4.0, and the synergies between the involved groups in specific projects.
The selected projects should represent each national market, contemplating both private and public
clients.
Additionally, more research should be made to explore the variants on business models to facilitate
the end to end integration and the new roles of technology experts. The end to end integration is a
new challenge for the groups and according to the findings of this thesis it becomes more
complicated because of the different interpretations of technology in each group. The Integrated
Project Delivery method seems the profound solution to facilitate the needs of Construction 4.0
but, a more detailed insight will reveal new business structures and flexible teams.
The identified sustainability issues from the interviews and the analysis requires further research.
The transition to Construction 4.0 entails both opportunities and risks, because of the
environmental impact of the industry. It is evident that the new technology through automation
and end to end data integrations will improve systems and methods but, how the industry uses the
technological innovations is the question to be answered. Contemplating the efficiency dilemma
of Jevon’s Paradox in utilizing Construction 4.0 is the topic to be further investigated, proposing
policies and frameworks for sustainable consumption in construction.
Lastly, a grounded theory study should be conducted to formulate a bespoke adoption plan of
Construction 4.0 in the investigated national market. Combined with induction approach, will
allow the identification of themes and synergies between the participants.

45
 7. Conclusion

The presented research questions in this thesis are:

Q1: How the AEC participants perceive the upcoming technological wave?
Q2: How could the industry implement Construction 4.0?
Q3: How ready is the Greek AEC industry for Construction 4.0?
Starting with the first research question, it has been revealed that the AEC industry, regardless its
structure and organization has depicted a parallel societal fragmentation with three different social
groups with their own perceptions on technology and its necessity. Architecture group is the least
familiar with technology and fear, hesitation, and skepticism describe the group, where the
mentality and academic background have orientated the level of technological acceptance.
Construction 4.0 perceived as disruptive intervention in both professional and organizational, and
it is quite unlikely to align innovation with the business plan regardless the size of the organization.
On the other hand, engineering and construction seem to be clustered and have common
understanding on Construction 4.0, where both the necessity and applicability are understood for
the future of the industry. Anticipation, low personal resistance, and flexibility characterize the
groups without neglecting the transformation risk in organizational level. The pragmatic approach
of both groups widens the gap between them and architecture group, mitigating the possibility on
achieving consensus in the industry. The evidence of mental and technological barriers require
both horizontal and vertical assessment of each sector before any initiative for adoption to achieve
the needed integration.
As for the second research question and the implementation of Construction 4.0, building
informational modeling is the fundamental platform for interoperability and merging the
technological frames of each group. According to this research, political initiatives prioritizing
societal needs are crucial to fully capitalize the 4th Construction., sustainability and CE goals
should guide the transition and orientate the overconsuming construction activity. Therefore,
organized technological and incentive frameworks are substantial to mitigate the risk of disruption
and modernize the competition by enabling the individual rather than resources for the transition.
These policies should be supplemented by the needed technological infrastructure, sufficient BIM
protocols, academic upgrade in new skills, and supportive legislation to facilitate integrated project
delivery from an early stage of a construction project. All the above ought to be considered in a
sequence with a degree of exactness.
Lastly, the assessed local AEC industry is unprepared institutionally, legally, and politically,
lucking of a sufficient plan to conceptualize Construction 4.0. In organizational level, large
enterprises in engineering and construction sectors have assessed their plans on adopting
Construction 4.0, but the low maturity level of the market hinders their technological upgrade. In
individual level, construction and engineering sectors have formed a cluster of similar

46
interpretation of the future AEC, while architecture group remains loyal to traditional practices,
criticizing the notion of technology in architecture. This asymmetry jeopardizes the adoption of
the integrated nature of Construction 4.0.
To conclude, this research has strengthened the notion that the implementation of 4th Construction
should be handled as a technological philosophy of integration and not just a digital transformation
of organizations in all three sectors of AEC. Handling the cultural shift horizontally and vertically
in all sectors will easy the buriers, strengthen the needed synergies, reform the obsolete culture
which hinders the adoption of Construction 4.0, and secure the polyphony in the industry. This
cultural shift is highly dependent on political initiatives, being orientated by the considerations on
sustainability perspective, relating not only issues of performance, but also the paradoxical use of
technology, and advocating the implementation of Construction 4.0 through both sustainable
consumption and efficiency.

