Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Integrated Digital Delivery: Implementation status and project

performance in the Singapore construction industry
Bon-Gang Hwang a, Jasmine Ngo a, *, Priscilla Wan Yi Her b
a
Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, 117566, Singapore
b
CBRE Pte Ltd, 2 Tanjong Katong Road #06-01 Paya Lebar Quarter, 437161, Singapore

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

Article history: Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD) was launched to transform the approach to construction through the
Received 19 August 2019 implementation of digital technologies. Whilst technologies have the potential to improve project per-
Received in revised form formance, there are limited studies on IDD in the context of the construction industry. Hence, this study
24 February 2020
investigates the level of IDD implementation and the perceived improvements on project performance.
Accepted 27 March 2020
Available online 30 March 2020
Based on the literature review, 32 digital and cloud technologies have been identified and formed the
basis for a structured survey questionnaire, which was distributed to target respondents covering the
Handling Editor: Hua Cai major roles of the construction industry in Singapore. The responses were analyzed to determine the
existing level of IDD implementation and the perceived improvements in project performance
Keywords: contributed by IDD implementation, followed by post-survey interviews to validate the findings from the
Integrated digital delivery survey. The study found that only 38.71% of the organizations implemented IDD technologies in all four
Construction industry IDD phases. BIM, prefabrication, BIM-to-field mobile applications and building management system were
Improvements in project performance the most frequently used technologies in the four phases respectively. The respondents largely agreed
Implementation status
that IDD implementation improved overall project, project cost, project quality and project schedule
Singapore
performance. The findings from this study provide better understanding of the existing level of IDD
implementation and the perceived improvements in project performance, serving as a starting point for
future research on increasing IDD implementation.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction project performance and maximize efficiency throughout all

The construction industry is known for the fragmentation of
specializations, mainly contributed by the nature of construction
projects (Baiden et al., 2006; Dainty et al., 2001). The fragmented
nature of the industry has resulted in inefficiencies in project de-
livery, as project participants are primarily focused on their indi-
vidual tasks and neglect the interdependencies of the tasks to the
entire project (Baiden et al., 2006; Froese, 2010). Hence, several
collaborative project delivery approaches have been established
with the aim of improving project performance, including Inte-
grated Project Delivery (IPD), Virtual Design and Construction
(VDC) and Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD).
IPD is a project delivery approach that integrates people, sys-
tems, business structures and practices through a multi-party
agreement where risks and rewards are shared to optimize
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jasminengo@u.nus.edu (J. Ngo).
phases of design, fabrication and construction (American Institute
of Architects, 2007; Mesa et al., 2019). IPD has three phases e
definition, design and construction (Mesa et al., 2019). In the
definition stage, the project team develops a plan in order to meet
the client’s requirements, assess the project feasibility, and decide
on the project cost, scope and schedule performance indicators
(Mesa et al., 2019). The plan is further developed in the design
stage and executed in the construction stage (Mesa et al., 2019).
IPD has been found to improve project performance especially in
project quality, communication and change management (Asmar
et al., 2006).
VDC is a project delivery approach using integrated multi-
disciplinary performance models of design-construction projects
to support business objectives (Kunz and Fischer, 2012). Similarly,
VDC has three phases e visualization, integration and automation.
The project design is visualized using 3D technologies and virtual
reality with the aim of representing the design and to rehearse the
construction process in the visualization phase (Li et al., 2009). The
various construction processes and disciplines are integrated in the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121396
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396
integration phase, of which some design and construction pro-
cesses are automated in the automation phase (Li et al., 2009). VDC
has been found to assist in construction optimization in terms of
reducing design errors, improving construction safety, site man-
agement and communication, and project information and
knowledge management (Li et al., 2009).
IDD is a whole lifecycle project delivery approach introduced
by Building and Construction Authority of Singapore in October
2017, which aims to digitally integrate the work processes and
stakeholders along the value chain through the use of digital
technologies (Building and Construction Authority, 2018a).
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is the core supporting
technology of IDD. IDD has four phases e Digital Design phase,
Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication phase, Digital Construction
phase and Digital Asset Delivery and Management phase (Building
and Construction Authority, 2018a), covering the entire building
lifecycle. However, as IDD is a relatively new approach compared
to IPD and VDC, there are limited studies on IDD in the context of
the construction industry and its existing level of implementation.
Moreover, while the implementation of IDD is presumed to
improve the performance of the construction industry, there are
no existing studies that measure the improvements in project
performance arising from IDD implementation.
Furthermore, industries are increasingly being digitalized and
automated (Levi€ akangas et al., 2017; Oesterreich and Teuteberg,
2016). The Smart Nation Initiative was also introduced in 2014 to
drive the digitalization of services to transform Singapore into a
Smart Nation (Smart Nation and Digital Government Office, 2019).
However, the construction industry is known as a laggard in
technology adoption with general resistance towards embracing
new technologies (Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016; Sepasgozar
et al., 2016). Although the Singapore construction industry has
been recognized as relatively mature and advanced in the adoption
of BIM (Borrmann et al., 2018a; Cheng and Lu, 2015), the adoption
and maturity rates of other IDD technologies have not been widely
studied.
Hence, this study investigates the existing level of IDD imple-
mentation in each phase and the perceived improvements to
project performance contributed by the implementation of IDD
technologies. The findings of this study will provide better un-
derstanding of the status quo of IDD implementation and the
perceived improvements on project performance, which can serve
as starting points for future research on increasing IDD imple-
mentation in the construction industry. This study is also timely to
drive the digitalization and automation of the construction in-
dustry, and in transforming the Singapore construction sector to
drive the Smart Nation Initiative.
2. Background
IDD aims to integrate the work processes and stakeholders
involved in the projects throughout the project lifecycle through
the use of digital technologies to streamline coordination processes
and enhance collaboration among stakeholders. By streamlining
the coordination processes throughout the project lifecycle, infor-
mation transfer can be improved. As such, unnecessary delays,
duplication of works and reworks can be minimized, further
improving costs, schedule and quality performance of the projects.
Furthermore, on-site safety can be improved through real-time
monitoring and better site planning and coordination. These im-
provements will result in improvements in construction efficiency
and productivity.
2.1. IDD phases and key technologies
2.1.1. Digital design phase
In the Digital Design phase, various stakeholders work together
to attain optimized and coordinated design that meets the client,
regulatory and downstream requirements. As each construction
project is unique and have varying levels of complexity, simulation
tools such as augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) can be used to
visualize the design and simulate workflows before construction.
This would require the use of digital design and visualization tools
and the development of information-rich models. As seen in
Table 1, the key technologies adopted in this phase include e BIM
(D1), BIM-based sustainability analysis (D2), constructability re-
view and analysis (D3), AR (D4), VR (D5), and Big Data Analytics
(BDA) (D6).
BIM is the digital representation of a building with geometric
and semantic information of the building components, used as a
shared information platform for decision-making throughout the
building lifecycle (Azhar, 2011; Borrmann et al., 2018b). BIM can
also be seen as the digital twin of the facility. BIM incorporates all
building components in a single model (Fathi et al., 2016), allowing
design conflicts to be resolved in advance to avoid abortive works
during the construction stage. Upon completion of the building,
BIM can be handed over from the design team to the owner, which
includes relevant information about the building from the con-
struction phase, such as room sizes, mechanical and electrical
equipment. BIM can also be integrated with sustainability and
constructability performance analysis software which provide ar-
chitects with immediate feedback on design alternatives early in
the design process as BIM carries information regarding sustainable
design such as building orientation, building massing, daylighting
harvesting and energy modelling (Jrade and Jalaei, 2013).
VR is an interactive simulated experience where 2D building
design can be transformed into a 3D virtual environment by using
the necessary building information (Bouchlaghem et al., 2005). AR
makes use of sensor technologies to superimpose virtual informa-
tion onto the user’s physical environment (Chi et al., 2013). AR and
VR allow stakeholders to visualize, assess and compare designs
virtually, improving decision-making processes (Surbana Jurong,
2018). BDA synthesizes a variety of data such as economic, social,
demographic, and past project data to derive optimal decisions. For
example, BDA can be used to assess the feasibility of a project, for
the selection of optimal site location, and for tender evaluation
(Ballard-Bloomfield and Brook, 2018; Zhang et al., 2015). BDA
provides decision-making support to ensure that client, regulatory
and downstream requirements are met.
2.1.2. Digital manufacturing and fabrication phase
The Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication phase concerns the
automation of construction processes to establish a “Smart Factory”
in the construction environment. This includes translating the
digital design to standardized components to be fabricated
(Building and Construction Authority and Infocomm Media
Development Authority, 2018). Fabricators and contractors must
work together to produce and deliver the building components to
site Just-in-Time (JIT). As seen in Table 1, the key technologies in
this phase include e prefabrication (D7), Radio Frequency Identi-
fication (RFID) project material tracking (D8), digital ordering (D9),
digital modelling and fabrication (D10), central control (D11), ro-
botics (D12), smart sensor network (D13), JIT delivery (D14).
Prefabrication is a well-established construction method where
the individual components of a structure are produced in a factory
and transported on-site for assembly (Jiang et al., 2018). The com-
ponents must first be modelled digitally. Digital ordering will
further automate the procurement process. Prefabrication should
 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396 3

