Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Automated progress monitoring technological model for construction

projects
Abdul Hannan Qureshi a, Wesam Salah Alaloul a,⇑, Wong Kai Wing a, Syed Saad a, Muhammad Ali Musarat a,
Syed Ammad b, Ahmed Farouk Kineber c
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
b
Civil Engineering Discipline, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Construction industry professionals admire the evolution of digital data-acquisition technologies in mon-
Received 4 August 2022 itoring processes due to efficient and efficacious outcomes. However, due to a lack of theoretical insight
Revised 1 December 2022 towards the effective application of these technologies, hesitation has been observed for its adoption,
Accepted 14 January 2023
which added a challenge to attaining the Industry 4.0 spirit. This study aims to improve a theoretical, sta-
Available online 20 January 2023
tistically validated model, underlining the operational factors that enhance the performance of the dig-
itized monitoring process. The study has followed the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach on
Keywords:
identified 36 factors, which were colligated under four categories for developing the technological-
Effective monitoring parameters
Confirmatory factor analysis
based model. The attained model defines effective technological-based factors for implementing auto-
Construction industry mated monitoring under ‘tracking & sensing’, ‘site video’, ‘3D scanner’, and ‘site images’. The significance
Automated monitoring factors of this model is a provision of a theoretical base to researchers and construction industry professionals in
Automated monitoring model digitized progress monitoring technological operations and technical aspects towards enriched
Technological parameters outcomes.
Ó 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction on the coordination and integration of provided human workforce