47
 8. References

Abernathy, W. J. and Clark, K.B. (1985) Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction.
Research policy, 14(1), pp. 3-22
Afrianto, A. (2018) Being a professional teacher in the era of industrial revolution 4.0:
Opportunities, challenges, and strategies for innovative classroom practices. English Language
Teaching and Research 2(1): pp. 1–13.
Ahmad D. (2019) AI & Deep Learning Transforming The AEC Industry. [online] Available at:
<https://www.dar.com/insights/details/ai-and-deep-learning-transforming-the-
aec%C2%A0industry> (Accessed 13 May 2021).
Aibar, E. and Bijker, W.E. (1997) Constructing a city: The Cerda plan for the extension of
Barcelona. Science, technology, and human value 22, pp. 3-30.
Alaloul, W., Liew, M., Zawawi, N. & Mohammed, B. (2018) Industry Revolution IR 4.0: Future
Opportunities and Challenges in Construction Industry. MATEC Web of Conferences.
Asadi, A., Alsubaey, M. & Makatsoris, C. (2015) A machine learning approach for predicting
delays in construction logistics. International Journal of Advanced Logistics, 4(2), pp. 115-130.
Asún, R., Navarro, K. and Alvarado, J. (2015) Developing Multidimensional Likert Scales Using
Item Factor Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(1), pp. 109-133.
Baker, J. (2011) The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework. Information Systems
Theory, pp. 231-245.
Ballard, G., Koskela, L., Howell, G., and Zabelle, T. (2001) Production system design in
construction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th annual conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore
Bayram, S., Ocal, M., Laptali Oral, E. and Atis, C. (2015) Comparison Of Multi-Layer
Perceptron (Mlp) and Radial Basis Function (Rbf) for Construction Cost Estimation: The Case of
Turkey. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22(4), pp.480-490.
Beretti, A., Figuières, C. and Grolleau, G. (2013) Behavioral innovations: The missing capital in
sustainable development? Ecological Economics, 89, pp. 187–195.
Bermudez M.D. and Juarez B.F. (2017) Competencies to adopt Industry 4.0 for operations
management personnel at automotive parts suppliers in Nuevo Leon. Available at:
http://ieomsociety.org/bogota2017/papers/117.pdf (Accessed 15 May 2021)
Bijker, W.E. (1993) Do Not Despair: There Is Life after Constructivism. Science, Technology, &
Human Values 18:113-138. [doi:10.1177/016224399301800107]
Bijker, W.E. and Bijsterveld, K. (2000) Women walking through plans: technology, democracy,
and gender identity. Technology and culture, 41, pp. 485-515.

48
Bock, T. (2015) The future of construction automation: Technological disruption and the
upcoming ubiquity of robotics. Automation in Construction, 59, pp.113-121.
Boton, C. (2018) Supporting constructability analysis meetings with Immersive Virtual Reality-
based collaborative BIM 4D simulation. Automation in Construction, 96, pp.1-15.
Boyes, H., Hallaq, B., Cunningham, J. and Watson, T. (2018) The industrial internet of things
(IIoT): An analysis framework. Computers in Industry, 101, pp.1-12.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77-101
Bringezu, S. (2019) Toward Science-Based and Knowledge-Based Targets for Global
Sustainable Resource Use. Resources, 8(3), p. 140.
Bruckmann, T., Mattern, H., Spenglerc, A., Reichert, C., Malkwitz, A. and König, M. (2016)
Automated construction of masonry buildings using cable-driven parallel robots. In Proceedings
of the 33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC),
Auburn, AL, USA, 18–21 July 2016; pp. 1–8.
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2014) The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and
Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. Norton, New York, NY, USA.
Burns, T. E. and Stalker, G. M. (1961) The management of innovation. In. London: Tavistock
Chaka, C. (2020) Skills, competencies and literacies attributed to 4IR/Industry 4.0: Scoping
review. IFLA Journal, 46(4), pp. 369-399.
Chan, P. (2020) Briefing: Industry 4.0 in construction: radical transformation or restricted
agenda?. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law,
173(4), pp.141-144.
Chan, P. W. and Ejohwomu, O. (2018) How Does Project Management Relate To Productivity?
A systematic review of published evidence. July. Princes Risborough: Association for Project
Management. Available at: https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a-resource/productivity-
report/ [Accessed 13 May 2021].
Charef, R., Emmitt, S., Alaka, H. and Fouchal, F. (2019) Building Information Modelling
adoption in the European Union: An overview. Journal of Building Engineering, 25, pp.100777.
Charmaz K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative
Analysis., London: Sage
Christensen, C. M. (2013) The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to
fail: Harvard Business Review Press.
Chu B, Jung K, Lim, M.T. and Hong D. (2013) Robot-based construction automation: an
application to steel beam assembly (Part I). Autom Constr 32, pp. 46–61