Table 1
IDD phases and key technologies.

IDD Phases Key Technologies References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Digital Design D1 BIM X X X X X X X

D2 BIM-based sustainability analysis X
D3 Constructability review and analysis X X
D4 Augmented Reality (AR) X X X X X
D5 Virtual Reality (VR) X X X X X
D6 Big Data Analytics (BDA) X X X
Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication D7 Prefabrication X X X X X X
D8 RFID project material tracking X X X
D9 Digital ordering X
D10 Digital modelling and fabrication X
D11 Central control X
D12 Robotics X X X X X
D13 Smart sensor network X X
D14 Just-in-Time (JIT) delivery X X
Digital Construction D15 4D progress monitoring X
D16 RFID tagged precast elements X X X X
D17 Virtual construction scheduling and sequencing X
D18 Digital QA/QC inspection X
D19 3D laser scanning X
D20 Virtual construction and collaboration X
D21 Co-located coordination X
D22 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) X X X X X X X
D23 Photogrammetry for construction planning X X
D24 BIM-to-field mobile applications X X
D25 Biometric controls and database for safety and productivity X X
D26 Real-time location services for safety X X
D27 Smart crane navigation system X X
Digital Asset Delivery and Management D28 BIM-based Defect Management (BIMDM) System X X
D29 BIM for Asset Management (BIM-AM) X X
D30 Digital progress reporting and claim X
D31 Building Management System (BMS) X X
D32 Smart facilities management technology eg. Sensors for fault detection X X

[1] (Building and Construction Authority, 2018c) [2] (Singapore Institute of Architects, 2017) [3] (Building and Construction Authority and Infocomm Media Development
Authority, 2018) [4] (Building and Construction Authority, 2018d) [5] (Dallasega et al., 2018) [6] (Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016) [7] (Alaloul et al., 2018) [8] (Li and
Yang, 2017).