Progress monitoring is a process to orchestrate, track, and
review the progress of construction projects. It refers to examining,
relating, and validating the construction project activities for pro-
jected performance with the constructed project execution plan.
Ineffectual project monitoring causes delays in work activities
[1], whilst effectual project monitoring strategies for progress
assessment allow swift remedial actions for affected activities
[2]. Unfortunately, construction projects are still more predomi-
nated by traditional monitoring techniques, which are dependent
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abdul_19000967@utp.edu.my (A. Hannan Qureshi), wesam.
alaloul@utp.edu.my (W. Salah Alaloul), syed_19000314@utp.edu.my (S. Saad), ali.
musarat@utp.edu.my (M. Ali Musarat), ammad.syed@monash.edu (S. Ammad), A.
kineber@psau.edu.sa (A. Farouk Kineber).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
and assigned resources to complete a task [3]. Manual progress
scheduling and reporting on project activities are time-
consuming and less accurate for being subjectively evaluated; for
complex projects; manual progress monitoring techniques are dis-
couraged [4]. Therefore, obtaining a workable progress assessment
monitoring approach is exceedingly important, as it reduces the
risk of error in collected data and enhances efficiency. Moreover,
it is also believed that by employing experienced supervisory staff,
effective project control can be achieved due to effectual imple-
mentation strategies [5]. The artificial intelligence (AI) based digi-
tal monitoring methodologies support the stakeholders in
neutralizing the concerns [6]. The application of AI-based tech-
nologies in the construction sector for automated progress moni-
toring is proving to be essential to attain effective and efficient
processes [7,8]. Likewise, Building Information Modeling (BIM)
based models are considered substantial for analyzing the con-
struction sequences and automated progress monitoring [9]. Also,
BIM is considered a key technology in automation and achieving
Industry 4.0 [10]. As a result, practitioners are willing to adopt
digital-based methodologies and systems, as besides being part
of modern techniques, they also offer sustainable solutions [11].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102165
2090-4479/Ó 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
Moreover, technology adoption in construction processes benefits
in terms of productivity, cost, and time [12].
Despite developments in construction procedures and progress
monitoring technologies, hesitation persists in the construction
sector among stakeholders towards their adoption [11,13]. One
of the reasons is the obstinate mindset of industry professionals
toward traditional methodologies [14], and the other is due to
the lack of necessary knowledge and information about the impli-
cation and implementation of technologies [15,16]. The automated
progress monitoring of construction projects is a sensitive subject
among researchers in this field, and various studies have been con-
ducted considering different data acquisition technologies. Most
studies have highlighted operation-related implementation factors
by focusing on individual or specific monitoring technology. At the
same time, few studies identified critical operational factors and
constraints related to digitized monitoring operations. Alizadehsa-
lehi & Yitmen [15] highlighted the effects of the digitized monitor-
ing process on the strategic performance indicators of a project, i.e.,
quality, time, and cost. Construction performance control pro-
cesses were identified via structural equation modeling (SEM) con-
sidering the digital and traditional progress monitoring
environments. Moreover, considering the real-time efficient and
effective monitoring environment, the beneficiary effect of digi-
tized progress assessment was validated. On the other hand, a
study by Alizadehsalehi & Yitmen [17] identified the field factors
impacting the BIM-integrated automated monitoring data captur-
ing technologies on construction projects and developed a model.
The designed model illustrated the managerial impacts by concen-
trating on the BIM-based technologies for their benefits, require-
ments, and procedures.
In the executed studies, the multilevel factors impacting project
performance have been characterized as significant constructs that
support the evolution of construction industry operations toward
automation. However, to develop the confidence of the construc-
tion industry stakeholders in technologies, the critical factors are
required to be explored that may provide a guideline and under-
standing to effectively implement an automated monitoring pro-
cess and highlight the technological parameters. Therefore, to
overcome the lack of confidence of industry practitioners towards
technologies [18,19], there is a need to identify critical parameters
to fulfill the knowledge gap that exists for automated technologies.
The research community has also highlighted the absence of
technology-based reference frameworks, knowledge management
standards, and specifications as substantial challenging reasons
fueling this unwillingness of the construction industry [20,21] to
adopt digitized procedures. In response to the aforementioned
gaps, Qureshi et al. [22] performed an in-detailed structured study
in which a comprehensive technological framework was intro-
duced for close-range automated detection data-acquisition tech-
nologies considering the construction environment. However,
that framework has only been analyzed by applying the relative
importance index (RII) for ranking the identified factors and lacks
advanced statistical validation. Therefore, there is a need to evalu-
ate the theoretical framework and its practicability. In light of the
aforementioned discussion, this study aims to analyze and mea-
sure the impact of the identified technological factors, which
may affect the operational performance of automated progress
monitoring for construction projects. Moreover, an automated pro-
gress monitoring technological operational model has been devel-
oped for construction projects, which has been validated by
evaluating the technology-based factors and their relationship by
implementing the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique.
The designed model will cover the factors for all the close-range
monitoring technologies defined by the literature. This designed
and developed automated monitoring technological model will
provide the prime guideline, especially for new users, on auto-
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
mated progress monitoring technologies by highlighting the effec-
tual factors; which, if not considered, adversely affect the
operational performance. There is a need to motivate small/ med-
ium construction contractors and practitioners to implement tech-
nologies in construction processes and this designed technological
model will provide the base knowledge management guideline as a
first step. The outcome of this study will refine the technological
factors and will prove to be beneficial for the construction industry
as it will act as a reference model for technological operations dur-
ing the automated progress monitoring process. Such mathemati-
cally validated models would be fundamental to encourage
construction industry stakeholders to accept and implement intel-
ligent systems for construction projects’ lifecycle and related pro-
cesses. The developed reference progress monitoring model
would cover the technical characteristics of the digitized process
by defining knowledge management standards for the efficacious
implementation of digital monitoring technologies.
2. Literature review
2.1. Automated construction progress monitoring process &
technologies
An automated progress monitoring process is a combination of
various integrated sub-processes, and digital data acquisition tech-
nologies play a vital part in the automation of progress monitoring
operations. Several data acquisition and detection technologies
have been adopted to perform construction progress monitoring,
including geospatial, imaging, and augmented reality (AR)/ virtual
reality (VR) techniques. Radio frequency identification (RFID), glo-
bal positioning system (GPS), barcode, geographic information sys-
tem (GIS), and ultra-wideband (UWB) fall under the geospatial
techniques category. Whereas videogrammetry, photogrammetry,
and laser scanning are part of the imaging techniques category
[23]. However, amongst the aforementioned technologies, nine
data-acquisition technologies have been classified as close-range
in reference to progress monitoring, i.e., AR, swarm nodes, infrared
thermography, Kinect sensors, videogrammetry, UWB, photogram-
metry, RFID, and laser scanner. Additionally, the attained techno-
logical monitoring data is integrated with machine learning (ML),
computer vision (CV), and various algorithms for advanced pro-
cessing of more refined outcomes. In progress monitoring, BIM
plays a vital role by providing a platform for evaluating as-
planned models with as-built models via superimposition or com-
parison, which helps in the assessment of achieved work progress
stages [24]. Fig. 1 shows the basic theoretical automated progress
monitoring operational pipeline in light of the above discussion.
Aside from geospatial and scanning technologies, monitoring
data is collected either in the form of video or digital images via
camera, closed-circuit television (CCTV), unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), and autonomous scanning systems [25,26]. 3D laser scan-
ning is a data collection and scanning technology for generating
twin models of the surrounding environment in the form of a 3D
point cloud [27]. Attained 3D point cloud models from laser scan-
ners have been incorporated by adopting ML and CV-based algo-
rithms for enhanced extraction of the related information of 2D
patches [28]. Besides, photogrammetry is also renowned progress
monitoring data acquisition technology, generating a 3D point
cloud model of a targeted object using digital images. Likewise,
videogrammetry is similar to the photogrammetry process; how-
ever, in the case of videogrammetry, images are extracted from
recorded video. Videogrammetry follows the reconstruction of a
3D point cloud model by coordinate computation of the targeted
object points from two or more video frames [29]. Laser scanning,
photogrammetry, and videogrammetry have been used for the
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
Fig. 1. Automated Progress Monitoring Process [24].
detection of outdoor and indoor work progress of construction
activities by observing attained 3D models [30]. Other than all
these aforementioned technologies, infrared thermography is also
adopted for detecting building performance by monitoring surface
humidity, cracks, heat losses, and temperatures [31,32]. Infrared
thermography is achieved by attaining thermal images taken via
an infrared camera [33]. Researchers have also integrated the infra-
red thermography outcomes with ML and CV advanced algorithms
for deep analyses and high detection performance.
VR and AR technologies are renowned and adopted in various
construction processes. Whereas technically, VR and AR are dis-
parate technologies. VR is defined as ‘‘computer technologies that
use software to generate realistic images, sounds, and other sensa-