49
Chunduri, S., Kreider, R. and Messner, J. I. (2013) A case study implementation of the BIM
planning procedures for facility owners. Architectural engineering conference 2013: Building
solutions for architectural engineering - proceedings of the 2013 architectural engineering
national conference, State College, Pennsylvania, USA, AEI, pp. 691–701.
Corbetta, P. (2003) Social Research Theory, Methods and Techniques. London: SAGE
Publications
Cotet, G.B., Balgiu, B.A. and Zaleschi, V.C. (2017) Assessment procedure for the soft skills
requested by Industry 4.0. MATEC Web of Conferences 121, pp. 1–8.
Craveiro, F., Duarte, J., Bartolo, H. and Bartolo, P. (2019) Additive manufacturing as an
enabling technology for digital construction: A perspective on Construction 4.0. Automation in
Construction, 103, pp. 251-267.
Cushman, M. and McLean, R. (2008) Guest editorial: Exclusion, inclusion and changing the face
of information systems research. Information Technology and People, 21(3), pp. 213– 221.
doi:10.1108/09593840810895993
Dainty, A., Leiringer, R., Fernie, C. and Harty, C. (2017) BIM and the small construction firm: a
critical perspective, Building Research & Information, 45:6, pp. 696-709, DOI:
10.1080/09613218.2017.1293940
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E. and Linder, C. (2018) Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for
construction supply chains: A systematic literature review. Computers in Industry, 99, pp. 205-
225
Davies, R. and Harty, C. (2013) Measurement and exploration of individual beliefs about the
consequences of building information modelling use. Construction management and economics,
31(11), pp. 1110-1112
Ding, L., Li, K., Zhou, Y. & Love, P. (2017) An IFC-inspection process model for infrastructure
projects: Enabling real-time quality monitoring and control. Automation in Construction, 84, pp.
96-110.
Doody, O. and Noonan, M. (2013) Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data. Nurse
Researcher, 20(5), pp. 28-32.
Drath, R. and Horch, A. (2014) Industry 4.0 – Hit or hype? IEEE Industrial Electronics
Magazine 8(2), pp. 56–58.
Dritsas, S. and Soh, G. (2018). Building robotics design for construction. Construction Robotics,
3(1-4), pp.1-10.
Ellul, J. (1954) The Technological Society. Vintage, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Fernie, S., Leiringer, R. and Thorpe, T. (2006) Change in construction: A critical perspective.
Building Research & Information, 34(2), pp. 91–103. doi:10.1080/09613210500491639

50
Frey, C.B. and Osborne, M. (2013) The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to
computerisation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114, pp. 254–280.
Giampietro, M. and Mayumi, K. (2018) Unraveling the Complexity of the Jevons Paradox: The
Link Between Innovation, Efficiency, and Sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research, 6.
Hariharasudan, A. and Kot S. (2018) A scoping review on digital English and Education 4.0 for
Industry 4.0. Social Sciences 7(227), pp 1–13
Hamledari, H., Rezazadeh Azar, E. and McCabe, B. (2018) IFC-Based Development of As-Built
and As-Is BIMs Using Construction and Facility Inspection Data: Site-to-BIM Data Transfer
Automation. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 32(2).
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of
existing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 9-30
Hoosain, M., Paul, B. and Ramakrishna, S. (2020) The Impact of 4IR Digital Technologies and
Circular Thinking on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 12(23),
p.10143.
IEA. (2018) Global Status Report, Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings
and Construction Sector. In Proceedings of the 2018 United Nations Climate Change
Conference, Katowice, Poland, 2–15 December 2018
Imran, M., Hameed, W. and Haque A. (2018) Influence of Industry 4.0 on the production and
service sectors in Pakistan: Evidence from textile and logistics industries. Social Sciences
7(246), pp. 1–21.
Kazancoglu, Y. and Ozkan-Ozen, Y. (2018) Analyzing Workforce 4.0 in the Fourth Industrial
Revolution and proposing a road map from operations management perspective with fuzzy
DEMATEL. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(6), pp. 891-907.
Keller, S. and Conradin, K. (2019) Semi-Structured Interviews. Available at:
https://sswm.info/planning-and-programming/decision-making/gathering-ideas/semi-structured-
interviews (Accessed 13 May 2021)
Kim, T., Cha, S. and Kim, Y. (2015) A framework for evaluating user involvement methods in
architectural, engineering, and construction projects. Architectural Science Review, 59(2),
pp.136-147.
Klein, H. and Kleinman, D. (2002) The social construction of technology: structural
considerations. Science, technology, and human values 27: pp. 28-
52. [doi:10.1177/016224390202700102]
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H., Feld, T. and Hoffmann, M. (2014) Industry 4.0. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), pp. 239-242.
Li, G., Hou, Y. and Wu, A. (2017) Fourth Industrial Revolution: technological drivers, impacts
and coping methods. Chinese Geographical Science, 27(4), pp. 626-637.