reduce waste and improve quality of works as components are
manufactured in a controlled environment (Jiang et al., 2018). As
the prefabricated components may require large storage space, it is
critical that the components are delivered to site JIT. With ad-
vancements in technologies, prefabrication can also be executed by
robots, further automating the construction processes. Robotics are
increasingly used to support construction processes and improve-
ments in safety, quality and productivity can be achieved (Bock,
2015; Kumar et al., 2016).
2.1.3. Digital construction phase
Digital Construction phase uses technologies to improve the
operational efficiency of the project site and for real-time moni-
toring and control to maximize productivity and minimize rework.
As seen in Table 1, the key technologies involved in this phase
include e 4D progress monitoring (D15), RFID tagged precast ele-
ments (D16), virtual construction scheduling and sequencing (D17),
digital Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) inspection
(D18), 3D laser scanning (D19), virtual construction and collabo-
ration (D20), co-located coordination (D21), Unmanned Aerial Ve-
hicles (UAV) (D22), photogrammetry for construction planning
(D23), BIM-to-field mobile applications (D24), biometric controls
and database for safety and productivity (D25), real-time location
services for safety monitoring (D26) and smart crane navigation
system (D27).
RFID tagged precast elements allow for tracking of building
components along the supply chain to ensure that the components
are available on site when required (Oesterreich and Teuteberg,
2016). Digital QA/QC inspection should be carried out on the
prefabricated components to ensure that there are no defects prior
to assembly. In addition, virtual construction scheduling and
sequencing should be conducted to ensure that there are no
workspace conflicts on site. 4D progress monitoring, laser scanning,
photogrammetry and UAVs automate the data collection for con-
struction monitoring and control. These improve the consistency
and accuracy of progress reports and can reach areas which are
inaccessible to human workers (Bosche et al., 2009; Bosche  et al.,
2015; Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016). Construction work pro-
cesses can also be automated with the smart crane navigation
system. In addition, on-site safety monitoring can be improved
using biometric controls and database and real-time location ser-
vice for safety monitoring. BIM-to-field mobile applications allow
access to updated information on site, which can improve quality of
work and reduce reworks (Chi et al., 2013; Oesterreich and
Teuteberg, 2016).
2.1.4. Digital asset delivery and management phase
In the Digital Asset Delivery and Management phase, technol-
ogies are adopted for real-time monitoring of building operations
and maintenance to enhance asset values. As seen in Table 1, the
key technologies involved include e BIM-based Defect Manage-
ment (BIMDM) system (D28), BIM for Asset Management (BIM-AM)
(D29), digital progress reporting and claim (D30), Building Man-
agement System (BMS) (D31) and smart facilities management
technology (D32).
Inconsistency of handover information presents challenges for
Facilities Managers (FM) to organize and utilize the information
required for asset management (Building and Construction
4 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396
Authority, 2018b). With digital asset management, real-time
monitoring of building performance is enabled. This facilitates
the use of data analytics to determine predictive and preventive
maintenance requirements, which can further enhance building
performance (Lee et al., 2017). BIM contains valuable information of
a building as it is being developed and refined through the design
and construction phases, which can be utilized by FM to make
effective decisions in property and asset management (Latiffi et al.,
2016). BIMDM System enables FM to identify and analyze defects
using BIM instantaneously (Building and Construction Authority,
2018b). BIM-AM refers to digital building assets data handed over
to the building owner through BIM (Building and Construction
Authority, 2018b). BMS and smart facilities management technol-
ogies can also be utilized to monitor building usage and energy
performance. Digital progress reporting and claim refers to tracking
and monitoring of resources against site progress that is linked to
progress claim using cloud or shared online platform (Building and
Construction Authority, 2017a).
2.2. IDD implementation by various roles throughout project
lifecycle
IDD can be implemented by the various roles throughout the
project lifecycle. In the Digital Design phase, Architects and Engi-
neers can collaborate to develop the building model with detailed
element information, resolve conflicts and assess the building
performance of several design alternatives to select the optimal
design during the design stage (Latiffi et al., 2016).
BIM can automate measurements, which improves the effi-
ciency and accuracy of cost estimation processes conducted by
Quantity Surveyors (QS) (Costa and Grilo, 2015). The Project Man-
ager (PM) and Contractor can perform constructability review and
analysis to identify potential constructability issues and conflicts
which can be resolved prior to construction and ensure smooth
coordination of works. IDD technologies also allow clients to
visualize the design before deciding on the final design. In addition,
clients should specify the requirements for the level of details of
BIM for use in the Digital Asset Delivery and Management phase
(Latiffi et al., 2016).
In the Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication phase, Contractors
can digitally order the components from their fabricators using the
digital model which will be used for fabrication. RFID material
tracking and central coordination allows fabricators to deliver the
components JIT. In the Digital Construction phase, PMs and Con-
tractors can use the BIM model to simulate the construction process
and ensure that progress is on schedule through 4D progress
monitoring. Workers on site can use BIM-to-field mobile applica-
tions to access drawing plans and for inspection. The construction
workers can clock in their attendance using biometric access con-
trols. Finally, in the Digital Asset Delivery and Management phase,
FM can leverage on the information of the facility obtained from
BIM, which is handed over from the digital design and digital
construction phases, to access the details of building elements and
components and to monitor the performance of the facility (Latiffi
et al., 2016).
2.3. IDD implementation in the Singapore construction industry
The implementation of IDD in the Singapore construction in-
dustry is in its nascent stage as IDD has been launched by BCA only
in 2017. Hence, to encourage digitalization in the Singapore con-
struction industry, BCA has launched a plan to provide training,
digital platforms and pilot projects for the industry. BCA has part-
nered with developers from the private sector to showcase twelve
pilot projects that implement IDD technologies throughout the
project lifecycle (Building and Construction Authority, 2018c).
Furthermore, 40 to 60 IDD projects involving 150 Singapore-based
firms are planned for to equip the firms and its employees with IDD
competencies (Building and Construction Authority, 2018c). In
addition, training and upgrading courses to help 300 to 400 pro-
fessionals develop digital skill sets will be provided. BCA and the
Information Media Development Authority (IMDA) have also
initiated a joint call for the development of digital construction
platforms to facilitate collaboration among various stakeholders
throughout the value chain to further encourage the use of IDD
technologies (Building and Construction Authority and Infocomm
Media Development Authority, 2018).
3. Research methods and data presentation
The research process consists of 4 steps. In Step 1, a literature
review was conducted to identify the digital and cloud technologies
for IDD. Accordingly, 32 digital and cloud technologies for IDD were
identified from Step 1. The list of technologies was then validated
through pilot studies with four professionals from the construction
industry with more than 10 years of relevant experience and good
understanding of IDD in Step 2 and formed the basis for the survey
questionnaire.
The finalized questionnaire consists of five sections. Section 1
captures the organization’s profile, including the type of organi-
zation, number of years of experience in the construction industry
and the size of the organization. Section 2 collects information on
the respondent’s profile, including the respondent’s designation
and number of years of experience in the construction industry.
Section 3 collects information on the projects that have imple-
mented IDD. Section 4 investigates the level of implementation of
IDD in the organizations. Finally, in Section 5, the perceived im-
provements on project performance from IDD implementation is
collected.
The target respondents are practitioners from various roles and
business domains in the construction industry including
Contractor, Architect, PM, QS, Engineer and FM. Simple random
sampling was conducted to select respondents from the BCA’s
Directory of Registered Contractors and Licensed Builders,
Singapore Institute of Surveyor and Valuers (SISV), Real Estate
Developers’ Association of Singapore (REDAS), Singapore Institute
of Architects (SIA) and Institution of Engineers Singapore (IES).
The survey questionnaire was distributed to 560 target re-
spondents and a total of 62 valid responses were collected, equiv-
alent to a 10.30% response rate. Although the response rate is
relatively low, it was found that low response rates do not equate to
non-response bias and do not affect sample representativeness
significantly for sampling frames with at least 500 samples and at
least 50 valid responses (Curtin et al., 2000; Fosnacht et al., 2017;
Keeter et al., 2000; Pike, 2013). Moreover, the responses were
collected from respondents and organizations covering major
business domains of the construction industry. On top of that, the
response rate is within the acceptable range of 10e15% for external
surveys (Andrea Fryrear, 2015), and is consistent with the general
survey response rate within Singapore of 10e15% (Liao and Teo,
2019; Teo et al., 2007). Furthermore, the sample size is larger
than 30, which allows valid statistical analysis to be conducted as
the central limit theorem holds true (Hwang et al., 2014; Ling et al.,
2009; Ott and Longnecker, 2016; Zhao et al., 2016). Based on the
above reasons, reliable and meaningful survey results analysis can
be conducted with the survey responses (Carley-Baxter et al., 2018).
The profiles of the respondents and their organizations are
presented in Table 2. The organizations represented the various
business domains in the construction industry including
Contractor, Consultant, Developer, Facilities Management and
 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396 5

Table 2
Profile of the respondents and organizations.

Frequency Percentage (%)

Respondent’s designation Architect 11 17.74

Engineer 13 20.97
Facilities Manager 10 16.13
Project Manager 17 27.42
Quantity Surveyor 11 17.74
Years of experience in the construction industry Less than 3 years 15 24.19
3e5 years 9 14.52
6e10 years 9 14.52
More than 10 years 29 46.77
Type of organization Contractor 19 30.65
Consultant 12 19.35
Developer 10 16.13
Facilities management 11 17.74
Government agency 10 16.13
Years of experience in the construction industry Less than 10 years 9 14.52
10e20 years 6 9.68
21e30 years 15 24.19
More than 30 years 32 51.61
Total 62 100.00

Government Agency, with varying number of years of experience in
the construction industry and of different organization sizes. In
addition, the respondents were from different designations
including Architects, Engineers, FM, PM and QS and have varying
number of years of experience in the construction industry.
To gain greater insights and validate the findings from the sur-
vey questionnaire, post-survey interviews were conducted with
two industry professionals with more than 10 years of experience
in the construction industry in Step 4.
4. Data analysis and discussion
4.1. Level of IDD implementation
4.1.1. Profile of projects that have implemented IDD
53.23% of the respondents indicated that their company has
implemented IDD, with a total number of 149 projects. 64.52% of
the respondents indicated that their company have plans to
implement IDD in the next three years, with an estimated of 191
projects, equivalent to a 28.19% increase. Table 3 shows the profile
of projects that has implemented and will implement IDD in the
next three years.
Based on the responses, projects of different types, nature and
costs were found to have implemented IDD and that will be
implementing IDD in the next three years. This demonstrates the
versatility of IDD technologies. The expected increase in number of
projects to implement IDD in the next three years displays the
potential to improve the performance of the construction industry
through the implementation of IDD technologies.
4.1.2. Level of IDD implementation in projects
The survey results indicated that half of the respondents are
involved in IDD projects. However, it is of interest to note that about
75% of the respondents who have indicated that they are not
involved in IDD projects have implemented some of the IDD
technologies in at least one phase of IDD they are involved in.
Similarly, out of the 46.77% organizations that were indicated to not
have implemented IDD, 69.23% of the organizations have imple-
mented some of the IDD technologies in at least one phase of IDD.
These findings indicate that although respondents were not
familiar with the term “Integrated Digital Delivery”, IDD technol-
ogies have been implemented in the projects. Table 4 shows the
existing level of IDD implementation.
Based on the survey results, only 38.71% of the organizations

Table 3
Profile of projects that have implemented and will implement IDD in the next three years.