tions that represent an immersive environment and simulate a
user’s physical presence in this environment” [34]. In contrast,
AR is described as ‘‘a live, direct or indirect view of a physical,
real-world environment whose elements are augmented by virtual,
computer-generated imagery” [35]. However, AR technology has
gained more popularity compared to VR in automated progress
monitoring, due to its capability to superimpose real-world scenes
with virtual objects and to accurately integrate with site imagining
3
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
[36]. The data collected in AR methodologies for reality versus vir-
tual model comparison may involve videogrammetry, laser scan-
ning, and photogrammetry [37]. Such AR-developed models are
superimposed or sometimes compared to 3D BIM models for
reviewing construction progress, usually demonstrated in the form
of color bands [34]. Construction industry professionals have
highly recommended RFID technologies for various construction
activities related to supply chain management or material storage.
RFID technologies and devices detect and transmit project data
through radio frequencies. The RFID system detects and stores data
with the help of small tags placed on the targeted objects, which
allow the RFID system to read and write the required information
to evaluate work progress [38]. RFID technology has been used on
construction project sites for tracking or locating equipment, mate-
rials, and labor [39].
Kinect sensors, swarm nodes, and UWB are sensing technolo-
gies used for the progress monitoring of construction projects.
Kinect sensors are 3D sensors utilized for indoor imaging and sens-
ing the surrounding environment of the project [40]. Swarm nodes
have been used for tracking installed elements of steel structures
in the project [41]. UWB technology has mostly been utilized to
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
detect and track activities related to mechanical electrical and
plumbing (MEP) and heating ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems. Researchers have used UWB technology and
UWB tags to design a BIM-integrated network and 3D detection
system for active monitoring of the project [42].
2.2. Role of BIM in automated construction progress monitoring
In the construction industry, BIM has proved to be a consider-
able step for digitalization as it optimizes the construction pro-
cesses by establishing a link to the project life cycle and required
technical information [43]. Currently, the involvement of BIM has
been increased in the applications related to construction project
monitoring to achieve a higher level in terms of automation [9].
Researchers have studied various approaches by integrating data-
acquisition technologies (AR, photogrammetry, videogrammetry,
laser scanning) with BIM to compare as-planned and as-built mod-
els. BIM has been part of the construction industry since 2009, and
researchers have applied BIM applications in various construction
processes. However, BIM’s considerable involvement was wit-
nessed after 2013 and BIM-based integrated automated construc-
tion progress monitoring systems were tested. The
implementation strategy of BIM in construction projects for pro-
gress monitoring processes has evolved with time. In 2009, the
BIM was utilized for automated system-generating models inte-
grated with CV to develop progress reports with work breakdown
structures using site images [44]. Various studies have focused on
BIM-integrated systems with laser scanning technology, the gener-
ated 3D models were compared with 4D BIM models via overlap-
ping, and progress was differentiated with the help of color
bands [45]. Two renowned BIM-based laser scanning applications
are Scan-to-BIM and Scan-vs-BIM. Scan-to-BIM is a process of
reconstructing a 3D as-built BIM model from the generated 3D
point cloud. However, due to expensive equipment requirements,
time-consuming procedures, and occasionally ineffective out-
comes, the Scan-to-BIM is not much popular methodology [46].
In contrast, Scan-vs-BIM is an object-based detection technique;
the recognition process proceeds by associating the scanned data
of the construction site with the planned 3D BIM model and con-
trolled dimensional quality in terms of speed, scope, and accuracy
[47]. Therefore, compared to Scan-to-BIM, the Scan-vs-BIM tech-
nique is admired by practitioners, and it has been used for tracking
MEP components, shoring, formwork, and rebar [48]. BIM applica-
tions have also been utilized with photogrammetry to detect the
indoor progress of projects. The photogrammetry-based designed
systems have been integrated with CV algorithms to visualize the
differentiating progress by using color bands via comparison with
BIM Models; this procedure requires a large number of site images
[24]. Moreover, for indoor progress measurement, UAV has also
been adopted with CV-based systems integrated with 4D BIM
modules for active progress updating [49,50].
Furthermore, AR integrated with BIM systems is also considered
an effective construction project monitoring approach. AR technol-
ogy monitors the project by boosting the visualization of site pro-
gress. BIM-based AR methodology produces AR digital models
superimposed on real-world scenarios via smart handheld devices,
such as tablets and smartphones, and BIM functional system works
in the AR environment [51]. Moreover, the BIM-AR systems are
also capable of active site monitoring via updating the 4D BIM
model with the help of smart gadgets, which directly impacts the
project cost [52]. The BIM systems have also been integrated with
UWB and RFID devices for real-time monitoring. Using UWB tags
and RFID, active monitoring via a 3D model of pipe spool installa-
tion has been achieved [24]. Furthermore, swarm nodes via a
BIM-integrated system have been utilized for active tracking and
detection of building project steel structure elements for progress
4
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
assessment [41]. Moreover, BIM 3D model has also been incorpo-
rated with the infrared thermography technique for monitoring
project progress. The system works on thermal images, which
gives benefits for poor light conditions [32]. By applying ML and
CV advanced techniques, the system detects various features in
the as-built 3D BIM overview and building façade [33]. Although
BIM-based systems have gained popularity and methodology
advancement; however, BIM interoperability is still a major issue.
Researchers are still working to improve this domain and support
interoperability by modifying industry foundation classes [53].
3. Methodology
The methodology workflow of this study was distributed into
three phases to attain the study objective. Moreover, each phase
was thoroughly devised to achieve effective outcomes. In the com-
mencement phase, the technological framework from the study by
Qureshi et al. [22] was reviewed for its technology-based factors. In
the second phase, a quantitative questionnaire was developed in
light of the referred framework to collect the industry responses
to the identified technological factors. Ultimately, the collected
response data were evaluated and analyzed by adopting SEM. Fol-
lowing SEM stages, a conceptual model was developed to highlight
the most important parameters of digital technologies toward an
effective automated monitoring process. Fig. 2 shows the study
flowchart of the adopted approach.
3.1. Technological framework
The study performed by Qureshi et al. [22] identified four main
technological categories, i.e., ‘3D scanning’, ‘digital video’, ‘digital
images’, and ‘tracking & sensing’ technologies, with 36 factors as
shown in Table 1. This study was centered on close-range digitized
monitoring technologies. The category of ‘digital images’ covered
the effective operational factors of photogrammetry and infrared
thermography. The ‘3D scanner’ category catered to laser scanners
and kinect sensor. The third category, ‘digital video’ includes fac-
tors impacting videogrammetry, and the fourth category ‘tracking
& sensing’ highlights the effective implementation factors of
UWB, RFID, and swarm nodes. Table 1 illustrates the framework
and factors of close-range technologies for effective monitoring
operations.
3.2. Quantitative survey
A quantitative question-based survey was designed based on
the factors under four technological categories consisting of 36
general queries, as defined in Table 1, using 1 to 5 Likert scale
(5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly
Disagree). The purpose of the designed questionnaire was to collect
the opinions of industry professionals on implementation factors
of close-range digitized technologies in the construction environ-
ment. Data collection in this study was targeted only from Malay-
sian construction industry professionals, i.e., contractors,
consultants, clients, architects, etc. As per the record, 95,997 are
the total number of registered contractors in the ‘‘Construction
Industry Development Board (CIDB)” Malaysia [54]. Following this,
the acceptable minimum sample size for the received number of
responses was calculated by adopting Dillman [55] and Israel
[56], which were found to be 96 and 99. Following official emails,
the question-based surveys were shared with more than 600 pro-
fessionals linked with the Malaysian construction sector for the
collection of responses for further analysis.
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
Fig. 2. Study methodology flowchart.
3.3. Statistical analyses for frameworks
The SEM technique was performed on the collected responses
data. The SEM is considered a versatile multivariate statistical
technique proposed in the 1980s. The SEM technique is used to test
hypotheses about relations among observed and latent variables
[57]. The conceptual framework was devised for the evaluation
by following SEM stages. The framework was proposed on the
identified categories with refined factors to achieve a
technological-based effective model to implement automated pro-
gress monitoring, whilst quantitative survey data has been utilized
for evaluating SEM.
4. Results and discussion
The official contacting details of contractors were taken from
CIDB Malaysia and following their emails, more than 600 individ-
uals and professionals were approached, and 247 responses were
5
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
received. First of all, the internal consistency of the collected 247
feedback was statistically tested by applying Cronbach’s alpha. As
per available guidelines, a value  0.7 is deemed acceptable,
whereas a value  0.9 is believed to be an excellent value
[58,59]. For this collected data, i.e., 247 responses, the overall value
of Cronbach’s alpha (a) was found to be greater than 0.85 for each
section in the framework. Fig. 3 illustrates the demographical pro-
files of respondents of the accumulated data. It can be observed
that maximum responses have been collected from the construc-
tion managers and project directors, covering approximately 51 %
of the data. In the designation-wise demographic distribution,
the category ‘‘Other” represents general managers, planning engi-
neers, QA/QC engineers, training engineers, and quantity survey-
ors. Likewise, experience-wise demographic distribution
illustrates that 21 % of respondents claimed more than ten years
of experience, and overall, 53 % of respondents declared more than
five years of working experience.
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165