51
Li, X., Yi, W., Chi, H., Wang, X. and Chan, A. (2018) A critical review of virtual and
augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Automation in Construction, 86,
pp. 150-162.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E. and Ramos, L. (2017) Past, present and future of Industry
4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of
Production Research, 55(12), pp. 3609-3629.
Liao, Y., Loures, E., Deschamps, F., Brezinski, G. and Venâncio, A. (2018) The impact of the
fourth industrial revolution: a cross-country/region comparison. Production, 28(0).
Liu, Y., van Nederveen, S. and Hertogh, M. (2017) Understanding effects of BIM on
collaborative design and construction: An empirical study in China. International Journal of
Project Management, 35(4), pp. 686-698.
Liu, Z., Yujie, L., and Lu, C. P. (2019) A Review and Scientometric Analysis of GlobalBuilding
Information Modeling (BIM) Research in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction(AEC)
Industry
Lloyd-Walker, B.M., Mills, A.J. and Walker, D.H.T. (2014). Enabling construction innovation:
the role of a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project
alliances. Construction Management and Economics, 32(3), pp. 229–245, DOI:
10.1080/01446193.2014.892629
Mander, J. (1996) Technologies of globalisation. In The Case against the Global Economy: and
for a Turn toward the Local (Mander J and Goldsmith E (eds)). Sierra Club Books, San
Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 344–359.
Martin, B. and Scott, P. (1992) Automatic vehicle identification: A test of theories of
technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 17, pp. 485-
505. [doi:10.1177/016224399201700404]
Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Ali, K., Maresova, P. and Krejcar, O. (2019) Industry 4.0 for the
Construction Industry—How Ready Is the Industry?. Applied Sciences, 9(14), p. 2819.
McKinsey & Company. (2017) Reinventing Construction: A Route To Higher Productivity
<https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital%20Projects%20and%20Infr
astructure/Our%20Insights/Reinventing%20construction%20through%20a%20producti
ity%20revolution/MGI-Reinventing-Construction-Executive-summary.ashx> (Accessed 13 May
2021).
Mohd Nawi, M., Baluch, N. and Bahauddin, A. (2014) Impact of Fragmentation Issue in
Construction Industry: An Overview. MATEC Web of Conferences, 15, p. 1009.
Monticolo, D., Badin, J., Gomes, S., Bonjour, E. and Chamoret, D. (2015) A meta-model for
knowledge configuration management to support collaborative engineering. Computers in
Industry, 66, pp. 11-20.

