Sustainable

Construction
Engineering and
Management
Edited by
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Jurgita Antuchevičienė,
M. Reza Hosseini and Igor Martek
Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Sustainability

www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainable Construction Engineering
and Management
Sustainable Construction Engineering
and Management

Editors
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas
Jurgita Antuchevičienė
Reza Hosseini
Igor Martek

MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tokyo • Cluj • Tianjin
Editors
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas Jurgita Antuchevičien ė Reza Hosseini
Vilnius Gediminas Technical Vilnius Gediminas Technical Deakin University
University University Australia
Lithuania Lithuania

Igor Martek
Deakin University Australia

Editorial Office
MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel, Switzerland

This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal
Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050) (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/
special issues/construction engineering).

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as
indicated below:

LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Volume Number,
Page Range.

ISBN 978-3-0365-2628-7 (Hbk)

ISBN 978-3-0365-2629-4 (PDF)

© 2021 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon
published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum
dissemination and a wider impact of our publications.
The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
license CC BY-NC-ND.
Contents

About the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Preface to ”Sustainable Construction Engineering and Management” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Jurgita Antucheviciene, M. Reza Hosseini and Igor

Martek
Sustainable Construction Engineering and Management
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028, doi:10.3390/su132313028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Hui-Ping Tserng, I-Cheng Cho, Chun-Hung Chen and Yu-Fan Liu

Developing a Risk Management Process for Infrastructure Projects Using IDEF0
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958, doi:10.3390/su13126958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Augustinas Maceika, Andrej Bugajev, Olga Regina Šostak and Tatjana Vilutienė
Decision Tree and AHP Methods Application for Projects Assessment: A Case Study
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502, doi:10.3390/su13105502 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Bahareh Nikmehr, M. Reza Hosseini, Igor Martek, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas and
Jurgita Antucheviciene
Digitalization as a Strategic Means of Achieving Sustainable Efficiencies in Construction
Management: A Critical Review
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040, doi:10.3390/su13095040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Hatem Alhazmi, Abdulilah K. Alduwais, Thamer Tabbakh, Saad Aljamlani,

Bandar Alkahlan and Abdulaziz Kurdi
Environmental Performance of Residential Buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment Study in Saudi
Arabia
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542, doi:10.3390/su13063542 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Yingnan Yang and Hongming Xie

Determination of Optimal MR&R Strategy and Inspection Intervals to Support Infrastructure
Maintenance Decision Making
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664, doi:10.3390/su13052664 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Binchao Deng, Dongjie Zhou, Jiachen Zhao, Yilin Yin and Xiaoyu Li
Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation of the Critical Success Factors for the Sustainability of Public Private
Partnership Projects in China
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551, doi:10.3390/su13052551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Jason Maximino C. Ongpeng, Ernesto J. Guades and Michael Angelo B. Promentilla

Cross-Organizational Learning Approach in the Sustainable Use of Fly Ash for Geopolymer in
the Philippine Construction Industry
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454, doi:10.3390/su13052454 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Hassan Hashemi, Parviz Ghoddousi and Farnad Nasirzadeh

Sustainability Indicator Selection by a Novel Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making
Approach in Highway Construction Projects
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477, doi:10.3390/su13031477 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

v
Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene, Dalia Streimikiene, Tomas Balezentis and Virgilijus Skulskis
A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable
Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 737, doi:10.3390/su13020737 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Meng-Lin Yu and Meng-Han Tsai

ACS: Construction Data Auto-Correction System—Taiwan Public Construction Data Example
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 362, doi:10.3390/su13010362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Guodong Ni, Heng Xu, Qingbin Cui, Yaning Qiao, Ziyao Zhang, Huaikun Li
and Paul J. Hickey
Influence Mechanism of Organizational Flexibility on Enterprise Competitiveness: The
Mediating Role of Organizational Innovation
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 176, doi:10.3390/su13010176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Amirhossein Balali, Alireza Valipour, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

and Zenonas Turskis
Multi-Criteria Ranking of Green Materials According to the Goals of Sustainable Development
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482, doi:10.3390/su12229482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Ahmed Farouk Kineber, Idris Othman, Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke, Nicholas Chileshe and
Mohanad Kamil Buniya
Identifying and Assessing Sustainable Value Management Implementation Activities in
Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143, doi:10.3390/su12219143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Hamidreza Khalesi, Amirhossein Balali, Alireza Valipour, Jurgita Antucheviciene,

Darius Migilinskas and Viaceslav Zigmund
Application of Hybrid SWARA–BIM in Reducing Reworks of Building Construction Projects
from the Perspective of Time
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927, doi:10.3390/su12218927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Kyunghwan Kim
Generalized Resource-Constrained Critical Path Method to Improve Sustainability in
Construction Project Scheduling
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918, doi:10.3390/su12218918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Luis A. Salazar, Paz Arroyo and Luis F. Alarcón

Key Indicators for Linguistic Action Perspective in the Last Planner® System
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728, doi:10.3390/su12208728 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Zdeněk Kala
Sensitivity Analysis in Probabilistic Structural Design: A Comparison of Selected Techniques
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788, doi:10.3390/su12114788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Sungjin Ahn, Taehui Kim and Ji-Myong Kim

Sustainable Risk Assessment through the Analysis of Financial Losses from Third-Party
Damage in Bridge Construction
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435, doi:10.3390/su12083435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Zaher Mundher Yaseen, Zainab Hasan Ali, Sinan Q. Salih and Nadhir Al-Ansari
Prediction of Risk Delay in Construction Projects Using a Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Model
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514, doi:10.3390/su12041514 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

vi
Duy Hoang Pham, Byeol Kim, Joosung Lee, Abraham Chiwon Ahn and Yonghan Ahn
A Comprehensive Analysis: Sustainable Trends and Awarded LEED 2009 Credits in Vietnam
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 852, doi:10.3390/su12030852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

Hosang Hyun, Hyunsoo Kim, Hyun-Soo Lee, Moonseo Park and Jeonghoon Lee
Integrated Design Process for Modular Construction Projects to Reduce Rework
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 530, doi:10.3390/su12020530 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

Augustinas Maceika, Andrej Bugajev and Olga R. Šostak

The Modelling of Roof Installation Projects Using Decision Trees and the AHP Method
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 59, doi:10.3390/su12010059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Byeol Kim, Yonghan Ahn and Sanghyo Lee

LDA-Based Model for Defect Management in Residential Buildings
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201, doi:10.3390/su11247201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

Rossella Marmo, Maurizio Nicolella, Francesco Polverino and Andrej Tibaut

A Methodology for a Performance Information Model to Support Facility Management
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007, doi:10.3390/su11247007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

Ying-Hua Huang and Tzung-Ru Yang

Exploring On-Site Safety Knowledge Transfer in the Construction Industry
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426, doi:10.3390/su11226426 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

Edwin Thomas Banobi and Wooyong Jung

Causes and Mitigation Strategies of Delay in Power Construction Projects: Gaps between
Owners and Contractors in Successful and Unsuccessful Projects
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973, doi:10.3390/su11215973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

Na Dong, Yanting Fu, Feng Xiong, Lujie Li, Yibin Ao and Igor Martek
Sustainable Construction Project Management (SCPM) Evaluation—A Case Study of the
Guangzhou Metro Line-7, PR China
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731, doi:10.3390/su11205731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529

Yu Fang and Lijun Sun

Developing A Semi-Markov Process Model for Bridge Deterioration Prediction in Shanghai
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524, doi:10.3390/su11195524 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Duy Hoang Pham, Joosung Lee and Yonghan Ahn

Implementing LEED v4 BD+C Projects in Vietnam: Contributions and Challenges for
General Contractor
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449, doi:10.3390/su11195449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

Hyunsu Lim and Taehoon Kim

Smartphone-Based Data Collection System for Repetitive Concrete Temperature Monitoring in
High-Rise Building Construction
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211, doi:10.3390/su11195211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581

Xiaoyan Jiang, Kun Lu, Bo Xia, Yong Liu and Caiyun Cui
Identifying Significant Risks and Analyzing Risk Relationship for Construction PPP Projects in
China Using Integrated FISM-MICMAC Approach
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206, doi:10.3390/su11195206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599

vii
Chunfeng Wan, Zhenwei Zhou, Siyuan Li, Youliang Ding, Zhao Xu, Zegang Yang, Yefei Xia
and Fangzhou Yin
Development of a Bridge Management System Based on the Building Information
Modeling Technology
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583, doi:10.3390/su11174583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631

Hongping Yuan, Yu Yang and Xiaolong Xue

Promoting Owners’ BIM Adoption Behaviors to Achieve Sustainable Project Management
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905, doi:10.3390/su11143905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

viii
About the Editors
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Ph.D., DSc, Dr. habil, Dr. H. C. multi, Prof. Chief researcher
of Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania. Ph.D. in
building structures (1973). Dr. Sc. (1987) in building technology and management. Dr. Habil (1993).
Founder of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (1990). A member of the Lithuanian Academy of
Science and several foreign Academies of Sciences; honorary doctor from Poznan, Saint-Petersburg,
and Kyiv universities. Chairman of EURO Working Group ORSDCE; associate editor, guest editor,
or editorial board member for 40 international journals; the author and co-author of more than 600
papers and a number of monographs. Founding editor of journals “Technological and Economic
Development of Economy”, “Journal of Civil Engineering and Management”, “International Journal
of Strategic Property Management”. He is a highly cited researcher in 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020.
Research interests: multi-criteria decision making, civil engineering, sustainable development, fuzzy
systems.