Table 1 The attained model covers the effective implementation factors

Automated monitoring factors of technological framework. for close-range digitized construction progress monitoring
S Categories Technologies IDs Factors technologies.
No Overall, 36 factors were identified on which the quantitative
Tracking Ultra-Wideband (UWB), Swarm T1-‘‘Presence of survey was performed to collect data for evaluating the factors’
& Sensing Nodes, and Radio-Frequency other material” effectiveness. Based on this collected data, the measurement
Identification (RFID) T2-‘‘Congested site” model was established for performing confirmatory factor analysis
T3-‘‘Presence of
several barcodes/
(CFA) to assess the validity and reliability of the conceptual frame-
tags” work. As per practice, a factor loading below 0.5 is discarded, and
T4-‘‘ Materials’ loading 0.7 is considered adequate for latent value contribution
misclassification” in the CFA model [60]. However, for this study, the factor loadings
T5-‘‘Influence of
of the observed variables for less than 0.6 were removed to achieve
signal”
T6-‘‘Object distance the optimum ‘best-fit measurement model’, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
from the reader” The validity and reliability criteria for assessing the model for
Digital Videogrammetry V1-‘‘Occlusions- best fit were tested on the refined measurement model. Reliability
Video Stationary is defined as ‘‘degree of consistency of an instrument, i.e., the
Element”
extent to which the measurement model is reliable in measuring
V2-‘‘Weather”
V3-‘‘Lightning the intended latent constructs” [61]. However, construct reliability
condition” (CR), and internal reliability are the main assessment criteria of
V4-‘‘Specification” reliability testing. In comparison, validity is defined as a ‘‘measure
V5-‘‘Video quality”
of the accuracy of an instrument used in a study, i.e., the capability
V6-‘‘Shooting
location” of the model to determine what is assumed to be measured for a
V7-‘‘Human construct” [62]. Other than that, the discriminant validity, con-
Intervention” struct validity, and convergent validity (average variance extracted
V8-‘‘Flight (AVE)) are the primary validity assessment criteria for the model.
alignment (drone)”
Table 2 illustrates the reliability (internal reliability, CR, and AVE)
3D Kinect Sensor, and Laser Scanning L1-‘‘Glass and
Scanning reflecting surface” and validity (convergent validity and discriminant validity) out-
L2-‘‘Occlusions- comes of the measurement model, along with the minimum stan-
Stationary element” dard testing criteria values [57].
L3-‘‘Occlusions-
The diagonal values in Table 2 represent the square root of AVE,
Dynamic element”
L4-‘‘Measurement
while the off-diagonal values are correlations between latent vari-
range” ables. Discriminant validity is obtained by measuring the square
L5-‘‘Position of root of AVE, which should be greater than inter-construct correla-
scanner” tions (Amin et al., 2021); hence, the measurement model fulfills
L6-‘‘Laser scanner
the aforementioned criteria. Furthermore, an essential process
specification”
L7-‘‘Lightning regarding any SEM is assessing the overall model fit and using mul-
condition” tiple goodness of fit (GOF), the overall fit of the baseline model can
L8-‘‘Weather” be evaluated. Construct validity is attained for the model fit by
L9-‘‘Number of scan
assessing GOF, which is vital for model improvement and authen-
points”
L10-‘‘Density of
ticity. Many criteria have been developed for this purpose and can
Point cloud” be grouped into three broad categories, i.e, incremental fit indices,
Digital Infrared Thermography, and P1-‘‘Calibration” parsimonious fit indices, and absolute indices. Since various statis-
Images Photogrammetry P2-‘‘Number of tics have been designed to measure model fit, Table 3 illustrates
captured on-site
the GOF for the measurement model for the most important and
images”
P3-‘‘Image commonly used fit indices adopted by various studies [63,64].
resolution” However, the goodness of fit index (GFI) < 0.80 is considered,
P4-‘‘Specification” which is adopted and advised for new developments [64].
P5-‘‘Object distance
The developed framework highlights the effectual factors,
to device”
P6-‘‘Angle of
implementing automated monitoring under the theme of tech-
Capturing” nologies adopted for data collection. During the evaluation process,
P7-‘‘Human various variables/ factors were deleted. However, the deletions
interference” were made either because of factors loading being less than 0.6
P8-‘‘Quality of air”
or for variables indicating large covariance values with others.
P9-‘‘Weather”
P10-‘‘Lightning The selection for deletion of each variable was made accordingly
condition until the GOF was achieved for the whole framework. The cate-
(photogrammetry)” gory/ construct of ‘site images’ refined to seven variables/ factors,
P11-‘‘Occlusions- and P5 (distance of device to object), P9 (weather), P10 (lightning
Stationary element”
P12-‘‘Occlusions-
condition), P11 (occlusion-stationary elements), and P-12
Dynamic element” (occlusion-dynamic elements) were deleted. Likewise, the cate-
gory/ construct of ‘3D scanner’ was refined to six variables/ factors,
and L3 (occlusion-dynamic element), L4 (measurement range), L7
4.1. Development of conceptual frameworks (lightning condition), and L8 (weather) were deleted. T1 (presence
of other material) was deleted and led ‘tracking & sensing’ to five
SEM is a standard statistical analysis practice in quantitative variables/ factors. V1 (occlusion-stationary element), V2 (weather),
social research. In this study, the framework has been defined for and V6 (shooting location) were deleted under ‘site video’ with the
technological-based effective factors for automated monitoring. remaining five variables/ factors. The attained measurement model
6
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165

Fig. 3. Demographic profiles.

Fig. 4. Measurement model based on effective technological factors.

Table 2
Reliability and validity of the factors.

Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE Site Images Tracking & Sensing 3D Scanning Site Video

(a > 0.6) (CR  0.6) (AVE  0.5)

Site Images 0.91 0.91 0.605 0.778 – – –
Tracking & Sensing 0.93 0.86 0.558 0.661 0.747 – –
3D Scanning 0.86 0.90 0.625 0.699 0.613 0.790 –
Site Video 0.90 0.91 0.689 0.669 0.662 0.784 0.830

fulfills the reliability criteria, and validity criteria. The model fit of
the measurement model led to the structural model (SM) develop-
ment. Fig. 5 illustrates the developed SM, which is the second order
of construct, and the model fit indices of SM for GOF have been
illustrated in Table 4, showing a good fit.
The final attained model fulfills the model fit criteria of GOF. In
the model, P3 (image resolution) with 0.88 under ‘site images’, L9
(number of scan points) with 0.86 under ‘3D scanner’, V4 (specifi-
cation) with 0.87 under ‘site video’, and T4 (misclassification of
material) with 0.83 under ‘tracking & sensing’ have gained the
maximum factor loadings.

7
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165

Table 3
GOF Indices (Construct validity) for the measurement model.

Category Index Name Index Acceptance criteria Attained Values

Absolute Fit Indices Discrepancy Chi square Chisq p > 0.05, p > 0.01 586.7
Root Mean Square of Error Approximation RMSEA < 0.08 0.08
Goodness of Fit Index GFI >0.90, >0.80 0.81
Incremental Fit Indices Comparative Fit Index CFI >0.90 0.91
Tucker-Lewis Index TLI >0.90 0.91
Parsimonious Fit Chi Square/Degree of freedom Chisq/df <2,3 2.2

Fig. 5. Structure model based on automated monitoring technological effective factors.

Table 4
GOF Indices (Construct validity) for SM.

Category Index Name Index Acceptance criteria Attained Values

Absolute Fit Indices Discrepancy Chi square Chisq p > 0.05, p > 0.01 650.4
Root Mean Square of Error Approximation RMSEA < 0.08 0.08
Goodness of Fit Index GFI >0.90, >0.80 0.81
Incremental Fit Indices Comparative Fit Index CFI >0.90 0.91
Tucker-Lewis Index TLI >0.90 0.91
Parsimonious Fit Chi Square/Degree of freedom Chisq/df <2,3 2.89

4.2. Automated monitoring technological framework
This study followed the reference framework and factors iden-
tified by Qureshi et al. [22] for close-range data acquisition and
detection technologies to achieve effective automated construction
progress monitoring. This led to the development of a refined, val-
idated, and statistically tested knowledge-based model via adopt-
ing SEM. The SEM process refined and evaluated 36 factors to 23
critical factors for close-range monitoring technologies towards
efficacious digitized progress measurement process. The achieved
final model is shown in Fig. 6.
The technological model signifies the parameters for the effi-
cacy operation of digitized progress assessment and provides an
explicit guideline for the factors to be considered for the technolo-
gies toward effective outcomes for automated monitoring. It can be
assessed by the literature that a very few studies have primely
focused on identifying the automated monitoring technological
factors. In contrast, studies can be found, following SEM technique,
determining the effect of BIM or key performance indicators con-
sidering automated monitoring technologies on construction pro-
cesses, such as by Alizadehsalehi & Yitmen [15] (discussed in the
Introduction section), and Alizadehsalehi & Yitmen [65], which
suggested SEM-based model considering BIM environment for