52
Muñoz-La Rivera, F., Mora-Serrano, J., Valero, I. and Oñate, E. (2020) Methodological-
Technological Framework for Construction 4.0. Archives of Computational Methods in
Engineering, 28(2), pp. 689-711.
Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P. and Wholey, J.S. (2015) Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation, Edition: 4, Chapter: Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews
Niu, Y., Lu, W., Chen, K., Huang, G. and Anumba, C. (2016) Smart Construction
Objects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 30(4).
Oliveira, T. and Martins, M. (2011) Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption
Models at Firm Level. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), pp. 110-
121.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for
studying technology in organizations. Organization science, 11(4), pp. 404-428.
Oesterreich, T. and Teuteberg, F. (2016) Understanding the implications of digitisation and
automation in the context of Industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and elements of a research
agenda for the construction industry. Computers in Industry, 83, pp. 121-139.
Oxford College of Marketing Blog. (2021) What is a PESTEL analysis? - Oxford College of
Marketing Blog. [online] Available at:
<https://blog.oxfordcollegeofmarketing.com/2016/06/30/pestel-analysis/> (Accessed 13 May
2021).
Papadonikolaki, E. (2020) The Digital Supply Chain: Mobilising Supply Chain Management
Philosophy to Reconceptualise Digital Technologies and Building Information Modelling(BIM).
In S. Pryke (Ed.), Successful Construction Supply Chain Management: Concepts andCase
Studies
Park T.W. (2018) From the Fourth Industrial Revolution to the Fourth Shared
Revolution. Studies in Philosophy East-West, null(87), pp. 321-346.
Papadonikolaki E., Krystallis I. and Morgan B. (2020) Digital transformation in construction:
Systematic literature review of evolving concepts
Parvan, K., Rahmandad, H. and Haghani, A. (2015) Inter-phase feedbacks in construction
projects. Journal of Operations Management, 39-40(1), pp. 48-62.
Pärn, E., Edwards, D. and Sing, M. (2017) The building information modelling trajectory in
facilities management: A review. Automation in Construction, 75, pp. 45-55.
Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory.
Research policy, 13(6), pp. 343-373.
Pearce, K.E. and Rice, R.E. (2013) Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile
and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication, 63, pp. 721–744.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12045

53
Peppard, J. and Ward, J. (2016). The strategic management of information systems : building a
digital strategy. Hoboken: Wiley.
Pereira A.C. and Romero F. (2017) A review of the meanings and the implications of the
Industry 4.0 concept. Procedia Manufacturing 13, pp. 1206–1214.
Perrier, N., Bled, A., Bourgault, M., Cousin, N., Danjou, C., Pellerin, R. and Roland, T. (2020)
Construction 4.0: a survey of research trends. Journal of Information Technology in
Construction, 25, pp. 416-437.
Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1984) The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the
sociology of science and technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science 14, pp.
399-442. [doi:10.1177/030631284014003004]
Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1987) The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the
sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social
construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology,
edited by W.E. Bijker, T.P. Huges and T.J. Pinch, pp. 17-50. Cambridges, MA: MIT Press.
Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1986) Science, relativism and the new sociology of technology:
reply to Russell. Social studies of science 16:347-360. [doi:10.1177/0306312786016002009]
Pinto, J.K. and Morris, P.W.G. (2004). The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken, N.J.:
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1350-1367
Prell, C. (2009) Rethinking the Social Construction of Technology through ‘Following the
Actors’: A Reappraisal of Technological Frames. Sociological Research Online, 14(2), pp.36-47.
Rahman, M.M. (2014) "Barriers to implementing Modern Methods of Construction." Journal of
Management in Engineering. 30(1), pp. 69-77
Razak, N., Alakrash, H. and Sahboun, Y. (2018) English Language Teachers' Readiness for The
Application of Technology Towards Fourth Industrial Revolution Demands. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Information Technology & Multimedia, 07(02(02), pp. 89-98.
Sackey, S.M., Bester A. and Adams D. (2017) Industry 4.0 learning factory didactic design
parameters for industrial engineering education in South Africa. South African Journal of
Industrial Engineering 28(1)
Sacks, R., Perlman, A. and Barak, R. (2013) Construction safety training using immersive virtual
reality. Construction Management and Economics, 31(9), pp. 1005-1017.
Safura Zabidin, N., Belayutham, S. and Che Ibrahim, C. (2020) A bibliometric and scientometric
mapping of Industry 4.0 in construction. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 25,
pp. 287-307.
Santos, R., Costa, A. and Grilo, A. (2017) Bibliometric analysis and review of Building
Information Modelling literature published between 2005 and 2015. Automation in Construction,
80, pp. 118-136.