Project Characteristics Number of projects that has Percentage Number of projects that will implement Percentage
implemented IDD (%) IDD in the next three years (%)

Project Buildings (Schools, Offices, Hospitals, Residential, 118 79.19 143 74.87
type Warehouse, Hotels, Retail Malls etc.)
Infrastructure (Roads, Highways, Rails, Pipelines, 10 6.71 25 13.09
Tunneling, Bridges etc.)
Heavy Industrial (Oil Refinery, Mining, Chemical 0 0.00 4 2.10
Engineering etc.)
Light Industrial (Consumer products, Electronics 21 14.09 19 90.48
Manufacturing, Pharmaceuticals etc.)
Project New Construction 96 64.43 147 76.96
nature Addition & Alteration 53 35.57 44 23.04
Project Less than S$ 1 million 5 3.36 8 4.19
cost S$ 1 million to less than S$ 20 million 47 31.54 42 21.99
S$ 20 million to less than S$ 40 million 4 2.68 15 7.85
S$ 40 million to less than S$ 60 million 6 4.03 7 3.66
S$ 60 million to less than S$ 80 million 2 1.34 17 8.90
S$ 80 million to less than S$ 100 million 13 8.72 36 18.85
S$ 100 million and above 72 48.32 66 34.55
Total 149 100.00 191 100.00
6 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396

Table 4
Existing level of IDD implementation.

Type of Organization No. of Phases of Implementation of IDD Technologies Total

0 % 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % %

Contractor 3 4.84 1 1.61 2 3.23 5 8.06 8 12.90 19 30.65

Consultant 1 1.61 1 1.61 2 3.23 3 4.84 5 8.06 12 19.35
Developer 0 0.00 1 1.61 3 4.84 3 4.84 3 4.84 10 16.13
Facilities Management 3 4.84 3 4.84 3 4.84 0 0.00 2 3.23 11 17.74
Government Agency 1 1.61 2 3.23 0 0.00 1 1.61 6 9.68 10 16.13
Total 8 12.90 8 12.90 10 16.13 12 19.35 24 38.71 62 100.00

have implemented IDD technologies in all four IDD phases and
12.90% of the organizations have not implemented any of the IDD
technologies. This indicates a moderately low level of IDD imple-
mentation, which is consistent with previous studies which high-
lighted the slow adoption rate of new technologies within the
industry (Chen et al., 2018; Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016;
Sepasgozar et al., 2016). Furthermore, IDD is a relatively new
concept. Although the IDD implementation level is moderately low,
construction organizations have been implementing digital tech-
nologies, displaying a positive outlook for future IDD technology
adoption. Specifically, it was found that 42.10% of contractor firms,
41.68% of consultant firms, 30.00% of developers, 18.18% of facilities
management firms and 60.00% of government agencies have
implemented IDD technologies in all four IDD phases, as shown in
Table 5. The higher adoption rate by government agencies
compared to the other organization types could be due to the
Singapore government advocating for the use of digital technolo-
gies in construction projects and the public sector taking the lead to
transition towards IDD through the implementation of demon-
stration projects (Building and Construction Authority, 2018c; Teo
et al., 2017). Facilities management firms have the lowest level of
implementation, which could be due to the low level of involve-
ment during the design and construction phases of construction
projects (Kalantari et al., 2017; Pilanawithana and Sandanayake,
2017; Wang et al., 2013).
More than half of the organizations have implemented IDD
technologies in each IDD phase. This demonstrates a positive
outlook on IDD implementation in the Singapore construction in-
dustry. In particular, the highest IDD implementation is in the
Digital Design phase. This could be due to the mandatory use of BIM
for electronic submissions of plans for new developments with
gross floor area of more than 5,000 m2 (Building and Construction
Authority, 2016). Digital construction phase has the least imple-
mentation of IDD technologies. This could be due to the relatively
new technologies and changes in work processes required to
integrate these technologies into construction projects (Oesterreich
and Teuteberg, 2016).
4.1.3. Level of implementation of IDD technologies
The respondents were required to indicate the technologies that
they have implemented in their projects. Table 6 shows the
compilation of technologies that the respondents have imple-
mented in their projects.
The implementation rate of the individual IDD technologies
ranged from 4.84% to 56.45%, with a mean of 20.67%. In particular,
the average adoption rate of the IDD technologies in each IDD phase
is 23.12%, 18.75%, 18.86% and 25.84% respectively. The imple-
mentation rate of IDD technologies are relatively low and is
consistent with the slow adoption rate of new technologies within
the construction industry (Loosemore, 2014; Oesterreich and
Teuteberg, 2016; Sepasgozar et al., 2016).
The top technologies with the highest rate of implementation in
each IDD phase are - BIM (D1) (56.45%), prefabrication (D7)
(30.65%), BIM-to-field mobile applications (D24) (32.26%) and BMS
(D31) (40.32%). Across the IDD phases, the top five technologies
adopted are e BIM (D1) (56.45%), BMS (D31) (40.35%), smart fa-
cilities management technology (D32) (33.87%), constructability
review and analysis (D3) (32.36%) and BIM-to-field mobile appli-
cations (D24) (32.36%).
BIM has the highest rate of implementation among the tech-
nologies which can be attributed to the successful implementation
of the BIM Roadmap launched by BCA in 2010 and the mandatory
electronic submission of building plans for new developments of
more than 5,000 m2 (Building and Construction Authority, 2016).
This is aligned with Borrmann et al. (2018a) and Cheng and Lu
(2015) who noted that the BIM maturity and adoption in the
Singapore construction industry is advanced. The post interviewees
also affirmed that the implementation of BIM is integral for all
phases of the construction process and has been widely used for
collaboration between stakeholders in the construction industry. In
addition, constructability review and analysis can be used in
conjunction with BIM to further utilize the potential of BIM.
However, BIM-based applications and technologies are less used in
the other project phases. This is supported by previous studies
which highlighted that BIM implementation in the construction
industry remains fragmented within each stakeholder group,
although the overall BIM adoption rate has increased (Liao et al.,
2019; Zanni et al., 2017).
Prefabrication during the Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication
phase has been used in projects which have a regular and repetitive
layout such as residential houses, hotels, and schools. The Housing
Development Board (HDB) of Singapore implemented prefabrica-
tion in public projects in 1981, with limited success in projects in
the private sector (Park et al., 2011). The nationwide prefabrication
level was about 8% in 1998 and 11.2% in 2001 (Gao et al., 2018; Park
et al., 2011). More recently, the implementation of prefabrication

Table 5
Frequency of implementation in each IDD phase.

Type of Organization Digital Design Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication Digital Construction Digital Asset Delivery and Management

Contractor (Count ¼ 19) 14 (73.68%) 15 (78.95%) 9 (47.37%) 14 (73.68%)

Consultant (Count ¼ 12) 10 (83.33%) 7 (58.33%) 6 (50.00%) 9 (75.00%)
Developer (Count ¼ 10) 10 (100.00%) 8 (80.00%) 4 (40.00%) 6 (60.00%)
Facilities Management (Count ¼ 11) 4 (36.36%) 2 (18.18%) 8 (72.73%) 3 (27.27%)
Government Agency (Count ¼ 10) 7 (70.00%) 7 (70.00%) 8 (80.00%) 7 (70.00%)
Total 45 (72.58%) 39 (62.90%) 35 (56.45%) 39 (62.90%)
 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396 7

Table 6
Receptiveness to technologies in IDD.