8
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
Fig. 6. Technological-based automated monitoring model.
on-site data capturing technologies. However, the latter study tar-
gets the impacts of digitized construction progress measurements
considering BIM workflows. Moreover, various studies have also
highlighted the comparison between technologies for their opera-
tional capabilities against several defined variables. Pour Rahimian
et al. [23] associated the imaging, geospatial, and VR/ AR tech-
niques with their limitations and advantages. Likewise, Kopsida
et al., 2015 [2] compared and assessed the technologies used for
construction progress monitoring in terms of cost, mobility, time
efficiency, training requirements, utility, level of automation,
required preparation, and accuracy. The literature also reflects that
the maximal studies highlight the necessary operating parameters
for the monitoring processes, which affects the outcome. However,
most of these studies are specific to one technology and identified
parameters vary [22,24]. For example, Alex Braun & Tuttas [66]
concentrated on 3D scanner technology, and Mahami et al.[67]
explained the application of imaging techniques. Whereas Qureshi
et al. [22] conducted an in-depth study on effectual factors affect-
ing the operational performance of close-range automated pro-
gress monitoring technologies by following a systematic
literature collection methodology. The authors identified 36 main
factors of automated progress monitoring under four technological
categories by following a pipeline of: 1) in-depth review of 130
articles (technical and review), 2) semi-structured interviews, 3)
pilot survey, 4) questionnaire survey, and statistical analysis. How-
ever, the study only applied the RII to develop the framework, i.e.,
ranking of identified factors and lacked advanced statistical evalu-
ation and validation.
9
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
In comparison to the aforementioned studies, the current work
specifically focused on close-range data-acquisition technologies
and evaluated effectual prime factors affecting the operational per-
formance of construction progress monitoring. The highlighted fac-
tors have been analyzed by measuring the impact of their
relationships with collected data and validated by adopting SEM.
The technological-based automated monitoring model provides
an explicit guideline for the factors to be considered for the
close-range technologies toward effective outcomes for automated
monitoring. The close-range data collection technologies have
been segregated into four categories, i.e., site images (photogram-
metry, infrared thermography), site video (videogrammetry), 3D
scanning (laser scanning, kinect sensor), and tracking & sensing
(swarm nodes, UWB, RFID). Each category highlights key factors
affecting the outcome and quality of data-collecting operations
during progress monitoring activity via specific technology. Pho-
togrammetry and infrared thermography take digital images as
input data for operations. Therefore, a high-specification and cali-
brated device with good image resolution may capture enriched
data. However, the quality of data can be damaged in case of the
ineffective angle of capturing images, air quality, and human inter-
vention, which may sometimes result in a blur or out-of-focused
images, affecting the quality of the outcome. In contrast, the pho-
togrammetry outcome is influenced by the number of images, i.e., a
good number of images give a dense and detailed 3D point cloud
model, unlike infrared thermography. Besides, the data collection
via videogrammetry depends on lightning conditions and camera
handling; bad light and blur video frames lead to noisy point cloud
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
models. Moreover, video camera specification directly affects the
video quality, which allows for capturing enriched data leading
to detailed 3D models. However, in the case of drone video, the
flight alignment may affect the video quality. The third category
covers 3D scanning technologies, which include laser scanners
and kinect sensors. The quality of scanned 3D point cloud models
depends on the scanner specification and the correct positioning/
placement of the laser scanner in the field. More scan points would
lead to dense point cloud models. However, the data collection
quality can be defective by reflecting objects. In the case of scan-
ning devices, occlusion is the prime reason for incomplete data.
The obstructions have been detected either due to moving or sta-
tionary objects; however, in the case of scanners stationary
obstructions are the main hurdles to achieving a quality outcome.
The operator should ensure the sight clearance for hindrances
before commencing the scanning operation and place the scanner
at the right location for collecting maximum details. The tracking &
sensing covers the RFID, UWB, and swarm nodes; all these devices’
sensing or tracking data quality can be affected or compromised
depending on the distance between the targeted object and the
device reader, as the detection accuracy of these devices depends
on the signal’s strength. Moreover, the sensing and tracking gadget
outcomes are disturbed in congested site conditions, the presence
of materials (metals and liquids), and several tags that may lead to
the misclassification of materials. This designed automated moni-
toring technological model can prove to be a prime guideline or
knowledge framework for construction industry practitioners,
especially for new users. The model highlights all the effectual fac-
tors that, if not considered, may adversely affect the data collection
quality/ activity via monitoring technologies. Technologies have
financial impacts, creating hesitant environments among small or
medium contactors for adopting technologies in the construction
processes; moreover, lack of information and basic guidelines for-
bid the stakeholders from taking such risks. This technological
model covers the prime and basic guidelines with effectual factors
to motivate small/ medium contractors to adopt technologies in
construction processes as technological environment has proven
to be cost-effective in the long term. To make the Industry 4.0 cul-
ture successful in construction industry, there is a need to encour-
age construction firms to implement technologies in construction
processes. In achieving this mission, the designed automated pro-
gress monitoring technological model will prove to be the first
basic guideline fulfilling the knowledge gap and overcome the fear
of implementing technological applications. This technological-
based model highlights the most explicit 23 effective factors for
efficient progress monitoring operations. However, with good
monitoring results, the flow and outcome of the external related
construction processes will also be improved, which makes this
model more unique.
5. Conclusion
This study aimed to fill the knowledge gap in automated con-
struction progress monitoring basic guidelines by identifying and
evaluating effective factors that may enhance or enrich the out-
come of data-acquisition technologies and their operational perfor-
mance. This study followed the questionnaire approach for
collecting professional feedback from the industry on technological
factors considering close-range technologies, including AR, swarm
nodes, infrared thermography, Kinect sensors, videogrammetry,
UWB, photogrammetry, RFID, and laser scanner. Afterward, follow-
ing the SEM analyses, a model was developed to provide the factors
for the effectual implementation of the digitized monitoring pro-
cess. The technological model provides a base guideline for effica-
cious technology-based close-range progress measurement
10
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
operations and related factors for effective outcomes. Moreover,
the model categorized the technologies under four constructs,
i.e., ‘tracking & sensing’, ‘site video’, ‘3D scanning’, and ‘site
images’. At the same time, each construct is supported by several
factors that may affect the data collection process and impact mon-
itoring technology’s output quality. The literature review per-
formed in this study highlighted that the construction industry
lacks guidelines and basic frameworks on the effective implemen-
tation of automated progress monitoring processes and technolo-
gies. Therefore, this study envisioned delivering a knowledge-
based model to overcome the information gap on monitoring oper-
ations and gain a better understanding of technological parame-
ters. The unavailability of such standards is fueling the hesitation
among construction industry stakeholders towards adopting such
technologies. Moreover, the devised model will motivate the con-
struction sector stakeholders toward implementing technological
applications in construction processes. Implementing technologi-
cal procedures will promote the Industry 4.0 working theme,
which will be cost-beneficial in the long run.
Future Research
This study has been focused on the development of automated
progress monitoring technological model highlighting the main
factors affecting operational performance. However, for future con-
siderations, the behavior of technological parameters can be
assessed along with project key performance indicators (KPIs),
i.e., cost, quality, and time, and KPIs impact on the monitoring
operation. Moreover, technological-operational framework behav-
ior can also be evaluated for the project-related primary or sec-
ondary processes, which may include supply chain management,
safety management, project planning, and external implications
such as CO2 emission. The scope of the automated monitoring
technological model can also be enhanced and extended by includ-
ing spatial data-collecting technologies and progress monitoring
techniques.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
In the accomplishment of this study, technical support has been
provided by Dr. Muhammad Amin (Department of Management
and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia). More-
over, the authors would like to appreciate the YUTP-FRG 1/2021
(cost center # 015LC0-369) in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
(UTP) awarded to Dr. Wesam Salah Alaloul for the support.
References
[1] Park K, Lee HW, Choi K, Lee SH. Project Risk Factors Facing Construction
Management Firms. Int J Civ Eng 2019;17:305–21. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40999-017-0262-z.
[2] M. Kopsida, I. Brilakis, P. Vela, A Review of Automated Construction Progress
and Inspection Methods, in: Proc. 32nd CIB W78 Conf. Constr. IT, 2015: pp.
421–431.
[3] Brady DA, Tzortzopoulos P, Rooke J, Formoso CT, Tezel A. Improving
transparency in construction management: a visual planning and control
model. Eng Constr Archit Manag 2018;25:1277–97. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1108/ECAM-07-2017-0122.
[4] Mejlænder-Larsen Ø. A three-step process for reporting progress in detail
engineering using BIM, based on experiences from oil and gas projects. Eng
Constr Archit Manag 2019;26:648–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-
2017-0273.
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al.
[5] Wang C, Li B, Li B, Baldwin A. Case study of ‘‘project controlling” on a large
HOPSCA project in China. Eng Constr Archit Manag 2017;24:862–74. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2015-0118.
[6] Deng H, Hong H, Luo D, Deng Y, Su C. Automatic Indoor Construction Process
Monitoring for Tiles Based on BIM and Computer Vision. J Constr Eng Manag
2020;146:1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001744.