Jurgita Antuchevičienė, PhD, Professor at the Department of Construction Management

and Real Estate at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania. She received her PhD in
Civil Engineering in 2005. Her research interests include multiple-criteria decision-making theory
and applications, sustainable development, construction technology and management. Over
140 publications in Clarivate Analytic Web of Science, h=35. A member of IEEE SMC, Systems
Science and Engineering Technical Committee: Grey Systems and of two EURO Working Groups:
Multicriteria Decision Aiding (EWG—MCDA) and Operations Research in Sustainable Development
and Civil Engineering (EWG—ORSDCE). Deputy Editor in Chief of Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Associate Editor of Applied Soft Computing, Editorial Board Member of Sustainability
and Buildings. Guest Editor of several Special Issues in Mathematical Problems in Engineering,
Complexity, Symmetry, Sustainability, Information, Algorithms.

Reza Hosseini is currently the Associate Head of School (research) at the School of Architecture
and Built Environment, Deakin University and a research fellow of the Centre for Research in
Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE). His main research and teaching areas are Building
Information Modelling (BIM) and digital engineering (DE) and the intersection of these technological
innovations with sustainable construction. He is a leading researcher at an international scale with
around 200 publications. He has been a member of the board of directors for Project Management
Institute (PMI) Adelaide chapter, and current acts as the Victoria-based members of board of directors
for the America Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in Australia. He is also a member of the Academic
Interoperability Coalition (AiC) in charge of launching a Body of Knowledge (BOK) for BIM in the
US. He is the founder and leader of Australian BIM Academic Forum (ABAF) and works closely with
the industry and government organisations in developing guidelines and standards to advance the
adoption of DE in Australia.

ix
Igor Martek is currently an academic at Deakin University, Australia. He earned his PhD
in ’Enterprise Strategies in International Construction’ from the University of Melbourne. He has
an MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management, NSW, and an MA in International
Relations from the Australian National University, Canberra. He has worked extensively in industry
in evaluating, generating and managing large capital projects in various locations around the world.
He has worked in Europe, including Eastern Europe, the Maghreb, Levant, China, Korea, and was
managing director, Far East, of a British consultancy firm based in Tokyo, for ten years. His research
interests include the procurement and facilitation of capital projects as an instrument of national
competitive strategy, and the competitive behaviours of international construction firms.

x
Preface to ”Sustainable Construction Engineering and
Management”
This Book is a Printed Edition of the Special Issue which covers sustainability as an emerging
requirement in the fields of construction management, project management and engineering.
We invited authors to submit their theoretical or experimental research articles that address the
challenges and opportunities for sustainable construction in all its facets, including technical topics
and specific operational or procedural solutions, as well as strategic approaches aimed at the project,
company or industry level. Central to developments are smart technologies and sophisticated
decision-making mechanisms that augment sustainable outcomes. The Special Issue was received
with great interest by the research community and attracted a high number of submissions.
The selection process sought to balance the inclusion of a broad representative spread of topics
against research quality, with editors and reviewers settling on thirty-three articles for publication.
The Editors invite all participating researchers and those interested in sustainable construction
engineering and management to read the summary of the Special Issue and of course to access the
full-text articles provided in the Book for deeper analyses.

Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Jurgita Antuchevičienė, Reza Hosseini, Igor Martek

Editors

xi
sustainability

Editorial
Sustainable Construction Engineering and Management
Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas 1 , Jurgita Antucheviciene 2, *, M. Reza Hosseini 3 and Igor Martek 3

1 Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania;
[email protected]
2 Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
3 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia;
[email protected] (M.R.H.); [email protected] (I.M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The Special Issue covers sustainability as an emerging requirement in the fields of con-
struction management, project management and engineering. We invited authors to submit their
theoretical or experimental research articles that address the challenges and opportunities for sus-
tainable construction in all its facets, including technical topics and specific operational or procedural
solutions, as well as strategic approaches aimed at the project, company or industry level. Central to
developments are smart technologies and sophisticated decision-making mechanisms that augment
sustainable outcomes. The Special Issue was received with great interest by the research community
and attracted a high number of submissions. The selection process sought to balance the inclusion of
a broad representative spread of topics against research quality, with editors and reviewers settling
on thirty-three articles for publication. The Guest Editors invite all participating researchers and
those interested in sustainable construction engineering and management to read this summary of
the Special Issue and of course to access the full-text articles for deeper analyses.

Keywords: sustainability; construction management; project management; design; materials; mainte-

Citation: Zavadskas, E.K.; nance; smart technologies; decision-making methods
Antucheviciene, J.; Hosseini, M.R.;
Martek, I. Sustainable Construction
Engineering and Management.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028. 1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/
The 20th century was an age of unprecedented growth in the use of natural resources
su132313028
and materials. Global demand for materials grew during that century, following the steady
economic growth in OECD—Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—
Received: 17 November 2021
Accepted: 22 November 2021
countries, the industrialization of emerging economies and a growing world popula-
Published: 25 November 2021
tion [1,2]. At the global level, the extraction of raw materials more than doubled between
1990 and 2017 and is projected to double again by 2060. These recent trends, however,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
will not be enough to counteract the rising demands and ongoing quest for higher living
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
standards of a world population headed to more than 10 billion by 2060, of whom more
published maps and institutional affil- than 75% are expected to live in urban areas [3].
iations. Three socio-economic factors generally drive the use of materials and resources. First,
a growing global population and the progressive convergence in living standards across
countries lead to higher consumption, thus increasing materials use. Furthermore, as
economies develop, investments in construction and infrastructure increase, leading to
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
a higher demand for materials [4,5]. Second, technological improvements reduce energy
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
consumption, which can decrease the material intensity of production [1], thus reducing the
This article is an open access article
materials input required to produce a given economic good. For instance, prefabrication,
distributed under the terms and as an advanced construction technology, is more resource-efficient (requiring less material
conditions of the Creative Commons and generating less waste) and performs better economically than previous methods [6,7].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Third, with structural changes in the landscape of the overarching economy, the material
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ intensity of the economy can be further reduced. As specified in a recent OECD report, as
4.0/). income levels rise, aggregate demand shifts towards less resource-intensive sectors, such

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313028 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

as services and leisure activities [2]. Overall, technological advancements and structural
changes have the potential to counterbalance the increasing demand for materials use,
partially decoupling materials use from economic growth [7,8].
In recent years, countries have demonstrated a stronger interest in resource efficiency,
not only to address environmental issues but also to achieve objectives such as economic
growth as well as employment and resource security [9]. Sustainability is currently more
than a fad or fashion that engineers and construction managers can choose to embrace if
they wish or ignore if they prefer to focus on traditional core competencies. It has become
a moral imperative, a global political priority [10]. It is the benchmark by which ‘good,
socially responsible’ companies are measured and given a pass or fail. Engineering and
construction firms can no longer afford to ignore the call to take up the ‘sustainability
cause,’ lest they become ostracized and labeled irresponsible.
If that view seems extreme, consider current developments. The Gudamalulgal indige-
nous community that inhabit the Boigu and Saibai islands of the Torres Strait, Northern
Australia have brought a High Court case against the Australian Federal Government,
claiming that Australian inaction is causing ‘catastrophic climate change’ that threatens the
livelihoods of the island people [11]. This is despite the fact that Australia’s contribution
to world CO2 emissions is only 1% of the world’s total [12]. The point is that adopting
a disinterested or neutral position regarding activist community demands in relation to
sustainability concerns is no longer possible.
The challenge is not limited to the political arena but has bled into corporate activities
as well. A Netherlands court has ruled that the global conglomerate, Royal Dutch Shell,
must reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. The ruling applies not only to the
company itself but to suppliers and ominously to emissions generated by all its customers
worldwide. The court’s judgment can be expected to set a precedent—and a warning—
to companies everywhere, that they must fall in line in addressing sustainability and in
mitigating climate change. Sara Shaw, a spokesperson for ‘Friends of the Earth International’
commented, “Our hope is that this verdict will trigger a wave of climate litigation against
big polluters.” [13].
The biggest polluters are in fact the construction industry [14]. Globally, the built
environment eats up a full one-third of all the world’s raw materials. Specifically, the
fabrication of buildings consumes one-sixth of all freshwater, one-third of all timber, and
four-fifths of everything else. Buildings, too, are the biggest users of energy. One-tenth
of the world’s energy goes into making building materials. Then, just to keep the lights
on and heating running, buildings absorb a full one-half of all the energy generated in
the world [15,16]. Nothing comes close to impacting the planet more adversely than the
construction industry does, and attention is being drawn to this uncomfortable fact.
Firms operating in the construction sector are increasingly well aware of their impact.
Many, however, have found it difficult to respond. For one, the construction industry is
notoriously bad at innovation, particularly when it comes to matters of improving materials,
waste and energy efficiencies [4,17]. Second, becoming sustainable is expensive—up to double
the cost—and few business models in the sector have managed to identify who it is that
would gladly pay for more expensive, ‘green buildings;’ most clients would certainly not.
Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods can be helpful in resolving the
contradictory aims of politics and industry. They are especially valuable in identifying
compromise solutions in the area of sustainability, including sustainability engineering [18],
civil engineering, construction and building technology [19,20]. The most frequently
used hybrid decision-making methods harness the advantages of hybrid approaches
over individual methods, and they can assist decision-makers in handling information
such as stakeholders’ preferences, interconnected or contradictory criteria, and uncertain
environments [21]. A variety of fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making models have
been proposed to solve complicated decision-making problems. Many fuzzy MCDM
applications have been utilized in the field of civil engineering and management [22],

2
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

including in construction project selection [23], construction safety risk assessment [24]
and supplier selection [25].
Ultimately, one question remains: What practical measures can industry practitioners adopt
that meaningfully embrace the sustainability agenda and improve the industry’s performance?
The Special Issue on ‘sustainability as an emerging requirement in the fields of con-
struction management, project management and engineering’ is an effort to answer that
question. Experts in their various capacities were invited to comment and report on the
latest innovations and breakthroughs being made in the construction industry that would
make it more sustainable. Their many insightful contributions are reported here—some
33 papers. Interested readers are invited to review the titles summarized in Table 1 and to
download and examine those papers that hold a particular interest for them. They are, of
course, all worth a close read.