Key IDD Technologies Frequency Percent (%) Rank Across Rank Within

Digital Design
D1 BIM 35 56.45 1 1
D2 BIM-based sustainability analysis 12 19.35 16 3
D3 Constructability review and analysis 20 32.26 4 2
D4 Augmented reality 4 6.45 30 5
D5 Virtual reality 12 19.35 16 3
D6 Big data analytics 3 4.84 31 6
Digital Manufacturing and Fabrication
D7 Prefabrication 19 30.65 6 1
D8 RFID project material tracking 11 17.75 19 5
D9 Digital ordering 9 14.52 22 6
D10 Digital modelling and fabrication 14 22.58 12 3
D11 Central control 15 24.19 10 2
D12 Robotics 5 8.06 27 8
D13 Smart sensor network 7 11.29 24 7
D14 Just-in-time (JIT) delivery 13 20.97 13 4
Digital Construction
D15 4D progress monitoring 11 17.75 19 8
D16 RFID tagged precast elements 13 20.97 13 5
D17 Virtual construction scheduling and sequencing 16 25.81 9 4
D18 Digital QA/QC inspection 12 19.35 16 7
D19 3D laser scanning 3 4.84 31 13
D20 Virtual construction and collaboration 19 30.65 6 2
D21 Co-located coordination 9 14.52 22 9
D22 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) 13 20.97 13 5
D23 Photogrammetry for construction planning 7 11.29 24 10
D24 BIM-to-field mobile applications 20 32.26 4 1
D25 Biometric controls and database for safety and productivity 19 30.65 6 2
D26 Real-time location services for safety 5 8.06 27 11
D27 Smart crane navigation system 5 8.06 27 11
Digital Asset Delivery and Management
D28 BIM-based Defect Management (BIMDM) System 15 24.19 10 3
D29 BIM for Asset Management (BIM-AM) 11 17.75 19 4
D30 Digital progress reporting and claim 7 11.29 24 5
D31 Building Management System 25 40.32 2 1
D32 Smart facilities management technology 21 33.87 3 2