[7] Li Y, Liu C. Applications of multirotor drone technologies in construction
management. Int J Constr Manag 2019;19:401–12. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1080/15623599.2018.1452101.
[8] Arif F, Khan WA. Smart Progress Monitoring Framework for Building
Construction Elements Using Videography–MATLAB–BIM Integration. Int J
Civ Eng 2021;19:717–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00601-3.
[9] Kropp C, Koch C, König M. Interior construction state recognition with 4D BIM
registered image sequences. Autom Constr 2018;86:11–32. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.027.
[10] Meng Q, Zhang Y, Li Z, Shi W, Wang J, Sun Y, et al. A review of integrated
applications of BIM and related technologies in whole building life cycle. Eng
Constr Archit Manag 2020;27:1647–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-
09-2019-0511.
[11] Z. Huang, C. Mao, J. Wang, A.-M. Sadick, Understanding the key takeaway of
construction robots towards construction automation, Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manag. ahead-of-p (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2021-0267.
[12] Edirisinghe R. Digital skin of the construction site: Smart sensor technologies
towards the future smart construction site. Eng Constr Archit Manag
2019;26:184–223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0066.
[13] Gusmao Brissi S, Wong Chong O, Debs L, Zhang J. A review on the interactions
of robotic systems and lean principles in offsite construction. Eng Constr Archit
Manag 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0809.
[14] Qureshi AH, Alaloul WS, Wing WK, Saad S, Ammad S, Altaf M. Characteristics-
Based Framework of Effective Automated Monitoring Parameters in
Construction Projects. Arab J Sci Eng 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13369-022-07172-y.
[15] Alizadehsalehi S, Yitmen I. A Concept for Automated Construction Progress
Monitoring: Technologies Adoption for Benchmarking Project Performance
Control. Arab J Sci Eng 2019;44:4993–5008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13369-018-3669-1.
[16] Qureshi AH, Alaloul WS, Wing WK, Saad S, Alzubi KM, Musarat MA. Factors
affecting the implementation of automated progress monitoring of rebar using
vision-based technologies. Constr Innov 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-
04-2022-0076.
[17] Alizadehsalehi S, Yitmen I. The Impact of Field Data Capturing Technologies on
Automated Construction Project Progress Monitoring. Procedia Eng
2016;161:97–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.504.
[18] Oesterreich TD, Teuteberg F. Understanding the implications of digitisation
and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and
elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput Ind
2016;83:121–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006.
[19] Alaloul WS, Liew MS, Zawawi NAWA, Kennedy IB. Industrial Revolution 4.0 in
the construction industry: Challenges and opportunities for stakeholders. Ain
Shams Eng J 2020;11:225–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.08.010.
[20] Sawhney A, Riley M, Irizarry J. Construction 4.0: An Innovation Platform for the
Built Environment. Routledge; 2020.
[21] Smith P. BIM & the 5D Project Cost Manager. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2014.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.053.
[22] Qureshi AH, Alaloul WS, Wing WK, Saad S, Ammad S, Musarat MA. Factors
impacting the implementation process of automated construction progress
monitoring. Ain Shams Eng J 2022;13:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2022.101808101808.
[23] Pour Rahimian F, Seyedzadeh S, Oliver S, Rodriguez S, Dawood N. On-demand
monitoring of construction projects through a game-like hybrid application of
BIM and machine learning. Autom Constr 2020;110:. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103012103012.
[24] Alaloul WS, Qureshi AH, Musarat MA, Saad S. Evolution of close-range
detection and data acquisition technologies towards automation in
construction progress monitoring. J Build Eng 2021;43:. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102877102877.
[25] Ibrahim A, Golparvar-Fard M, El-Rayes K. Multiobjective Optimization of
Reality Capture Plans for Computer Vision-Driven Construction Monitoring
with Camera-Equipped UAVs. J Comput Civ Eng 2022;36:1–19. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0001032.
[26] Jacob-Loyola N, Muñoz-La Rivera F, Herrera RF, Atencio E. Unmanned aerial
vehicles (Uavs) for physical progress monitoring of construction. Sensors
2021;21. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21124227.
[27] Lu R, Brilakis I. Digital twinning of existing reinforced concrete bridges from
labelled point clusters. Autom Constr 2019;105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2019.102837.
[28] Shirowzhan S, Sepasgozar SME, Li H, Trinder J, Tang P. Comparative analysis of
machine learning and point-based algorithms for detecting 3D changes in
buildings over time using bi-temporal lidar data. Autom Constr 2019;105:.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102841102841.
[29] Rebolj D, Pučko Z, Babič NČ, Bizjak M, Mongus D. Point cloud quality
requirements for Scan-vs-BIM based automated construction progress
monitoring. Autom Constr 2017;84:323–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2017.09.021.
[30] Asadi K, Ramshankar H, Noghabaei M, Han K. Real-time image localization and
registration with BIM using perspective alignment for indoor monitoring of
11
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165
construction. J Comput Civ Eng 2019;33:1–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000847.
[31] Lagüela S, Armesto J, Arias P, Herráez J. Automation of thermographic 3D
modelling through image fusion and image matching techniques. Autom
Constr 2012;27:24–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.05.011.
[32] M. Pazhoohesh, C. Zhang, Automated construction progress monitoring using
thermal images and Wireless Sensor Networks, in: Proceedings, Annu. Conf. -
Can. Soc. Civ. Eng., 2015: pp. 593–602.
[33] C. Zhang, H. Huang, As-Built BIM Updating Based on Image Processing and
Artificial Intelligence, in: Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, 2019: pp. 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784482421.002.
[34] Alizadehsalehi S, Hadavi A, Huang JC. From BIM to extended reality in AEC
industry. Autom Constr 2020;116:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2020.103254103254.
[35] Wang X, Truijens M, Hou L, Wang Y, Zhou Y. Integrating Augmented Reality
with Building Information Modeling: Onsite construction process controlling
for liquefied natural gas industry. Autom Constr 2014;40:96–105. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.003.
[36] Alizadehsalehi S, Yitmen I. Digital twin-based progress monitoring
management model through reality capture to extended reality technologies
(DRX). Smart Sustain Built Environ 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-
01-2021-0016.
[37] Turkan Y, Bosche F, Haas CT, Haas R. Automated progress tracking using 4D
schedule and 3D sensing technologies. Autom Constr 2012;22:414–21. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.10.003.
[38] A.R. Jiménez, F. Seco, F. Zampella, J.C. Prieto, J. Guevara, Indoor localization of
persons in aal scenarios using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and the
signal strength (SS) from RFID tags, in: Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci., 2013: pp.
32–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37419-7_4.
[39] M. Sami Ur Rehman, M.T. Shafiq, F. Ullah,. Automated Computer Vision-Based
Construction Progress Monitoring: A Systematic Review. Buildings
2022;12:1037. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12071037.
[40] K. Ishida, Construction progress management and interior work analysis using
kinect 3D image sensors, in: ISARC 2016 - 33rd Int. Symp. Autom. Robot.
Constr., 2016: pp. 314–322.
[41] Akanmu A, Okoukoni F. Swarm nodes for automated steel installation
tracking: A case study. Autom Constr 2018;90:294–302. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2018.01.011.
[42] Shahi A, Safa M, Haas CT, West JS. Data Fusion Process Management for
Automated Construction Progress Estimation. J Comput Civ Eng 2015;29:1–9.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000436.
[43] Braun AB, A.W. da S. Trentin, C. Visentin, A. Thomé,. Sustainable remediation
through the risk management perspective and stakeholder involvement: A
systematic and bibliometric view of the literature. Environ Pollut 2019;255.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113221.
[44] Ibrahim YM, Lukins TC, Zhang X, Trucco E, Kaka AP. Towards automated
progress assessment of workpackage components in construction projects
using computer vision. Adv Eng Informatics 2009;23:93–103. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aei.2008.07.002.
[45] Tran H, Khoshelham K. Building change detection through comparison of a
lidar scan with a building information model. Int Arch Photogramm Remote
Sens Spat Inf Sci - ISPRS Arch 2019;42:889–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/
isprs-archives-XLII-2-W13-889-2019.
[46] Bosché F, Ahmed M, Turkan Y, Haas CT, Haas R. The value of integrating Scan-
to-BIM and Scan-vs-BIM techniques for construction monitoring using laser
scanning and BIM: The case of cylindrical MEP components. Autom Constr
2015;49:201–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.014.
[47] Bosché F, Guillemet A, Turkan Y, Haas CT, Haas R. Tracking the built status of
MEP works: Assessing the value of a Scan-vs-BIM system. J Comput Civ Eng
2014;28:1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000343.
[48] Turkan Y, Bosché F, Haas CT, Haas R. Tracking of secondary and temporary
objects in structural concrete work. Constr Innov 2014;14:145–67. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-12-2012-0063.
[49] H. Hamledari, B. McCabe, S. Davari, A. Shahi, E. Rezazadeh Azar, F. Flager,
Evaluation of computer vision- And 4D BIM-based construction progress
tracking on a UAV platform, 6th CSCE-CRC Int. Constr. Spec. Conf. 2017 - Held
as Part Can. Soc. Civ. Eng. Annu. Conf. Gen. Meet. 2017. 1 (2017) 621–630.
[50] Meyer T, Brunn A, Stilla U. Change detection for indoor construction progress
monitoring based on BIM, point clouds and uncertainties. Autom Constr
2022;141:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104442104442.
[51] Meža S, Turk Ž, Dolenc M. Component based engineering of a mobile BIM-
based augmented reality system. Autom Constr 2014;42:1–12. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.02.011.
[52] Zaher M, Greenwood D, Marzouk M. Mobile augmented reality applications for
construction projects. Constr Innov 2018;18:152–66. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1108/CI-02-2017-0013.
[53] Kavaliauskas P, Fernandez JB, McGuinness K, Jurelionis A. Automation of
Construction Progress Monitoring by Integrating 3D Point Cloud Data with an
IFC-Based BIM Model. Buildings 2022;12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12101754.
[54] CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia, (n.d.). https://
www.cidb.gov.my/en (accessed February 20, 2021).
[55] D. Dillman, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2000.
[56] Isreal GD. Using formulas to calculate a sample size for small populations.
Determ Sample Size 2003;1:1–5. , http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
A. Hannan Qureshi, W. Salah Alaloul, W. Kai Wing et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102165