Table 1. Contributions by research areas and applied solution methods/technologies.

Research Applied/Developed
Contributions
Area/Object Solution Methods/Technologies
Contribution 1 Risk management in infrastructure projects IDEFO (Integration Definition for Function Modeling)
Contribution 2 Management and evaluation of construction projects AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), Decision Tree
Contribution 3 Digitalization of construction Review paper
Contribution 4 Evaluation of life cycle of residential buildings Environmental impact in terms of CO2 emissions, etc.
Contribution 5 Infrastructure maintenance, decision-making Optimization
Contribution 6 PPP sustainability, critical success factors Fuzzy synthetic evaluation
COLA (Cross-organizational approach), systematic
Contribution 7 Fly ash geopolymer in construction industry
literature review
Contribution 8 Highway construction projects Triangular intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making
Contribution 9 Selection of building insulation materials Systematic literature review of MCDM applications
Contribution 10 Public construction; data auto correction system Machine learning, natural data processing
Modernization of construction industry,
Contribution 11 SEM (Structural Equation Modeling)
organizational innovation, enterprise competitiveness
SWARA (Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis),
Contribution 12 Ranking of green materials
COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment)
Building projects’ sustainable value management in
Contribution 13 EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis)
developing countries
Contribution 14 Reworks of building construction projects SWARA, BIM (Building Information Modeling)
Contribution 15 Construction project scheduling Resource constrained critical path method
Contribution 16 Construction management Last Planner System
Sensitivity analysis, uncertainty modeling, stochastic
Contribution 17 Probabilistic structural design
simulation
Contribution 18 Bridge construction, risk assessment Loss assessment model
Contribution 19 Risk delay in construction projects Artificial intelligence, random forest genetic algorithm
Green buildings, LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Contribution 20 Analysis of LEED certificated projects
Environmental Design) credits
DS/m (Dependency Structure Matrix) process
Contribution 21 Integrated design process of modular construction
optimization
Contribution 22 Roof installation projects AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), Decision Tree
Contribution 23 Defect management in residential buildings LDA (Loss Distribution Approach)
BIM, BPA (Building Performance Assessment), KPIS
Contribution 24 Facility management (Key
Performance Indicators), etc.

3
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

Table 1. Cont.

Research Applied/Developed
Contributions
Area/Object Solution Methods/Technologies
Contribution 25 Safety knowledge transfer in construction industry SEM (Structural Equation Modeling)
Contribution 26 Power construction projects Time management, delay management, expert survey
Contribution 27 Metro line project management Set pair analysis
Semi-Markov process,
Contribution 28 Bridge deterioration prediction
Weibull distribution
LEED certificated projects; challenges for general Review of projects,
Contribution 29
contractor expert survey
Concrete temperature monitoring in high-rise building WSN
Contribution 30
constructions (Wireless sensor network)
Integrated FISM (fuzzy interpretative structural
Risks in construction PPP (Public-private partnership) modelling)-MICMAC (matrix impact cross-reference
Contribution 31
projects multiplication applied to a classification) approach,
triangular fuzzy numbers
BIM, IFC (Industry Foundation Classes), IFD
Contribution 32 Bridge management system based on BIM
(International Framework for Dictionaries)
BIM, TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), TOE
Contribution 33 Sustainable project management
(Technology-Organization-Environment), SEM

2. Contributions
After careful evaluation, thirty-three papers were accepted and published in the
Special Issue.
The Special Issue raised the interest of researchers from various scientific schools
all over the world. Submissions came in from Europe, Asia, North and South America,
Australia, and Africa. One hundred and twenty-five researchers from nineteen different
countries contributed to the published papers (Figure 1). The greatest number of sub-
missions came from Asia (China and Korea) followed by Lithuania. There was a strong
representation comprising of six to eight authors from Taiwan, Australia, Iran and Saudi
Arabia. The remaining countries fielded between one to three authors.

Figure 1. The number of authors from different countries.

4
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

Though authors from nineteen countries contributed to the Special Issue, national
research collectives dominated. Almost two-thirds of the publications were authored by
researchers from one country (twenty-one papers). Twelve papers were prepared by interna-
tional co-authors’ collectives, usually consisting of researchers from two or three countries.
The authors proposed various solution methods or advanced technologies in order to
deal with matters that addressed sustainable development in construction engineering or
management (Table 1).
Several papers proposed different multiple-criteria decision-making models (Con-
tributions 2, 12, 14, 22 and 31), often dealing with uncertain data and applying fuzzy
modeling (Contributions 6, 8 and 31). Other papers analyzed the application of modern
construction digitalization techniques in terms of BIM (Building Information Modeling)
(Contributions 3, 14, 24, 32 and 33), artificial intelligence (Contribution 19) and wireless
sensors (Contribution 30). Two papers performed expert surveys and analyzed the results
(Contributions 26 and 29), and three papers undertook systematic literature reviews of
their research areas (Contributions 3, 7 and 9).
The application fields of the proposed/applied solution models or technologies in-
volved different civil engineering and management problems, including risk management
(Contributions 1, 18, 19 and 31), life cycle management (Contribution 4), key performance
indicators (Contributions 6 and 24), value management (Contribution 13) and loss as-
sessment (Contributions 18 and 23), project scheduling (Contribution 15), time and delay
management (Contribution 26) and reworks (Contribution 14). Two papers analyzed the
LEED building certification system (Contributions 20 and 29). One paper (Contribution 16)
was focused on the Last planner system.
The construction object forms that were analyzed comprised a very wide range, includ-
ing residential buildings (Contributions 5 and 33), public construction (Contribution 10),
various infrastructure objects (Contributions 1 and 5) such as highways (Contribution
8), metro lines (Contribution 27) and bridges (Contributions 18, 28 and 32), power con-
structions (Contribution 26), as well as high-rise buildings (Contribution 30). Some of the
papers analysed construction materials’ performance or their selection (Contributions 7, 9
and 12). Several others considered the managerial aspects of construction enterprises or
public-private partnerships (Contributions 6, 11 and 31).

3. Conclusions
‘Sustainability’ is at once a new concept but one with a long history. Its meaning
has evolved over time. The premise that humankind can impact the planet on which
we live can be said to originate with God’s command to Adam and Eve to ‘go forth and
subdue the Earth’. A zeal to exploit the globe’s riches of gold, spices and materials is what
drove the great colonial expansions of the 15th through 18th centuries. Then, in 1798, the
mathematician Robert Malthus warned that exponential population growth was soon going
to collide with the hard reality that the Earth’s resources were both finite and depleting.
In the mid-20th century, we became concerned with rising pollution, then old-growth
forest decimation, then acid rain, and then the disintegration of the ozone layer. Through
the 1970s, the problem was not that we were using fossil fuels too much but that there
were not enough petroleum reserves to keep cars moving and the lights on into the next
generation. More recently, the problem has metamorphosed into the familiar rally to fight
‘global warming.’ We were warned that temperatures would rise, rains would cease and
that water resources would dry up. As it turns out, we are getting the rain, so now the
preferred euphemism is ‘climate change’ [16,26].
While the perceived nature of the threat to our planet has shifted over time and
will no doubt shift again, the fact remains that the global community is crying out for
action. Thus, such concerns—no matter whether real or uncertain—must be responded to
and met. As noted in the introduction, the construction industry is the one global sector
with a massively disproportionate negative impact on the environment and on people.
Architects, engineers, builders and project managers have no alternative but to take up

5
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

the sustainability cause. The excuse according to which the way forward is unknown and
uncharted is no longer valid. Society expects the industry to shift. The list of readings
provided here is an enlightened and refreshingly optimistic collection of strategies for
bringing the construction industry into the 21st century of socially responsible engineering
and building.

List of Contributions:
1. Tserng, H.-P.; Cho, I.-C.; Chen, C.-H.; Liu, Y.-F. Developing a Risk Management
Process for Infrastructure Projects Using IDEF0.
2. Maceika, A.; Bugajev, A.; Šostak, O.R.; Vilutienė, T. Decision Tree and AHP Methods
Application for Projects Assessment: A Case Study.
3. Nikmehr, B.; Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. Digital-
ization as a Strategic Means of Achieving Sustainable Efficiencies in Construction
Management: A Critical Review.
4. Alhazmi, H.; Alduwais, A.K.; Tabbakh, T.; Aljamlani, S.; Alkahlan, B.; Kurdi, A.
Environmental Performance of Residential Buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment Study
in Saudi Arabia.
5. Yang, Y.; Xie, H. Determination of Optimal MR&R Strategy and Inspection Intervals
to Support Infrastructure Maintenance Decision Making.
6. Deng, B.; Zhou, D.; Zhao, J.; Yin, Y.; Li, X. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation of the Critical
Success Factors for the Sustainability of Public Private Partnership Projects in China.
7. Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Guades, E.J.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Cross-Organizational Learning
Approach in the Sustainable Use of Fly Ash for Geopolymer in the Philippine Con-
struction Industry.
8. Hashemi, H.; Ghoddousi, P.; Nasirzadeh, F. Sustainability Indicator Selection by
a Novel Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach in Highway
Construction Projects.
9. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I.; Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T.; Skulskis, V. A Systematic Liter-
ature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of
Insulation Materials in Buildings.
10. Yu, M.-L.; Tsai, M.-H. ACS: Construction Data Auto-Correction System—Taiwan
Public Construction Data Example.
11. Ni, G.; Xu, H.; Cui, Q.; Qiao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H.; Hickey, P.J. Influence Mechanism
of Organizational Flexibility on Enterprise Competitiveness: The Mediating Role of
Organizational Innovation.
12. Balali, A.; Valipour, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Multi-Criteria Ranking of Green
Materials According to the Goals of Sustainable Development.
13. Kineber, A.F.; Othman, I.; Oke, A.E.; Chileshe, N.; Buniya, M.K. Identifying and
Assessing Sustainable Value Management Implementation Activities in Developing
Countries: The Case of Egypt.
14. Khalesi, H.; Balali, A.; Valipour, A.; Antucheviciene, J.; Migilinskas, D.; Zigmund, V.
Application of Hybrid SWARA–BIM in Reducing Reworks of Building Construction
Projects from the Perspective of Time.
15. Kim, K. Generalized Resource-Constrained Critical Path Method to Improve Sustain-
ability in Construction Project Scheduling.
16. Salazar, L.A.; Arroyo, P.; Alarcón, L.F. Key Indicators for Linguistic Action Perspective
in the Last Planner® System.
17. Kala, Z. Sensitivity Analysis in Probabilistic Structural Design: A Comparison of
Selected Techniques.
18. Ahn, S.; Kim, T.; Kim, J.-M. Sustainable Risk Assessment through the Analysis of
Financial Losses from Third-Party Damage in Bridge Construction.
19. Yaseen, Z.M.; Ali, Z.H.; Salih, S.Q.; Al-Ansari, N. Prediction of Risk Delay in Con-
struction Projects Using a Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Model.