has been spurred by HDB who aims to use prefabricated pre-
finished volumetric construction in 35 percent of the newly
launched housing by 2019 and the launch of Construction Industry
Transformation Map (CITM) in promoting design for manufacturing
and assembly (Building and Construction Authority, 2017b;
Channel NewsAsia, 2017). The post-interviewees highlighted that
private developers are increasingly inclined to adopt prefabrication
due to the improvements in productivity and better quality control.
It was also highlighted in Park et al. (2011) that prefabrication will
become more cost effective with increased used, further diffusing
the adoption of prefabrication.
BIM-to-field mobile applications have been used in the Digital
Construction phase through portable devices such as tablets and
smartphones to access plans and share information on site,
improving collaboration and communication among project
stakeholders (Matthews et al., 2018; Oesterreich and Teuteberg,
2016). The post-survey interviewees agreed that portable
communication devices have transformed the construction in-
dustry as access to plans on site is enabled, enhancing convenience
as site workers do not need to carry bulky drawings on site and
defects identified during construction can be highlighted almost
immediately by uploading photos into the cloud to inform the
contractor for timely rectification. However, it was also highlighted
by the post-survey interviewees that due to the various informa-
tion and communication systems used by different stakeholders,
some information may not be properly communicated, indicating
that BIM-to-field mobile applications may not be fully utilized and
is typically used as a tool to import model data to handheld devices
on site. Furthermore, conventional work processes do not
encourage collaborative methods of working among stakeholders,
resulting in the underutilization of BIM-to-field mobile applica-
tions (Matthews et al., 2018; Zanni et al., 2017).
BMS used in the Digital Asset Delivery and Management phase
has been established in the facilities management industry for
monitoring of building performance to optimize the performance
of the building (See, 2018). FM have fundamentally used BMS for
predictive and preventive maintenance and to schedule re-
placements of defective machinery parts. Smart facilities manage-
ment technologies can be integrated with BMS for fault detection in
real-time. As more smart buildings are being developed, Internet-
of-Things and automated processes to control and manage build-
ing assets are increasingly incorporated into the buildings to
further optimize building performance (Jia et al., 2019).
4.2. Perceived improvement on project performance with IDD
implementation
As project performance is typically evaluated with the ‘iron
triangle’ of time, cost and quality (Bronte-Stewart, 2015), re-
spondents who were involved in IDD projects were asked to esti-
mate the percentage of improvement in overall project
performance, project cost performance, project quality perfor-
mance and project schedule performance on a scale of ()10% as a
reduction in performance and (þ)10% as an improvement in per-
formance, compared to the project performance baseline. Re-
spondents who were not involved in IDD projects were asked to
indicate the perceived improvements based on their previous ex-
periences. Table 7 shows the perceived improvement on project
8 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396
performance arising from IDD implementation.
Overall, IDD implementation is perceived to improve project
performance slightly, with a mean of 5.15% in overall project per-
formance, 3.76% in project cost performance, 4.48% in project
quality performance and 4.44% in project schedule performance.
This is consistent with the presumption that implementation of
new technologies will improve performance, if well integrated into
the organization’s work processes (Loosemore, 2014; Sepasgozar
et al., 2016). Despite the overall positive mean percentage as
shown in Table 7, post-survey interviewee A specified that an in-
crease in 1e5% in performance is insufficient for the company to
justify the use of new technologies and highlighted that an
improvement of at least 10% is required to suffice for consideration.
The mean score of respondents who are involved in IDD projects
are consistently higher than respondents that are not involved in
IDD projects for the perceived improvements in overall project
performance, project cost performance, project quality perfor-
mance and project schedule performance. The statistically signifi-
cant differences found between the two groups for changes in
overall project performance, project quality performance and
project schedule performance further demonstrate that those that
have implemented IDD technologies in their projects are more
aware of the benefits of IDD technologies in improving project
performance than those who have not implemented IDD technol-
ogies. This is consistent with previous studies on technology
adoption and acceptance which found that experience influences
the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the tech-
nologies (Liu et al., 2018; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).
Almost all respondents (93.55%) perceived improvements in
overall project performance, with the most common range of (þ)
4e6% (29.03%), followed by (þ)7e9% (27.42%). Specifically, 58.06%
of the respondents that are not involved in IDD projects perceived
improvements of more than (þ)4%. The other 41.94% of the re-
spondents not involved in IDD projects largely perceive a slight
improvement of (þ)1e3% in overall project performance with one
respondent (3.23%) perceiving a ()4e6% change in overall project
performance from IDD implementation.
On the other hand, 87.10% of the respondents that are involved
in IDD projects perceived improvements of more than (þ)4%. The
remaining 12.90% respondents involved in IDD projects largely
perceive a poorer project performance with IDD implementation.
The perceived poorer project performance due to IDD imple-
mentation could be because of the difficulties faced by the re-
spondents when implementing IDD technologies into projects
including process changes, unfamiliarity, uncertainties, interoper-
ability and worker acceptance (Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016;
Sepasgozar et al., 2016).
In the case of project cost performance, there were no statisti-
cally significant differences found between the two groups. This
could be due to similar perceptions on costs associated with IDD
implementation and the benefits that may be derived from IDD
Table 7
Impact of IDD on project performance.
Overall
Mean (%)
Change in Overall Project Performance (þ) 5.15
Change in Project Cost Performance (þ) 3.76
Change in Project Quality Performance (þ) 4.48
Change in Project Schedule Performance (þ) 4.44
a
Figures indicate a p-value below 0.05, and show statistically significant differences between subgroups.
implementation. 80.65% of the respondents perceive improve-
ments in project cost performance, with the most common range of
(þ)1e3% (25.81%), followed by (þ)4e6% and (þ)7e9% (22.58%
each). In particular, 16.13% of the respondents that are not involved
in IDD projects perceived no improvements or a lower project cost
performance with IDD implementation, with the remaining re-
spondents perceiving an improvement of (þ)1e3% (29.03%), (þ)
4e6% (25.81%) and (þ)7e9% (19.35%), resulting in a mean score of
3.58%.
On the other hand, 87.09% that are involved in IDD projects
perceived that implementation of IDD technologies is beneficial in
terms of improvement in cost performance by a mean score of
3.94%. Specifically, 22.58% of those involved in IDD projects
perceived an improvement of (þ)1e3%, 19.35% perceived an
improvement of (þ)4e6%, 25.81% perceived an improvement of (þ)
7e9% and the remaining 19.35% perceived an improvement of more
than (þ)10%. It is of interest to note that 9.68% of the respondents
that are involved in IDD projects have reported ()10% impact on
the cost performance. A possible reason could be the high upfront
cost in purchasing of the equipment or software, resulting in a
deficit in cost performance in the short run. However, the potential
benefits obtained from using the technology will compensate for
the cost of the technology in the long run (Grau et al., 2009). This
point is reinforced by Post Interviewee B who disclosed that the
high upfront investment cost has significant impact on the cost
performance of the project and the “company management would
not want to take the hit for the hefty cost of technology as it will
look bad on the financial reports for the initial projects.”
For project quality performance, 82.26% of the respondents
perceived improvements with IDD implementation. In particular,
80.65% of the respondents that are not involved in IDD projects and
83.87% of the respondents that are involved in IDD projects indi-
cated a positive rating for the implementation of IDD technologies
on quality performance. Respondents involved in IDD projects have
indicated greater improvements in project quality performance,
with 54.84% of them indicating an improvement of more than (þ)
7%, while 61.29% of the respondents not involved in IDD projects
perceived a slight improvement in project quality performance
between (þ)1e6%.
The remaining 11.29% of the respondents perceived no impact,
1.61% of the respondents perceived a slight reduction in project
quality performance and 4.84% of the respondents perceive a
reduction of 10% or more in project quality performance. The results
reflect that the respondents rarely see IDD as an approach to improve
the quality performance of the project. This could be due to lack of
knowledge of the benefits on quality performance that IDD tech-
nologies can bring. As such, respondents that are involved and those
that are not involved in IDD projects perceive the changes in project
quality performance differently, which may be contributed by the
increased awareness and knowledge of the benefits on project
quality performance through the use of IDD technologies.
Respondent’s Involvement in IDD P-Value
No Yes
P-Value Mean (%) Mean (%)
0.00 (þ) 4.55 (þ) 5.74 0.011a
0.00 (þ) 3.58 (þ) 3.94 0.335
0.00 (þ) 3.87 (þ) 5.10 0.015a
0.00 (þ) 3.45 (þ) 5.52 0.002a
 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396
However, it is of interest to note that there are 9.68% of re-
spondents that are involved in IDD who indicated ()10% for
quality performance. A possible reason could be due to potential
cracks, leakage and joint failures found in prefabrication which may
have resulted from inexperienced employees who are not skilled in
handling the equipment or methods (Jiang et al., 2018). Post
Interviewee B has supported the reason of poor quality by citing
instances where there were tight schedules and deadlines to be
met and contractors were rushing to complete the process of
jointing, resulting in negligence in workmanship.
In terms of project schedule performance, 90.32% of the re-
spondents have indicated positive impact on project schedule
performance with IDD implementation. Specifically, 54.84% of the
respondents that are not involved in IDD indicated time savings of
(þ)1e3% and only 16.13% of the respondents from the same group
indicated time savings of (þ)7e9%, whereas 58.06% of the re-
spondents that are involved in IDD indicated time savings of more
than (þ)7%. Similar to the above, the statistically significant dif-
ferences in perceptions on changes in project schedule perfor-
mance brought about by IDD implementation between the two
groups could be due to the experience with the IDD technologies
allowing them to witness the benefits brought about by the
technologies.
On the other hand, 3.23% and 6.45% of the respondents that are
involved in IDD projects gave a negative rating of ()4e6% and ()
10% respectively. This could be due to considerable amount of time
required in the planning and execution phase in understanding the
technology to be used (Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016). However,
there could be potential time savings in the long run in terms of the
reduction in rework required when the workers are more adept in
using the technology (Han et al., 2009). The respondents that are
involved in IDD reported a higher mean score of 5.42% in time
savings, compared to mean score of the other group (3.45%),
showing that the importance of IDD implementation in projects in
improving schedule performance is more prominent from the view
of the respondents that are involved in IDD projects.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
IDD technologies have the potential to improve the performance
of the construction industry. However, there have been limited
studies on the existing level of IDD implementation and the im-
provements in project performance brought about by IDD imple-
mentation. Hence, this study assessed the current status of IDD
implementation in the Singapore construction industry by the
various types of organizations, and further investigated the
perceived improvements on overall project performance, project
cost, project time and project quality performance arising from IDD
implementation. 32 digital and cloud technologies were identified
for the four IDD phases. It was found that the existing level of IDD
implementation in the Singapore construction industry is moder-
ately low, with only 38.71% of the organizations which have
implemented IDD technologies in all IDD phases. Although IDD is a
relatively new concept, the outlook for IDD implementation is
positive with only 12.90% of the organizations which have not
implemented any IDD technologies. Despite being relatively
advanced in BIM implementation, the adoption rate of individual
IDD technologies were found to be relatively low with a mean of
20.67%, and is consistent with previous studies which emphasized
on the slow adoption rate of new technologies in the construction
industry. The top technologies with the highest rate of imple-
mentation in each IDD phase are - BIM (D1), prefabrication (D7),
BIM-to-field mobile applications (D24) and BMS (D31) respectively.
Across the IDD phases, the top five technologies adopted are e BIM
(D1), BMS (D31), smart facilities management technology (D32),
9
constructability review and analysis (D3) and BIM-to-field mobile
applications (D24). The respondents largely agreed that IDD
implementation brings about perceived improvements in overall,
project cost, quality and schedule performance averaging 5.15%,
3.76%, 4.48% and 4.44% respectively. Respondents involved in IDD
projects were also found to have indicated a higher level of
improvement in project performance compared to those not
involved in IDD, indicating the greater awareness of the benefits
that can be achieved from IDD implementation.
This study has some limitations. IDD is a relatively new concept
and hence, construction practitioners with no prior IDD knowledge
may be reluctant to participate in the survey leading to a relatively
low survey response rate of 10.30%. Hence, the analysis results
should be interpreted with caution. A higher response rate would
provide more reliable analysis. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge
on IDD may lead to misinterpretations of the survey questions.
Thus, a glossary of technologies has been provided with the ques-
tionnaire to reduce misinterpretation of the technologies. Apart
from that, the actual impact of IDD implementation on project
performance could not be derived from the study as the projects are
still in progress.
Nonetheless the findings of this study contribute to knowledge
in terms of the quantification of the level of implementation of IDD
technologies and the perceived improvements in project perfor-
mance arising from IDD implementation. These processes can be
extended to quantify the level of implementation of other collab-
orative construction approaches and their potential improvements
in project performance. The findings also showed that perceived
usefulness and ease of use of technologies are dynamic and will
change with use. These may serve as starting points for future
research on how to increase implementation of collaborative con-
struction approaches. In particular, as collaborative approaches
requires all stakeholders to adopt and integrate their work pro-
cesses to maximize the potential of the technologies, the findings
may also serve as a starting point to extend existing technology
adoption models for organizations to explain and predict adoption
of collaborative approaches. In addition, the findings of this study
contribute to industry by identifying the IDD technologies and
serve as a benchmark for the common types of IDD technologies
implemented by the industry.
The actual improvements in project performance in terms of
overall project performance, project cost, quality and schedule
performance contributed by IDD implementation can be studied in
the future. Furthermore, studies on the synergy of IDD technolo-
gies, the process changes and skills required to maximize the po-
tential of the IDD technologies can also be conducted to guide the
implementation of IDD technologies in the future.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Bon-Gang Hwang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing
- original draft, Writing - review & editing, Validation, Resources.
Jasmine Ngo: Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing
- original draft, Writing - review & editing. Priscilla Wan Yi Her:
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization.
10 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396

References augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction.