54
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016) Research Methods for Business Students.
London: Licensing Agency.
Sawhney, A., Riley, M. and Irizarry, J. (2020) Construction 4.0 - An Innovation Platform for the
Built Environment; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-429-39810-0.
Schneider, P. (2018) Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: an empirically backed research
agenda for a nascent field. Review of Managerial Science, 12(3), pp. 803-848.
Schönbeck, P., Löfsjögård, M. and Ansell, A. (2020) Quantitative Review of Construction 4.0
Technology Presence in Construction Project Research. Buildings, 10(10), p.173.
Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K. and Weber, U. (2018) The Relevance of Circular Economy
Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), pp. 77-95.
Schwab K. (2016) The fourth industrial revolution. Available at:
https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab (Accessed 13
May 2021)
Sbiti, M., Beddiar, K., Beladjine, D., Perrault, R. and Mazari, B. (2021) Toward BIM and LPS
Data Integration for Lean Site Project Management: A State-of-the-Art Review and
Recommendations. Buildings, 11(5), p. 196.
Sherratt, F., Dowsett R and Sherratt S. (2020) Construction 4.0 and its potential impact on people
working in the construction industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Management, Procurement and Law 173(4), pp. 145–152,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.19.00053
Slusarczyk, B. (2018) Industry 4.0 – Are we ready? Polish Journal of Management Studies 7(1),
pp. 232–248.
Succar, B., Sher, W. and Williams, A. (2013) An integrated approach to BIM competency
assessment, acquisition and application. Automation in Construction, 35, pp. 174–189
Sun, M., Fleming, A., Senaratne, S., Motawa, I. and Yeoh, M. (2006) A Change Management
Toolkit for Construction Projects. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2(4), pp.
261-271.
Teicholz, P., Goodrum, P. and Haas, C. (2001) "U.S. Construction Labor Productivity Trends,
1970-1998." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5), .1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2001)127:5(427)
Toor, S. and Ogunlana, S. (2009) Construction professionals' perception of critical success
factors for large‐scale construction projects. Construction Innovation, 9(2), pp.149-167.
Turner, C., Oyekan, J., Stergioulas, L. and Griffin, D. (2021) Utilizing Industry 4.0 on the
Construction Site: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics,
17(2), pp.746-756.

55
Viana, D., Tommelein, I. and Formoso, C. (2017) Using Modularity to Reduce Complexity of
Industrialized Building Systems for Mass Customization. Energies, 10(10), p. 1622.
Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Felländer, A.,
Langhans, S., Tegmark, M. and Fuso Nerini, F. (2020) The role of artificial intelligence in
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications, 11(1).
WEF (World Economic Forum). (2016) Shaping the Future of Construction: a Breakthrough in
Mindsetand Technology. WEF, Geneva, Switzerland
Winner, L. (1993) Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and
the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 18: pp. 362-
378. [doi:10.1177/016224399301800306]
Wolstenholme, A. (2009) Never waste a good crisis: A review of progress since Rethinking
Construction. London: Constructing Excellence.
Wright, C., Godfrey, L., Armiento, G., Haywood, L., Inglesi-Lotz, R., Lyne, K. and Schwerdtle,
P. (2019) Circular economy and environmental health in low- and middle-income
countries. Globalization and Health, 15(1).
Yanagawa, K. (2016) reIndustrializing Architecture. International Journal of Architectural
Computing, 14(2), pp.158-166.
Yang, R.J., Wang, Y. and Jin, X.H. (2014) Stakeholders’ Attributes, Behaviors, and Decision
Making Strategies in Construction Projects: Importance and Correlations in Practice. Project
Management Journal, 45(3), pp.74–90.
Zeiba, D. (2019) Swiss researchers enlist the help of robots to build high-tech showhome.
[online] The Architect’s Newspaper. Available at: <https://www.archpaper.com/2019/03/eth-
zurich-university-high-tech-showhome/> (Accessed 15 May 2021).

56
 9. Appendix

APENDIX 1
Questionnaire for Architecture Group Participants
Introduction
1. Can you describe your role and main responsibilities?
2. Could you describe the organization you work in?
3. What is your background?

Technological
1. Are you familiar with the latest technologies of 4IR like AR/VR, AI, parametric or
generative design, 3D printing?
2. What kind of building informatics (BIM) do you use? In what level?
3. Will these new technologies facilitate your connection and cooperation with engineers
and constructors?
4. Is this new technology useful in architecture? Is it helpful to create new designs and
products?

Economic
1. Would you invest in upgrading into 4IR technologies? What do you think about the
price?
2. Do you think that this technology will increase your profitability or earnings?
3. What do you think about this upgrade in SMEs? Is your organization able to invest?
4. Is our market capable to support the upgrade?

Environmental
1. Will the 4IR secure the sustainable goals and minimize waste of the industry?
2. Are you aware of the digital waste?

Legal
1. Do we need any legal changes that create new roles and responsibilities?
2. Do we need any form of legislation to facilitate the transition?