6
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

20. Pham, D.H.; Kim, B.; Lee, J.; Ahn, A.C.; Ahn, Y. A Comprehensive Analysis: Sustain-
able Trends and Awarded LEED 2009 Credits in Vietnam.
21. Hyun, H.; Kim, H.; Lee, H.-S.; Park, M.; Lee, J. Integrated Design Process for Modular
Construction Projects to Reduce Rework.
22. Maceika, A.; Bugajev, A.; Šostak, O.R. The Modelling of Roof Installation Projects
Using Decision Trees and the AHP Method.
23. Kim, B.; Ahn, Y.; Lee, S. LDA-Based Model for Defect Management in Residential
Buildings.
24. Marmo, R.; Nicolella, M.; Polverino, F.; Tibaut, A. A Methodology for a Performance
Information Model to Support Facility Management.
25. Huang, Y.-H.; Yang, T.-R. Exploring On-Site Safety Knowledge Transfer in the Con-
struction Industry.
26. Banobi, E.T.; Jung, W. Causes and Mitigation Strategies of Delay in Power Construc-
tion Projects: Gaps between Owners and Contractors in Successful and Unsuccessful
Projects.
27. Dong, N.; Fu, Y.; Xiong, F.; Li, L.; Ao, Y.; Martek, I. Sustainable Construction Project
Management (SCPM) Evaluation—A Case Study of the Guangzhou Metro Line-7,
PR China.
28. Fang, Y.; Sun, L. Developing A Semi-Markov Process Model for Bridge Deterioration
Prediction in Shanghai.
29. Pham, D.H.; Lee, J.; Ahn, Y. Implementing LEED v4 BD+C Projects in Vietnam:
Contributions and Challenges for General Contractor.
30. Lim, H.; Kim, T. Smartphone-Based Data Collection System for Repetitive Concrete
Temperature Monitoring in High-Rise Building Construction.
31. Jiang, X.; Lu, K.; Xia, B.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C. Identifying Significant Risks and Analyzing
Risk Relationship for Construction PPP Projects in China Using Integrated FISM-
MICMAC Approach.
32. Wan, C.; Zhou, Z.; Li, S.; Ding, Y.; Xu, Z.; Yang, Z.; Xia, Y.; Yin, F. Development of a
Bridge Management System Based on the Building Information Modeling Technology.
33. Yuan, H.; Yang, Y.; Xue, X. Promoting Owners’ BIM Adoption Behaviors to Achieve
Sustainable Project Management.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Authors express their gratitude to the journal Sustainability.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Shooshtarian, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Kocaturk, T.; Ashraf, M.; Arnel, T.; Doerfler, J. The Circular Economy in the Australian Built
Environment: The State of Play and a Research Agenda; Deakin University: Geelong, VIC, Australia, 2021; ISBN 978-0-7300-0405-9.
2. OECD. Improving Resource Efficiency and the Circularity of Economies for a Greener World; Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development: Paris, France, 2020. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1787/1b38a38f-en (accessed on 6 November 2021).
3. Bibas, R.; Chateau, J.; Lanzi, E. Policy Scenarios for a Transition to a More Resource Efficient and Circular Economy; Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2021; p. 81. [CrossRef]
4. Adabre, M.A.; Chan, A.P.; Darko, A. Interactive effects of institutional, economic, social and environmental barriers on sustainable
housing in a developing country. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108487. [CrossRef]
5. Salehi, S.; Arashpour, M.; Kodikara, J.; Guppy, R. Sustainable pavement construction: A systematic literature review of
environmental and economic analysis of recycled materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127936. [CrossRef]

7
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13028

6. Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: A Hong Kong case
study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 953–966. [CrossRef]
7. Mohammadi Golafshani, E.; Arashpour, M.; Kashani, A. Green mix design of rubbercrete using machine learning-based ensemble
model and constrained multi-objective optimization. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129518. [CrossRef]
8. Brandão, R.; Hosseini, M.R.; Macêdo, A.N.; Melo, A.C.; Martek, I. Public administration strategies that stimulate reverse logistics
within the construction industry: A conceptual typology. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021. [CrossRef]
9. Adabre, M.A.; Chan, A.P.; Darko, A. A scientometric analysis of the housing affordability literature. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021,
36, 1501–1533. [CrossRef]
10. Jin, R.; Hong, J.; Zuo, J. Environmental performance of off-site constructed facilities: A critical review. Energy Build. 2021, 207,
109567. [CrossRef]
11. Perkins, M. Torres Strait Leaders Sue Federal Government over Climate Change. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2021. Available
online: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/torres-strait-leaders-sue-federal-government-over-climate-
change-20211025-p592zo.html (accessed on 5 November 2021).
12. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Australia: CO2 Country Profile. University of Oxford. 2021. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/
co2/country/australia (accessed on 5 November 2021).
13. Brady, J. In a Landmark Case, a Dutch Court Orders Shell to Cut Its Carbon Emissions Faster. NPR. 2021. Available online: https://
www.npr.org/2021/05/26/1000475878/in-landmark-case-dutch-court-orders-shell-to-cut-its-carbon-emissions-faster (accessed
on 5 November 2021).
14. Nikmehr, B.; Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. Digitalization as a Strategic Means of Achieving
Sustainable Efficiencies in Construction Management: A Critical Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040. [CrossRef]
15. Shooshtarian, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Shrestha, A.; Arashpour, M.; Costin, G.; Seaton, S. Australia’s push to make residential
housing sustainable-Do end-users care? Habitat Int. 2021, 114, 102384. [CrossRef]
16. Martek, I.; Hosseini, M.R.; Shrestha, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Seaton, S. The Sustainability Narrative in Contemporary Architecture:
Falling Short of Building a Sustainable Future. Sustainability 2018, 10, 981. [CrossRef]
17. Wu, P.; Jin, R.; Xu, Y.; Lin, F.; Dong, Y.; Pan, Z. The analysis of barriers to BIM implementation for industrialized building
construction: A China study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 1–13. [CrossRef]
18. Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A
Literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry 2019, 11, 350. [CrossRef]
19. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Vilutiene, T.; Adeli, H. Sustainable Decision-Making in Civil Engineering, Construction and
Building Technology. Sustainability 2018, 10, 14. [CrossRef]
20. Zhu, X.; Meng, X.; Zhang, M. Application of multiple criteria decision making methods in construction: A systematic literature
review. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 372–403. [CrossRef]
21. Zavadskas, E.K.; Govindan, K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Turskis, Z. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of
applications for sustainability issues. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2016, 29, 857–887. [CrossRef]
22. Wen, Z.; Liao, H.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antuchevičienė, J. Applications of fuzzy multiple criteria decision making methods in civil
engineering: A state-of-the-art survey. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 358–371. [CrossRef]
23. Fallahpour, A.; Wong, K.Y.; Rajoo, S.; Olugu, E.U.; Nilashi, M.; Turskis, Z. A fuzzy decision support system for sustainable
construction project selection: An integrated FPP-FIS model. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 247–258. [CrossRef]
24. Mohandes, S.R.; Sadeghi, H.; Mahdiyar, A.; Durdyev, S.; Banaitis, A.; Yahya, K.; Ismail, S. Assessing construction labours’ safety
level: A fuzzy MCDM approach. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 175–188. [CrossRef]
25. Yazdani, M.; Wen, Z.; Liao, H.; Banaitis, A.; Turskis, Z. A grey combined compromise solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier
selection in construction management. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 858–874. [CrossRef]
26. Kryvomaz, T.I.; Savchenko, A.M. The reducing of construction industry influence on climate change by implementation of green
building principles. Environ. Saf. Nat. Resour. 2021, 37, 55–68. [CrossRef]

8
sustainability

Article
Developing a Risk Management Process for Infrastructure
Projects Using IDEF0
Hui-Ping Tserng 1, *, I-Cheng Cho 1 , Chun-Hung Chen 2 and Yu-Fan Liu 3