[57] Ahmad S, Zulkurnain N, Khairushalimi F. Assessing the Validity and Reliability [66] Braun A, Tuttas S, Borrmann A, Stilla U. Improving progress monitoring by
of a Measurement Model in Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Br J Math fusing point clouds, semantic data and computer vision. Autom Constr
Comput Sci 2016;15:1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.9734/bjmcs/2016/25183. 2020;116:. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103210103210.
[58] Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting [67] Mahami H, Nasirzadeh F, Hosseininaveh Ahmadabadian A, Esmaeili F,
Research Instruments in Science Education. Res Sci Educ 2018;48:1273–96. Nahavandi S. Imaging network design to improve the automated
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2. construction progress monitoring process. Constr Innov 2019;19:386–404.
_
[59] Demir N, Serel Arslan S, Inal Ö, Karaduman AA. Reliability and Validity of the doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-07-2018-0059.
Turkish Eating Assessment Tool (T-EAT-10). Dysphagia 2016;31:644–9. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9723-9.
[60] Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications; 2016. Abdul Hannan Qureshi graduated as a Civil Engineer in
[61] Z. Awang, SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural 2008 from Pakistan and in 2014 gained M.S degree in
Equation Modelling, 2015. Construction management. He has been part of the
[62] Said H, Badru BB, Shahid M. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Cfa) for testing professional industry for last 10 years and got the
validity and reliability instrument in the study of education. Aust J Basic Appl chance to serve in the construction sector as well as in
Sci 2011;5:1098–103. the academia. Currently, he is PhD Scholar in the Civil
[63] Alaloul WS, Liew MS, Zawawi NAW, Mohammed BS, Adamu M, Musharat MA. Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRO-
Structural equation modelling of construction project performance based on NAS, Malaysia and his research area is automated con-
coordination factors. Cogent Eng 2020;7:1726069. doi: https://doi.org/ struction monitoring.
10.1080/23311916.2020.1726069.
[64] Amin M, Shamim A, Ghazali Z, Khan I. Employee Motivation to Co-Create Value
(EMCCV): Construction and Validation of Scale. J Retail Consum Serv 2021;58:.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102334102334.
[65] Alizadeh Salehi S, Yitmen I. _ Modeling and analysis of the impact of BIM-based
field data capturing technologies on automated construction progress
monitoring. Int J Civ Eng 2018;16:1669–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40999-018-0320-1.

12