Political
1. Are there any political interventions to facilitate the transition? Do we need them?
2. Any incentives to support the transition? Are they necessary?

57
 3. Does the 4IR create a greater fragmentation in the industry? Any new roles within your
organization and in architecture in general?

Social
1. Will the 4IR give new opportunities? Is it going to be discriminative?
2. Do you believe that these developments will isolate elder experienced architects? Is it
too complicated for them?
3. Do we need architects with new skills? What skills are necessary for the future?

Ethical
1. Will the transition increase unemployment? How architecture fits in a digitalized
environment?
2. Are you an advocate of innovation for innovation or innovation for society?
3. What do you choose? Technicians and BIM experts or talented architects with fantasy?
4. What worries you the most? Any fear?

58
 APENDIX 2
Questionnaire for Engineering Group Participants

Introduction
1. Can you describe your role and main responsibilities?
2. Could you describe the organization you work in?
3. What is your background?

Technological
1. Are you familiar with the latest technologies of 4IR like AI, ML, robotics, 3D scanning,
drones, Big Data, IoT, or automations? Which of them are more related to your work as
engineer?
2. What kind of building informatics (BIM) do you use? In what level?
3. Will these new technologies make easier your cooperation with architects, other
engineers and constructors?
4. In what part of your work would be useful? How depended on technology is engineering?

Economic
1. Would you invest in upgrading into 4IR technologies? What do you think about the
price?
2. Do you think that this technology will increase your profitability or earnings?
3. What do you think about the implementation of 4IR on SMEs?
4. Is our market capable to support the upgrade?

Environmental
1. Will the 4IR secure the sustainable goals and minimize waste of the industry?
2. Are you aware of the digital waste?

Legal
1. Will 4IR initiate legal changes that create new roles and responsibilities within your
organization or engineering in general?
2. Do we need any form of legislation to facilitate the transition?

Political
1. Are there any political interventions to facilitate the transition? Do we need them?
2. Any incentives to support the transition? Are they necessary?

59
 3. Does the 4IR create a greater fragmentation in the industry? Any new roles in the contect
of engineering?

Social
1. Will 4IR provide new opportunities? Is it going to be discriminative?
2. Do you believe that these developments will isolate elder experienced engineers? Is it too
complicated for them?
3. Do we need engineers with new skills? Should we upgrade or change our academic
system to support the innovation in the industry?

Ethical
1. Will the transition increase unemployment?
2. What do you choose? Innovation for innovation or innovation for society?
3. What do you choose? Technicians and BIM experts or engineers with fantasy?
4. What worries you the most? Any fear?

60
 APENDIX 3
Questionnaire for Construction Group Participants

Introduction
1. Can you describe your role and main responsibilities?
2. Could you describe the organization you work in?
3. What is your background?

Technological
1. Are you familiar with the latest technologies of 4IR like robotics, 3D printing, 5G,
Blockchain, on-site automations? Which of them are applicable in construction?
2. What kind of building informatics (BIM) do you use? In what level?
3. Will these new technologies facilitate your connection and cooperation with others?
4. In what part of your work would be useful? Do you need automation on-site?

Economic
1. Would you invest in upgrading into 4IR technologies? What do you think about the
price?
2. How will this technology affect your profitability or earnings on construction?
3. What do you think about the implementation of 4IR on SMEs?
4. Is our market capable to support the upgrade?

Environmental
1. Will the 4IR secure the sustainable goals and minimize waste of the industry?
2. Are you aware waste during construction?

Legal
1. Will 4IR initiate legal changes that create new roles and responsibilities in your sector?
2. Do we need any form of legislation to facilitate the transition?

Political
1. Are there any political interventions to facilitate the transition? Do we need them?
2. Any incentives to support the transition? Are they necessary?
3. Does the 4IR create a greater fragmentation in the industry?

61
Social
1. Will the 4IR give new opportunities? Is it going to be discriminative for the labors on
your projects?
2. Will new technology isolate elder experienced engineers or labor work on site?
3. Do we need professional with new skills? What kind of skills?
Ethical
1. Will the transition increase unemployment in construction projects?
2. What do you choose? Innovation for innovation or innovation for society?
3. What do you choose? Technicians and BIM experts or engineers with fantasy?
4. What worries you the most? Any fear?

62
TRITA-ABE-MBT-21362

www.kth.se
63