1 Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617,
Taiwan; [email protected]
2 Second District Project Office, Department of Rapid Transit Systems, Taipei City Government, No. 7, Lane 48,
Sec. 2, Zhongshan N. Rd, Taipei 10537, Taiwan; [email protected]
3 CTCI Smart Engineering Corporation, No. 16, Lane 270, Sec. 3, Bei Shen Road, New Taipei City 11155,
Taiwan; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project is a massive, large-scale construction venture with a
complex interface. In order to reduce the risk of disasters and industrial accidents in the project and
to save costs, a simple and flexible risk management system is necessary for projects such as MRT.
A set of risk management processes was identified through a literature review and data collection,
and the Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) process was used for logical analysis.
The IDEF0 diagram clearly depicts the items to be delivered at each interface, and risk is reduced by
facilitating the flow of data on various risk items. The results of this research will be applied to other
practical projects, with special emphasis on the project planning and design stages. Future work will
Citation: Tserng, H.-P.; Cho, I.-C.;
verify whether the implementation of the proposed risk management process does indeed effectively
Chen, C.-H.; Liu, Y.-F. Developing a
reduce risks in the completed project.
Risk Management Process for
Infrastructure Projects Using IDEF0.
Keywords: risk management; risk process; project management; IDEF0; risk system implementation
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13126958

Academic Editors:
Jurgita Antuchevičienė, Edmundas 1. Introduction
Kazimieras Zavadskas, Uncertainty in a project is a source of risk [1], and the complicated and changeable
M. Reza Hosseini, Igor Martek and environment of the construction industry is associated with high uncertainty and thus
Marc A. Rosen high risks. Moreover, projects must be completed within a limited time frame [2]. Public
construction projects are large-scale with complex environments and long durations, so the
Received: 9 March 2021 uncertainty is much higher and more difficult to control than other types of projects [3,4].
Accepted: 17 June 2021
Many uncertain circumstances are encountered in the project implementation process,
Published: 21 June 2021
and engineers and project managers are often forced to make decisions in emergency
situations [5,6]. Risk management plays an important role in contract management, and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
thus, managers must have the knowledge to adequately carry out risk management [7,8]
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Risk management has become a very important part of project management. Its scope
published maps and institutional affil-
of application has expanded beyond the traditional practice and is no longer limited to the
iations.
construction phase [9,10]. In other words, extra effort should be put into the management
of risk in public construction projects [11], and the complete management process must
include risk identification, risk analysis, and the disposition of each risk item to minimize
disasters and losses [12,13].
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Traditional construction management focuses only on construction progress, project
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
quality, and expenses, including cost and time. The effects of these three items depend on
This article is an open access article
the overall risk management in each phase of the project cycle, including the planning,
distributed under the terms and
design, and construction phases [14,15]. If all risk events are properly controlled, then the
conditions of the Creative Commons
construction project will run smoothly and meet quality requirements. The project can also
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
be completed within the estimated cost and time without additional expenses that cause
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
budget overflows.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126958 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Therefore, in recent years, risk management has been gradually receiving more at-
tention in the civil engineering field. It is increasingly being applied to different types of
construction projects to prevent predictable risks and reduce losses [9]. Public construction
projects have a huge impact on the national economy, and the occurrence of disasters
during construction results in incalculable social costs and life and property losses [16,17].
Moreover, the quality of risk management has a dramatic impact on the operational quality
of the facility upon completion of the project [18].

2. Problem Statement
In general, the life cycle of a public construction project can be divided into the
following phases. The first phase is the “Feasibility Assessment” [19]. After this stage of
assessment, if there are implementation benefits, the project proceeds to the next stage,
namely, the “Planning Stage”. The third stage is the “Design Stage”, which is usually
divided into two parts: “Basic Design” and “Detailed Design”, in which basic principles
and detailed designs, respectively, are established for the project. The fourth and most
important stage of the project is the “Construction Stage”. This stage also has a direct
impact on the success of the project. Finally, the last stage is the “Operational Phase”, in
which the community can enjoy the results of the project.
There are various risks involved in all stages of the construction project, from the
feasibility assessment to the operational phase. Although great efforts are made to resolve
the risks at their emerging stages, residual or unresolved risks are shifted or added to the
next phase of the construction life cycle. Currently, there are no explicit rules concerning
the handover of risks from one stage to the next. However, each stage contains some
form of transferred risk. For example, during the preparation of procurement contract
documents for the design stage, design requirements are specified. These requirements
are the risk management results obtained from the planning stage. These risk items are
handed over to the design stage. Then, the supervision unit controls particular risks in
the construction stage. Therefore, risk management should cover the whole life cycle of
construction. Disasters that evolve from risks in construction projects may occur at any
stage of the life cycle. Thus, risk management is a very important topic in this industry.
Avoiding the repeated occurrence of similar risks that can cause disasters at different stages
of the life cycle process and preventing the incorrect transmission of such risks are research
subjects that continue to expand.

3. Research Objectives
Risk management is being increasingly studied. The development of risk management
procedures utilizes past knowledge and experience [20,21], and using the “risk-based
approach” is an important success factor in project management [22]. Few studies have
performed in-depth analyses of the risk management process. In addition, the methods
used in risk management differ between companies, and it is difficult to preserve data
because the duration of each project is very long. These factors make the flow of information
between contractors and projects ineffective, even if there is adequate historical information
on risk. Different contractors may make the same mistakes and need to increase costs to
resolve disasters caused by recurring risks. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically
study historical risk data and develop a risk management procedure [12,20].
Currently, there are no specific requirements or formats for the approach to risk trans-
mission between stages. Therefore, developing specifications or uniform standards for
risk transmission is important. The aim of this study is to construct a comprehensive risk
management process for public construction projects with a common language of commu-
nication. For this purpose, all risk management information should be shared through
a common platform so that all parties have access to all risk management information,
allowing them to make the necessary decisions in the shortest possible time at any stage
of the construction project. By achieving this goal, future project participants can more
successfully manage risks, and the incidence of engineering disasters can be reduced.

10
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

4. Research Background and Literature Review

The literature review reveals that a large portion of risk management involves study
of the probability of the occurrence of risks, or the problems that affect the disasters when
the risks occur. It is rarely discussed whether some treatment can be done in the previous
stage to prevent the occurrence of risks. Whether some important matters are ignored
due to incomplete message transmission in the preceding and following stages, which
triggers the occurrence of risk events. The traditional risk management focuses only on
the construction phase [9,10]. The risk management on construction stage focuses only on
construction progress, project cost and expenses. It ignores that the effects of these three
items depend on the overall risk management at all stages of the project cycle, including
planning, design, and construction stages [14,15]. The risk management primarily focuses
on the effectiveness of the process for a single project. Traditional management methods
mainly focus on risk stages or strategy execution [23,24]. But In this study found that
risk management must be continuously applied in a feedback loop, and risk control and
monitoring are performed via data management systems [25,26]. One of the reasons that
risk management fails is the absence of risk management procedures or their improper
application [23,27,28]. Currently, risk management does not focus on the relationship
between stakeholders and needs to be repeated and constantly monitored. It is necessary
to include the risk management process as a topic of discussion.
In this study, the IDEF0 methodology was used with a specific focus on the relationship
between stakeholders [29] and on the identification of the input and output information
products at each stage to prevent disasters caused by the asymmetry of information between
stages [30]. The IDEF0 analysis method is the most clear and effective approach to defining
the products to be delivered by different contractors at different stages of the lifecycle.

5. Methodology
The process followed in this research is shown in the flowchart in Figure 1, and the
details are as follows:
1. Introduction
The reason that public construction projects need risk management is explained.
2. Problem statement
Efficient communication between all stakeholders is necessary at different stages to
manage risk from the perspective of the project lifecycle.
3. Research objectives and background
Decision-makers can make correct judgments based on information exchanged on
a common platform. The probability of disasters can be reduced by preventing different
contractors from making the same mistakes at different stages.
4. Literature review and methodology
The IDEF0 analysis method is the most clear and effective approach to defining the
products to be delivered by different contractors at different stages. An expert grading
method is implemented using occurrence probability and impact magnitude coupled with
a risk matrix to define risk level.
5. System implementation
A common management method is used, and the data transfer process occurs through
a database on a common platform for different contractors at different stages.
6. Case study
The implementation of an actual construction project is used as a practical case study.
The construction period of this project is seven years.
7. Conclusions
After this research is complete, the accuracy of the evaluation can be improved.

11
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

3UHYHQW
3XEOLF (QJLQHHULQJ
3UHGLFWDEOH 5LVNV 5LVN
,QWURGXFWLRQ &RQVWU DQG 3URMHFW
DQG 5HGXFH 0DQDJHPHQW
XFWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW
/RVVHV

3UREOHP /LIH &\FOH RI 'LIIHUHQW 5LVN0DQDJHPHQW (IILFLHQW

6WDWHPHQW &RQVWUXFWLRQ 6WDJHV 6WDNHKROGHUV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ

'LIIHUHQW &RQWUDFWRU &RPPRQ 0DNH 'LVDVWHU

2EMHFWLYHV 3ODWIRUP 'HFLVLRQ 5HGXFHG
5LVN%DVH$SSURDFK

,QFRPSOHWH 0HVVDJH 7UDQVPLVVLRQ

&RQWLQXRXVO\ $SSOLHG LQ
D)HHGEDFN /RRS
)RFXVRQ&RQVWUXFWLRQ 6WDJH
5HVHDUFK
,JQRUH WKH(IIHFW RI /LIH &\FOH &RQWURO DQG 0RQLWRU
%DFNJURXQG DQG
/LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ
,PSURSHU $SSOLFDWLRQ 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ
6WDNHKROGHUV
$V\PPHWU\,QIRUPDWLRQ

3URFHVVRI7KLV 6WXG\

,QSXW &RQWURO ,'()

,'() $FWLYLW\ +LHUDUFK\
0RGHOLQJ 2XWSXW 0HFKDQLVP
0HWKRGRORJ\ 0RGH

([SHUW
5LVN 5LVN 5LVN 5LVN
*UDGLQJ
3UREDELOLW\ ,PSDFW 'LVWULEXWLRQ /HYHO
0HWKRG

'DWDEDVH (QWLW\
6\VWHP 'DWDEDVH 6\VWHP
'HVLJQ 5HODWLRQVKLS
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 'HVLJQ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ
3URFHVV 0RGHO

5LVN
&DVH
(VWDEOLVKWKH 0DQDJHPHQW /LIH &\FOH RI
&DVH 6WXG\ ,QWURGX
,'() 0RGHO DQG &RQWURO &RQVWUXFWLRQ
FWLRQ
7DEOH

$FKLHYHG ,PSURYH WKH

/LIH &\FOH RI 5HGXFHG
&RQFOXVLRQV *RRG $FFXUDF\RI
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 3URMHFW5LVN
(IILFLHQF\ (YDOXDWLRQ

Figure 1. Research flowchart.

The Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) was used in this study to
illustrate the risk management workflow at a glance and to analyze the different units
at various stages of the project life cycle. After the identification of risk items in each
stage, an expert grading method was used to determine the risk level using the occurrence
probability and impact magnitude coupled with a risk matrix to define the risk level. Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is recognized as one of the most valuable techniques in
reliability and risk management [31,32]. FMEA is a structured technique that can help to
identify all failure modes within a system, assess their impact, and plan corrective actions,
and it has been widely used in the construction industry [33]. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) are used to address the limitations of traditional FMEA
in the construction industry [34]. The following is a detailed description of the modular
IDEF0 analysis and expert grading method.
12
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

IDEF0 Modeling for the Risk Management Process

In 1977, Ross and Schoman proposed structural analysis and design techniques, and
in 1978, the U.S. military adopted the approach to support the Incident Cause Analysis
Method (ICAM). This resulted in the creation of the IDEF0 methodology, which consists
of a series of methods to support the modeling of the business process or inter-industry
demand patterns [35]. The IDEF0 methodology includes a total of 16 methods, from IDEF0
to IDEF14. Each method has its own application field, and they provide mutual support to
each other. These methods enable a holistic analysis, design, and diagnostic solution in
an enterprise or an organization, and they can act as a tool for communication between
different work teams [36]. IDEF0 can be used to identify the important programs of the
project. The whole system is broken down into different work activities from the top to
the bottom, and the result shows the required information and resources for each activity,
including hardware, software tools, and human resources.
For an existing system in operation, IDEF0 can be used to analyze and record the
actual operation of each activity in the system. For a completely new system, IDEF0 can
first define the requirements of the system and design and implement the system according
to these requirements. In this study, the IDEF0 model was used to develop a new system.
The IDEF0 model consists of three different information types—graphic, text, and
vocabulary, which are cross-referenced to each other. Each IDEF0 graphic contains 3–6
boxes in a ramp-like arrangement. The boxes and arrows form an ICOM (input, control,
output, mechanism) map, which includes input, control, output, and mechanism items,
as shown in Figure 2. Each ICOM map can be divided into several sub-maps, which, to
further clarify the items and the structure of the map, include structured text that describes
the features, processes, and links between boxes. The vocabulary is used to define the
keywords in the graphics.

Figure 2. IDEF0 structural diagram (modified from Integration Definition for Function Modeling
(IDEF0), 1993).

The IDEF0 method can systematically describe a complicated manufacturing system

by decomposing it from top to bottom. The IDEF0 graphic is simple, clear, and readable.
Therefore, it is very easily understood by management and manufacturing personnel
and can assist the system analyst in explaining the current system and the proposed
ideal system to the relevant management personnel, as shown in Figure 3. In this project
risk management, 15 charts using IDEF0 are used to show the design, construction and
operation phases of the life cycle.

13
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Ϭ
Ϭ

ϭ DŽƌĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂů
Ϯ
ϯ
ϰ DŽƌĞ ĞƚĂŝůĞĚ
ϰ

Ϭ

ϭ
dŚŝƐďŽdžŝƐƚŚĞƉĂƌĞŶƚ
Ϯ
ŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŝĂŐƌĂŵ ϰϮ
ϯ

ϰ

EKd烉EŽĚĞŶƵŵďĞƌƐƐŚŽǁŶ
ϭ
ŚĞƌĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďŽdžŚĂƐ
Ϯ
ϰϮϮ
ďĞĞŶĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ͘dŚĞͲŶƵŵďĞƌ
ϯ ŽƌƉĂŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚ
ĚŝĂŐƌĂŵĐŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƵƐĞĚ
ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞŶŽĚĞŶƵŵďĞƌ͘
ϰϮ

Figure 3. IDEF0 model hierarchy (modified from Integration Definition for Function Modeling
(IDEF0), 1993) grading method.

Once the risk management process has been established, risk assessment is conducted.
The main method adopted in our risk assessment process is the expert grading method.
The process involves a comprehensive assessment of risk factors, responses and measures,
and the levels of impact. The identified risks can be used to design an assessment checklist,
which can be used by the evaluator team to review and score the probability, level, and
impact of the particular risk event. Then, risk elimination and minimization measures are
recommended. The risk matrix combines the probability of the risk occurrence and the
level of risk. Different responses and measures are prescribed for different risks, depending
on their risk level. All data are recorded in a risk management and control summary table.
The evaluation team consists of members of the risk assessment team (established
by the assessment design unit) and external expert consultants; each evaluator has a
different specialization and over 10 years of professional experience. The evaluation team
can conduct a risk event assessment based on the scope of the evaluation specifically
established for the project. The preliminary assessment results proposed by the evaluation

14
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

team and expert consultants are then reviewed and recompiled during the assessment
team meeting to ensure consistency in the risk assessment results.
The risk probability is preliminarily determined based on the risk probability levels
proposed by the International Tunneling and Underground Space Association (ITA). The
probabilities are presented in five categories, which are, in ascending order, ‘Very unlikely’,
‘Unlikely’, ‘Occasional’, ‘Likely’, and ‘Very likely’, which are denoted by the indicators P1–
P5, respectively. Table 1 details the risk probability levels and categories. The probability
of each classification is based on suggestions modified from ITA, 2004.

Table 1. The risk probability levels and categories (modified from ITA, 2004).

Probability Classification
Classification Indicators Probability
Very likely P5 >0.3
Likely P4 0.03–0.3
Occasional P3 0.003–0.03
Unlikely P2 0.0003–0.003
Very unlikely P1 <0.0003

The risk impact is the impact severity of a particular risk. The impact levels are ‘minor’,
‘limited’, ‘severe’, ‘very severe’, and ‘catastrophic’, which are denoted by the indicators
G1–G5, respectively. There are three factors to consider when determining the risk impact:
(1) injury or death during the project or project failure, (2) adverse impact on the project
schedule, and (3) the ratio of the business’ financial loss to the total project cost. Table 2
details the risk impact levels and categories.

Table 2. The risk impact levels and categories (modified from ITA, 2004).

Consequence Classification Table

Impact Levels
Catastrophic Very Severe Severe Limited Minor
Risk Impact
G5 G4 G3 G2 G1
Injury or
death during
1 < F ≤ 10 1F 1SI
project or F > 10 1MI
SI > 10 1 < SI ≤ 10 1 < MI ≤ 10
project
failure
Adverse
impact on 1/2–2
>24 months 6–24 months 2–6 months <1/2 months
project months
schedule
The ratio of
the business’
financial loss >33% 3.3–33% 0.33–3.3% 0.03–0.33% 0.003–0.03%
to the total
project cost

The level of risk is determined based on the level of risk acceptance and risk capacity.
Different responses and measures are prescribed for different risks depending on their
risk level, which are shown in Table 3. The levels of risk are categorized as ‘unacceptable’,
‘marginally acceptable’, ‘acceptable’, and ‘ignorable’, which are denoted by the indicators
R1–R4, respectively. Table 4 details the different levels of risk. The risk level is determined
based on the risk indicators compiled from the risk probability and risk impact. All
possible combinations of risk probability and risk impact are presented in the risk matrix,

15
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

where users can find the risk level that corresponds to the risk probability and impact
combinations.

Table 3. The risk matrix (modified from ITA, 2004).

Risk Distribution
Risk Impact (G)
Minor Limited Severe Very Severe Catastrophic
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Very
Likely R2 R1 R1 R1 R1
P5
Risk probability (P)

Likely
R3 R2 R2 R1 R1
P4
Occasional
R3 R3 R2 R2 R1
P3
Unlikely
R4 R3 R3 R3 R2
P2
Very
R4 R4 R4 R4 R3
unlikely P1

Table 4. Risk levels (modified from ITA, 2004).

Risk Level Standard

Risk Level Countermeasures
Should not be included in project design, risk
R1 Unacceptable
measures to be taken to reduce risk
R2 Marginally acceptable Risk mitigation measures to be taken
R3 Acceptable Include in the risk management process
R4 Ignorable Do not need to respond to this risk

6. System Implementation
In this research, the risk management process was established for the MRT project,
and IDEF0 was employed to analyze the operational process of each item. The MRT project
is a large-scale project with a long construction duration; thus, it is very difficult and
complicated to keep track of the risk management data at the different stages. Today,
information systems are often used to manage large amounts of data, and databases can be
designed in accordance with user requirements.

6.1. Database Design

By building a database system, all data can be controlled and managed together on a
computerized platform, where the required information can be saved and accessed at the
same time. In this way, the duplication and inconsistency of stored data can be significantly
reduced, and data can be retrieved quickly. Most importantly, the format of the data is
standardized. The advantages of a database system can only be realized through a detailed
analysis and design to prevent compromising the integrity of the database.

6.2. Database Design Process

The first step in designing a database is to collect and analyze user requirements. The
IDEF0 risk management process analysis is used to identify the inputs and outputs of each
item. The users of the database are interviewed to determine their exact requirements and
the data that must be stored in the database. The items that are not required are removed
from the database, and the remaining items are arranged into a table for future use.
16
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

By collecting and analyzing requirements, a conceptual data model can be established

for the general user. The model includes a simple description of the required user data,
the relationship between data, data types, and so on. This will be developed into an
entity–relationship model, which is implemented by the system designer. The model can
be established by confirming the entity’s property, verifying the relationships between
entities, and establishing the basis of the entities’ relationship. Then, a Business Database
Management System (DBMS), such as Access and SQL Server, can be used to establish the
database and set up the individual information spreadsheet, primary key and link, etc., to
complete the design of the database.