Autom. ConStruct. 33, 116e122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.017.
Costa, A.A., Grilo, A., 2015. BIM-based e-procurement: an innovative approach to
Alaloul, W.S., Liew, M.S., Zawawi, N.A.W.A., Mohammed, B.S., 2018. Industry Revo-
construction e-procurement. Sci. World J. 2015, 1e15. https://doi.org/10.1155/
lution IR 4.0: Future Opportunities and Challenges in Construction Industry, vol.
2015/905390.
203. MATEC Web Conf. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201820302010,
Curtin, R., Presser, S., Singer, E., 2000. The effects of response rate changes on the
02010.
index of consumer sentiment. Publ. Opin. Q. 64, 413e428. https://doi.org/
American Institute of Architects, 2007. Integrated Project Delivery.
10.1086/318638.
Andrea Fryrear, 2015. What’s a good survey response rate? [WWW Document].
Dainty, A.R.J., Briscoe, G.H., Millett, S.J., 2001. Subcontractor perspectives on supply
https://www.surveygizmo.com/resources/blog/survey-response-rates/
chain alliances. Construct. Manag. Econ. 19, 841e848. https://doi.org/10.1080/
(accessed 7.18.19).
01446190110089727.
Asmar, M. El, Hanna, A.S., Loh, W.-Y., 2006. Quantifying performance for the inte-
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., Linder, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for
grated project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems.
construction supply chains: a systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. 99,
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 132, 230e238. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE.
205e225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.039.
Azhar, S., 2011. Building information modeling (BIM): trends, benefits, risks, and
Fathi, A., Saleh, A., Hegazy, M., 2016. Computational design as an approach to
challenges for the AEC industry. Leader. Manag. Eng. 11, 241e252. https://
sustainable regional architecture in the Arab world. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)lm.1943-5630.0000127.
225, 180e190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.018.
Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F., Dainty, A.R.J., 2006. The extent of team integration within
Fosnacht, K., Sarraf, S., Howe, E., Peck, L.K., 2017. How important are high response
construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 13e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
rates for college surveys? Rev. High. Educ. 40, 245e265. https://doi.org/10.1353/
j.ijproman.2005.05.001.
rhe.2017.0003.
Ballard-Bloomfield, K., Brook, D., 2018. How can Big data enable more efficient and
Froese, T.M., 2010. The impact of emerging information technology on project
effective location decisions and planning? - area development [WWW Docu-
management for construction. Autom. ConStruct. 19, 531e538. https://doi.org/
ment]. https://www.areadevelopment.com/corporate-site-selection-factors/
10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.004.
Q3-2018/big-data-efficient-effective-location-decisions-and-planning.shtml
Gao, S., Low, S.P., Nair, K., 2018. Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA): a
(accessed 5.30.19).
preliminary study of factors influencing its adoption in Singapore. Architect.
Bock, T., 2015. The future of construction automation: technological disruption and
Eng. Des. Manag. 14, 440e456. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1502653.
the upcoming ubiquity of robotics. Autom. ConStruct. 59, 113e121. https://
Grau, D., Caldas, C.H., Haas, C.T., Goodrum, P.M., Gong, J., 2009. Assessing the impact
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.022.
€ nig, M., Koch, C., Beetz, J., 2018a. Building information modeling: of materials tracking technologies on construction craft productivity. Autom.
Borrmann, A., Ko
ConStruct. 18, 903e911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.04.001.
technology foundations and industry practice, building information modeling:
Han, S.H., Yun, S., Kim, H., Kwak, Y.H., Park, H.K., Lee, S.H., 2009. Analyzing schedule
technology foundations and industry practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
delay of mega project: lessons learned from Korea train express. IEEE Trans.
319-92862-3.
€ nig, M., Koch, C., Beetz, J., 2018b. Building information modeling: Eng. Manag. 56, 243e256. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2016042.
Borrmann, A., Ko
Hwang, B.-G., Zhao, X., Toh, L.P., 2014. Risk management in small construction
why? What? How?. In: Building Information Modeling. Springer International
projects in Singapore: status, barriers and impact. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32,
Publishing, Cham, pp. 1e24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92862-3_1.
, F., Ahmed, M., Turkan, Y., Haas, C.T., Haas, R., 2015. The value of integrating 116e124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.007.
Bosche
Jia, M., Komeily, A., Wang, Y., Srinivasan, R.S., 2019. Adopting Internet of Things for
Scan-to-BIM and Scan-vs-BIM techniques for construction monitoring using
the development of smart buildings: a review of enabling technologies and
laser scanning and BIM: the case of cylindrical MEP components. Autom.
applications. Autom. ConStruct. 101, 111e126. https://doi.org/10.1016/
ConStruct. 49, 201e213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.014.
j.autcon.2019.01.023.
Bosche, F., Haas, C.T., Akinci, B., 2009. Automated recognition of 3D CAD objects in
Jiang, L., Li, Z., Li, L., Gao, Y., 2018. Constraints on the promotion of prefabricated
site laser scans for project 3D status visualization and performance control.
construction in China. Sustainability 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072516.
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 23, 311e318. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-
Jrade, A., Jalaei, F., 2013. Integrating building information modelling with sustain-
3801(2009)23:6(311).
ability to design building projects at the conceptual stage. Build. Simul. 6,
Bouchlaghem, D., Shang, H., Whyte, J., Ganah, A., 2005. Visualisation in architecture,
429e444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-013-0120-0.
engineering and construction (AEC). Autom. ConStruct. 14, 287e295. https://
Kalantari, S., Shepley, M.M., Rybkowski, Z.K., Bryant, J., 2017. Designing for opera-
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.08.012.
tional efficiency: facility managers’ perspectives on how their knowledge can
Bronte-Stewart, M., 2015. Beyond the iron triangle: evaluating aspects of success
be better incorporated during design. Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 13, 457e478.
and failure using a project status model. Comput. Inf. Syst. 19, 19e37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2017.1348333.
Building and Construction Authority, 2018a. Integrated digital delivery (IDD)
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R.M., Presser, S., 2000. Consequences of
[WWW Document]. https://www.bca.gov.sg/IntegratedDigitalDelivery/
reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Publ. Opin. Q. 64,
Integrated_Digital_Delivery.html (accessed 6.20.19).
125e148. https://doi.org/10.1086/317759.
Building and Construction Authority, 2018b. BIM for asset information delivery
Kumar, V.R.P., Balasubramanian, M., Raj, S.J., 2016. Robotics in construction industry.
guide (Singapore).
Indian J. Sci. Technol. 9 https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i23/95974.
Building and Construction Authority, 2018c. BCA continues its digitalisation push
Kunz, J., Fischer, M., 2012. Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies
with industry partners [WWW Document]. https://www.bca.gov.sg/newsroom/
and Implementation Suggestions.
others/MR_IDDImplementationPlan_w.pdf. accessed 6.25.19.
Latiffi, A.A., Brahim, J., Fathi, M.S., 2016. Roles and responsibilities of construction
Building and Construction Authority, 2018d. Working Even Smarter. Build Smart.
players in projects using building information modeling (BIM). In: IFIP Ad-
Building and Construction Authority, 2017a. Construction ITM to pave the way for
vances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer, Cham,
digital integration and better jobs [WWW Document]. https://www.bca.gov.sg/
pp. 173e182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33111-9_16.
newsroom/others/PR_ConstructionITM_231017.pdf (accessed 6.25.19).