6.3. Entity-Relationship Model

The Entity-Relationship Model (E-R Model) can be used to facilitate data analysis and
design planning for the network and relational databases [13]. The aim of this research is to
develop a risk management database system using the concept of the E-R model. The first
step is to establish the required entity types, including the construction project, involved
parties, work items, risk events, and disasters.
The next step is to characterize the relationships between the entities as one to one, one
to many, or many to many. The four above-mentioned entities have affiliations within the
project; for example, one plan can be divided into several sub-plans. For the different lines
of the MRT project, the design can be divided into several sub-designs, the construction
can be divided into several sub-construction sections, and the construction of each section
can be divided into several sub-construction tenders. This means that the relationship
is one to many. Construction projects contain several work items, and one work item
contains several risk events, i.e., a one-to-many relationship. One risk event may cause
several disasters, and one disaster can be caused by more than two risk events, which is
a many-to-many relationship. Both the contractor and the supervisor are responsible for
several risk work items, i.e., a many-to-many relationship.
The third step is to identify the properties of the entities and the relationships. The
properties of a construction project include the project location, project background, project
scope, etc. The properties of the involved parties include name, personnel, titles, and so on.
The properties of a work item include the name of the work item, description, occurrence
probability, influence level, and notes. The properties of a disaster include time, location,
and response. An entity-relationship diagram with the properties of the entities is shown
in Figure 4.
The users of the system are classified into five levels: system administrator, planning
department, designer, construction contractor, and visitor. Users at different levels have
different system modification and browse permissions. Each user has his or her own
function items and website content level. The classification of the users is as follows.
First: System administrator:
The main jobs of the system administrator are to manage daily operations, system
maintenance, and users’ accounts (add or delete users) and to grant permissions to contrac-
tors for data that they are responsible for.
Second: Department/Contractor:
Normally, the Client is responsible for the project planning and is in charge of the
preliminary stage of the project, along with the provision of basic project information and
the risk policy. Designers, such as consultants, can identify and assess project risks after
the system administrator assigns a new project to them. The contractor can review the
risk assessment completed by the designer, develop responses to the risks, and establish a
detailed risk response strategy for the construction stage.
Third: Visitor:
The settings for a visitor primarily allow the use of the system’s search function. In
order to protect the rights of the involved parties, visitors’ accounts are usually created
by the system administrator, and then they can browse the website and use the search
function.

17
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Figure 4. Entity-relationship diagram of the risk management database (including properties).

According to these principles, the plan of the website framework is shown in Figure 5.

18
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Figure 5. Framework of the website.

7. Case Study
This section collates the information required for establishing a database system for the
risk management of public projects. First, the database is built; then, the needs of different
database users are analyzed, and finally, the process is applied to a real project. The
case study is the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport Access MRT System Construction
Project. This case was used to test the risk management process developed in this research.

7.1. Case Introduction

The Project of Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport Access MRT System is an MRT
line that connects Taipei and Taoyuan International Airport. The total route length is

19
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

approximately 51.03 km. There are 22 stations, of which 15 are elevated and seven are
underground, and two are maintenance depots. The Taipei Station (underground station),
vehicle storage areas, and the building structure were constructed together. The viaduct
section of the road segment contains a cut-and-cover tunnel section (about 1447 m long,
including the excavated section and cut-and-cover section of about 586 m long) and the
shield tunnel section (about 1584 m long).

7.2. Risk Management in the Planning Stage of the MRT Project

The first step is establishing basic data on the project, including the project name, the
project type, the authority, the project location, the project background, the project scope,
the project profiles, and other relevant information. The input flowchart of the planning
stages of the program is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Planning stages of program input flowchart.

20
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

For the uncertainty assessment stage, two proposals resulted from different data
collection and feasibility studies:
1. The Railway Bureau proposed a viaduct approach.
2. The MRT Taipei City Government Bureau proposed an underground approach.
The IDEF0 model was applied for risk management of the MRT Project. In this study,
IDEF0 functional analysis and the MRT project risk management process was used to
analyze the input, control, output, and mechanism of each stage of risk management. The
analysis model is shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. IDEF0 analysis model for MRT project risk management process.

Figure 8. IDEF0 analysis model—A0 for the MRT project risk management process.

The model in this study is coded in accordance with the coding scheme of IDEF0.
The first layer of the MRT project risk management is A0. The second layer includes A1
21
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

(risk management of the planning stage) and A2 (risk management of the design stage).
Other stages are not shown in this paper. The third layer contains three items, from A11 to
A13, which are risk assessment (A11), preliminary planning (A12), and determination of
the requirements for the tender document for the detailed design (A13). The fourth layer
comprises seven items (from A111 to A133), as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. IDEF0 coding principle.

Item First Level Second Level Third Level

A111 Information collection
A11 Risk assessment
A112 Influence factor
identification
A12 Preliminary A121 Line selection
planning
A0 A1 A122 Development of risk
MRT Project Risk Planning Stage Risk management plan
Management Management
A13 Determination of A131 Establishment of
requirements for the detailed design standard
tender document for the A132 Preparation of the
detailed design detailed design tender
document
A133 Assessment selection
on the detail design
consultant

A1: Planning stage risk management.

The first stage of the IDEF0 analysis model for the MRT project risk management
process is the planning stage, code A1. The next stage is the third layer, including risk
assessment, preliminary planning, and determination of the requirements for the tender
documents for the detailed design. The fourth is the most detailed layer, which includes
seven items. The input, control, output, and mechanism of the items in the fourth layer are
described in Table 6 and Figure 9.

Table 6. IDEF0 analysis model—A1, planning stage.

Node No. Stage Name Input Output Control Mechanism

Information on items
MRT Project risk
A1 1 Risk assessment of the MRT project Assessment report Client
management process
planning
Risk checklist, risk
MRT Project risk
A1 2 Preliminary planning Assessment report policy, and Client
management process
assessment standard
Determination of the
requirements for the Risk policy and MRT Project risk
A1 3 Work instruction Client
tender document for assessment standard management process
the detailed design
Current land usage,
MRT project urban planning
Information Complexity of the
A11 1 planning and all information, and Client
collection related information
related information traffic volume
demand

22
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Table 6. Cont.

Node No. Stage Name Input Output Control Mechanism

Influence of
Current land usage, construction duration
urban planning and construction
Influence factor
A11 2 information and Assessment report fund, third-party Client
identification
traffic volume influences,
demand surrounding
environment
The line with the Line configuration
A12 1 Line selection Assessment report lowest risk level, risk risk, Client
checklist station planning risk
Establish risk policy
and assessment
Development of risk The line with the standard, require the
A12 2 Work instruction Client
management plan lowest risk level contractor establish
the risk management
plan
Establishment of Divide the risk into
Risk policy and Work scope, design
A13 1 detailed design general and special Client
assessment standard standard
standard groups
Ensure the detailed
design consultant has
Preparation of the the technique to
Tender-related
A13 2 detailed design Work scope reduce the risk level Client
documents
tender document and relevant risk
management
experience
Ensure the detail
design consultant has
Assessment selection the technique to
Tender-related
A13 3 of the detailed design Selection methods reduce the risk level Client
documents
consultant and relevant risk
management
experience

Figure 9. IDEF0 analysis model—A1, for the MRT project risk management process.
23
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

The input, control, output, and mechanism of the items in the IDEF0 analysis model for
the planning stage of risk management are described in detail below. The IDEF0 analyses
for A11, A12, and A13 are illustrated in Figures 10–12, respectively.

Figure 10. IDEF0 analysis model—A11, for the MRT project risk management process.

Figure 11. IDEF0 analysis model—A12, for the MRT project risk management process.

24
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Figure 12. IDEF0 analysis model—A13, for the MRT project risk management process.

According to the above analysis, the viaduct proposal has the combined advantages
of lower costs, shorter duration, and fewer construction difficulties. On the other hand, the
underground proposal, while more expensive, is the better choice when considering long-
term urban plan development, the safety and convenience of passengers, management,
land acquisition and development, environmental impact, and net benefits. The benefits
of the underground proposal compensate for the higher construction costs. Thus, the
underground proposal was chosen for future development.
After the preliminary design in the planning stage, the high-risk items are transferred
to the next stage of the project. Thus, the detailed design tender documents must clearly
describe the high-risk items and state the skills and experience required of the contrac-
tor/consultant. For example, in this project, the open-cut construction method and the
shield method (TBM) should be stated in the tender documents by the owner.
The consultants should identify possible risks during the detailed design phase and
record them as risk items, as shown in Table 7. The next step is numbering the identified risk
items using the reference coding scheme, as illustrated in Figure 13. The input flowchart of
the design stages of the program is shown in Figure 6.

Table 7. Risk items.

Preliminary Risk Identification: Detailed List

Risk Management
Project DA115 Report Unit
Team
No. Risk Event
1 The investigation has inadequate funding and a tight schedule
2 Stakeholder requirements for content is not clear
3 Requirements for the implementation of the phase process is not clear
4 Design quality and schedule management

25
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

Figure 13. Design stages of program input flowchart.