Lee, C.K.M., Cao, Y., Ng, K.H., 2017. Big data analytics for predictive maintenance
Building and Construction Authority, 2017b. Construction industry transformation
strategies. In: Supply Chain Management in the Big Data Era, pp. 50e74. https://
Map [WWW Document]. https://www.bca.gov.sg/citm/ (accessed 6.11.19).
doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0956-1.ch004.
Building and Construction Authority, 2016. Building information modeling (BIM)
Levia €kangas, P., Paik, S.M., Moon, S., 2017. Keeping up with the pace of digitization:
esubmission requirement [WWW Document]. https://www.corenet.gov.sg/
the case of the Australian construction industry. Technol. Soc. 50, 33e43.
media/2032998/circular-on-bim-e-submission-for-plan-submission-to-bca.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.04.003.
(accessed 6.25.19).
Li, H., Lu, W., Huang, T., 2009. Rethinking project management and exploring virtual
Building and Construction Authority, Infocomm Media Development Authority,
design and construction as a potential solution. Construct. Manag. Econ. 27,
2018. BCA-IMDA Call for Submission - Construction Digital Platforms (CDP)
363e371. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190902838217.
[WWW Document]. https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/industry-
Li, J., Yang, H., 2017. A research on development of construction industrialization
development/infrastructure/digital-platforms/bca-imda-call-for-submission-
based on BIM technology under the background of industry 4.0. MATEC Web
construction-digital-platform-briefing-slides.pdf?la¼en (accessed 6.25.19).
Conf. 100 https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710002046, 02046.
Carley-Baxter, L.R., Hill, C.A., Roe, D.J., Twiddy, S.E., Baxter, R.K., Ruppenkamp, J.,
Liao, L., Teo Ai Lin, E., Low, S.P., 2019. Assessing building information modeling
2018. Does response rate matter? Journal editors use of survey quality measures
implementation readiness in building projects in Singapore: a fuzzy synthetic
in manuscript publication decisions. Surv. Pract. 2, 1e7. https://doi.org/
evaluation approach. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10.29115/sp-2009-0033.
ECAM-01-2019-0028.
Channel NewsAsia, 2017. HDB to expand use of prefabrication building methods in
Liao, L., Teo, E.A.L., 2019. Managing critical drivers for building information
BTO projects [WWW Document]. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/
modelling implementation in the Singapore construction industry: an organi-
singapore/hdb-to-expand-use-of-prefabrication-building-methods-in-bto-
zational change perspective. Int. J. Construct. Manag. 19, 240e256. https://
9189786 (accessed 6.25.19).
doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1423165.
Chen, Q., García de Soto, B., Adey, B.T., 2018. Construction automation: research
Ling, F.Y.Y., Low, S.P., Wang, S.Q., Lim, H.H., 2009. Key project management practices
areas, industry concerns and suggestions for advancement. Autom. ConStruct.
affecting Singaporean firms’ project performance in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
94, 22e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.028.
27, 59e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.004.
Cheng, J.C.P., Lu, Q., 2015. A review of the efforts and roles of the public sector for
Liu, D., Lu, W., Niu, Y., 2018. Extended technology-acceptance model to make smart
BIM adoption worldwide. J. Inf. Technol. Construct. 20, 442e478.
construction systems successful. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 144 https://doi.org/
Chi, H.-L., Kang, S.-C., Wang, X., 2013. Research trends and opportunities of
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001487, 04018035.
 B.-G. Hwang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121396
Loosemore, M., 2014. Improving construction productivity: a subcontractor’s
perspective. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-
05-2013-0043.
Matthews, J., Love, P.E.D., Mewburn, J., Stobaus, C., Ramanayaka, C., 2018. Building
information modelling in construction: insights from collaboration and change
management perspectives. Prod. Plann. Contr. 29, 202e216. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537287.2017.1407005.
Mesa, H.A., Molenaar, K.R., Alarco n, L.F., 2019. Comparative analysis between inte-
grated project delivery and lean project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 37,
395e409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.012.
Oesterreich, T.D., 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. Comput. Ind. 83,
121e139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006.
Ott, R.L., Longnecker, M., 2016. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data
Analysis, Seventh. Cengage Learning.
Park, M., Ingawale-Verma, Y., Kim, W., Ham, Y., 2011. Construction policymaking:
with an example of Singaporean government’s policy to diffuse prefabrication
to private sector. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 15, 771e779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-
011-1243-4.
Pike, G.R., 2013. NSSE benchmarks and institutional outcomes: a note on the
importance of considering the intended uses of a measure in validity studies.
Res. High. Educ. 54, 149e170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9279-y.
Pilanawithana, N.M., Sandanayake, Y.G., 2017. Positioning the facilities manager’s
role throughout the building lifecycle. J. Facil. Manag. 15, 376e392. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JFM-06-2016-0024.
See, J., 2018. Smart buildings: an integrated future for facilities management
[WWW Document]. https://www.cwservices.sg/smart-buildings-integrated-
future-facilities-management/ (accessed 6.25.19).
Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Loosemore, M., Davis, S.R., 2016. Conceptualising information
and equipment technology adoption in construction: a critical review of
existing research. Architect. Manag. 23, 158e176. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-
05-2015-0083.
11
Singapore Institute of Architects, 2017. Construction ITM launched at SPCW [WWW
Document]. http://apex.sia.org.sg/xshare/2._Factsheet_on_Construction_ITM_
231017.pdf (accessed 6.25.19).
Smart Nation and Digital Government Office, 2019. Transforming Singapore [WWW
Document]. https://www.smartnation.sg/why-Smart-Nation/transforming-
singapore (accessed 11.10.19).
Surbana Jurong, 2018. Beyond technology: surbana Jurong’s digital journey [WWW
Document]. https://surbanajurong.com/perspective/beyond-technology-
surbana-jurongs-digital-journey/ (accessed 6.17.19).
Teo, E.A.L., Chan, S.L., Tan, P.H., 2007. Empirical investigation into factors affecting
exporting construction services in SMEs in Singapore. J. Construct. Eng. Manag.
133, 582e591. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2007)133:8(582).
https://search.crossref.org/?q¼Empiricalþinvestigationþ
intoþfactorsþaffectingþexportingþcons
tructionþservicesþinþSMEsþinþSingapore.
Teo, E.A.L., Ofori, G., Tjandra, I., Kim, H., 2017. Framework for productivity and safety
enhancement system using BIM in Singapore. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag.
24, 1350e1371. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2016-0122.
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda
on interventions. Decis. Sci. J. 39, 273e315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2008.00192.x.
Wang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Yung, P., Jun, G., 2013. Engagement of facilities man-
agement in design stage through BIM: framework and a case study. Adv. Civ.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/189105, 2013.
Zanni, M.A., Soetanto, R., Ruikar, K., 2017. Towards a BIM-enabled sustainable
building design process: roles, responsibilities, and requirements. Architect.
Eng. Des. Manag. 13, 101e129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1213153.
Zhang, Y., Luo, H., He, Y., 2015. A system for tender price evaluation of construction
project based on Big data. In: Procedia Engineering. Elsevier, pp. 606e614.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.114.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.G., Gao, Y., 2016. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk
assessment: a case of Singapore’s green projects. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 203e213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.042.