After encoding possible hazards of the identified risk items, the next step is to perform
a risk analysis and risk assessment. The risk analysis provides a detailed description of
the item from four aspects: schedule, cost, personal injury, and other influences. This is
necessary to enable the careful evaluation and recognition of risk. The risk assessment
involves expert grading methods that transform the identified project risks into a question-
naire, which is used by a grader panel to assess the occurrence probability, consequences,
and level of each risk. Evaluators also provide relevant comments as a reference for risk
elimination measures.
The grader panel is composed of a risk assessment team, which is established by the
design unit, and external professional consultants (seven people in total with more than
10 years of professional experience). Based on the assessment specifications established for
this project, the panel evaluates each risk item and determines the occurrence probability
and the impact level of the risk.
26
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

After the proposal of risk prevention or reduction measures for hazards or events
caused by risk items with high initial risk levels, the managed risk level of each item is
evaluated. These outcomes are updated in a risk management and control table. A part
of the risk management and control table that is transferred after the completion of the
planning stage to the design phase is illustrated in Table 8.
In the risk management and control table (after the risk item has been managed
through countermeasures), the decrease or increase in the risk level of each item and the
difference in the risk level before and after countermeasures will appear in a risk profile
diagram. For example, the risk item with a series number of 01 is “insufficient funding
for survey, tight schedule”; the original occurrence probability is P5, the original impact is
G4, and the original risk level is R1. After the risk is managed with countermeasures and
re-evaluated, the occurrence probability of the managed risk item becomes P2, its impact
decreases to G1, and its risk level is reduced to R4. Changes in the risk level can be fully
displayed in the risk profile diagram, which is shown in Figure 14.

Table 8. Risk management and control table.

Original Risk Original Risk Original Risk Final Risk Final Risk Final Risk
No. Risk Item
Probability Impact Levels Probability Impact Levels
Insufficient funding
1 for surveying and P5 G4 R1 P2 G1 R4
tight schedule
Unclear stakeholder
2 P4 G4 R1 P1 G1 R4
requirements
Unclear scheduling
3 P4 G4 R1 P2 G1 R4
requirements
Poor design quality
4 and progress P4 G3 R2 P1 G1 R4
management

Figure 14. Risk matrix.

The managed residual risk is further transferred to the next stage and prevents hazards
caused by construction risk. The detailed design consultants must summarize the risk
management outcomes and convey them to construction companies. They must provide
sufficient information to the construction company and draft a complete construction
specification based on the design outcome for general and special projects to assist the
construction manufacturers.
To consolidate the Metropolitan Rail Transit project from the planning stage to the
design stage, the risk items identified in the initial stage are ranked and arranged from

27
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

highest to lowest risk. The control and appropriate management of the risk items are
tracked accordingly. At the detailed design stage, the listed risk items are successively
checked to determine whether the design can reduce or transfer the risks of the item listed
in the risk management table. Risk items are deferred to the subsequent construction phase
when they cannot be reduced or transferred in the design stage.

8. Conclusions
Public construction projects are characterized by complexity, long durations, and a
large impact on society. Thus, the success of a public construction greatly relies on proper
risk management. In each phase of the project, the sources, impacts, and responses to risks
should be studied and managed properly so that with effective tracking and control, the
hazardous results of risks can be eliminated or minimized.
The steps of this research are as follows. Firstly, the literature related to risk manage-
ment was thoroughly studied to understand the underlying theory and process. Secondly, a
risk management model was established by combining the risk management method of the
Project Management Institute (PMI) and ITA. The Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport
Access MRT System Construction Project was used as a real case study to implement and
further modify the process of risk management for public construction projects. In the
next stage, IDEF0 was used to analyze the implementation of the risk management model
utilizing the syntax of input, control, output, and function terms, as well as the various
roles played by owner.
This study analyzed the detailed mechanism and procedure of the information flow
between the design consultant, the supervision unit, and the construction manufacturer.
The information was collected in a table and used to build a database. Finally, as an
example, the risk management process and the database constructed in this study were
applied to the Taoyuan Airport MRT project. The real case study demonstrates that the
proposed approach can indeed achieve efficient risk management and reduce project risks.
The number of risk management projects dealt with every year of the seven-year project
execution was gradually reduced until the project was closed. The results of this research
can be used as a reference for the risk management process of public buildings in the
Figure 15.

Figure 15. Reduced number of risk item.

This study aimed to establish and develop a risk management process for public
construction projects by using foreign norms for the assessment component of the ITA.
However, the same set of assessment models cannot be applied to all engineering projects,
which will have different project properties/characteristics. Therefore, it is recommended

28
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

that future research projects explore different forms of projects to establish different stan-
dards and improve the accuracy of evaluation.

Author Contributions: Y.-F.L. provided the related literature review and part of the flowchart
and classification table of IDEF0; C.-H.C. provided the information and content related to MRT
construction; H.-P.T. provided confirmation of the research direction of the article; I.-C.C. completed
the writing of the manuscript, process integration and case analysis content and results integration
of actual implementation cases. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable. No new data were created or analyzed in
this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Papanikolaou, M.; Xenidis, Y. Risk-Informed Performance Assessment of Construction Projects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5321.
[CrossRef]
2. Jannadi, O.A.; Almishari, S. Risk Assessment in Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 492. [CrossRef]
3. Al Khattab, A.; Anchor, J.; Davies, E. Managerial perceptions of political risk in international projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25,
734–743. [CrossRef]
4. Elkington, P.; Smallman, C. Managing project risks: A case study from the utilities sector. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 49–57.
[CrossRef]
5. Kim, M.-H.; Lee, E.-B.; Choi, H.-S. A Forecast and Mitigation Model of Construction Performance by Assessing Detailed
Engineering Maturity at Key Milestones for Offshore EPC Mega-Projects. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1256. [CrossRef]
6. Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M.T.; Anac, C.; Tah, J.H.M.; Aouad, G. Learning from risks: A tool for post-project risk assessment. Autom.
Constr. 2008, 18, 42–50. [CrossRef]
7. Kartam, N.A.; Kartam, S.A. Risk and its management in the Kuwaiti construction industry: A contractors’ perspective. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2001, 19, 325–335. [CrossRef]
8. Tserng, H.P.; Yin, S.Y.L.; Dzeng, R.J.; Wou, B.; Tsai, M.D.; Chen, W.Y. A study of ontology-based risk management framework of
construction projects through project life cycle. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 994–1008. [CrossRef]
9. del Caño, A.; de la Cruz, M.P. Integrated Methodology for Project Risk Management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2002, 128, 473.
[CrossRef]
10. Han, S.H.; Kim, D.Y.; Kim, H.; Jang, W.-S. A web-based integrated system for international project risk management. Autom.
Constr. 2008, 17, 342–356. [CrossRef]
11. Dang, P.; Niu, Z.; Gao, S.; Hou, L.; Zhang, G. Critical Factors Influencing the Sustainable Construction Capability in Prefabrication
of Chinese Construction Enterprises. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8996. [CrossRef]
12. Marques, G.; Gourc, D.; Lauras, M. Multi-criteria performance analysis for decision making in project management. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2011, 29, 1057–1069. [CrossRef]
13. Rosemann, M.; Green, P. Developing a meta model for the Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological constructs. Inf. Syst. 2002, 27, 75–91.
[CrossRef]
14. Legault, M.-J.; Chasserio, S. Professionalization, risk transfer, and the effect on gender gap in project management. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2012, 30, 697–707. [CrossRef]
15. Van Wyk, R.; Bowen, P.; Akintoye, A. Project risk management practice: The case of a South African utility company. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2008, 26, 149–163. [CrossRef]
16. Leśniak, A.; Janowiec, F. Risk Assessment of Additional Works in Railway Construction Investments Using the Bayes Network.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5388. [CrossRef]
17. Ward, S.C.; Chapman, C.B. Risk-management perspective on the project lifecycle. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1995, 13, 145–149. [CrossRef]
18. Astarini, S.D.; Utomo, C. Performance-Based Building Design of High-Rise Residential Buildings in Indonesia. Sustainability 2020,
12, 7103. [CrossRef]
19. Koulinas, G.; Demesouka, O.; Marhavilas, P.; Vavatsikos, A.; Koulouriotis, D. Risk Assessment Using Fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT
for Sustainable Engineering Projects. Sustainability 2019, 11, 615. [CrossRef]
20. Marhavilas, P.K.; Tegas, M.G.; Koulinas, G.K.; Koulouriotis, D.E. A Joint Stochastic/Deterministic Process with Multi-Objective
Decision Making Risk-Assessment Framework for Sustainable Constructions Engineering Projects—A Case Study. Sustainability
2020, 12, 4280. [CrossRef]

29
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6958

21. Yang, Y.; Tang, W.; Shen, W.; Wang, T. Enhancing Risk Management by Partnering in International EPC Projects: Perspective from
Evolutionary Game in Chinese Construction Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5332. [CrossRef]
22. Tserng, H.P.; Chang, D.W.; Chen, C.H.; Liu, Y.-H. Establishment of Risk Management Procedures and Information System of the
MRT Project. MRT Technol. Biannu. 2011, 45, 137–150.
23. Paté-Cornell, M.-E.; Kuypers, M.; Smith, M.; Keller, P. Cyber risk management for critical infrastructure: A risk analysis model
and three case studies. Risk Anal. 2017, 38, 226–241. [CrossRef]
24. Olsson, R. In search of opportunity management: Is the risk management process enough? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 745–752.
[CrossRef]
25. Nawaz, A.; Waqar, A.; Shah, S.A.R.; Sajid, M.; Khalid, M.I. An innovative framework for risk management in construction projects
in developing countries: Evidence from Pakistan. Risks 2019, 7, 24. [CrossRef]
26. Tummala, V.; Schoenherr, T. Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP). Supply
Chain Manag. Int. J. 2011, 16, 474–483. [CrossRef]
27. Firmenich, J. Customisable framework for project risk management. Constr. Innov. 2017, 17, 68–89. [CrossRef]
28. Slagmulder, R.; Devoldere, B. Transforming under deep uncertainty: A strategic perspective on risk management. Bus. Horizons
2018, 61, 733–743. [CrossRef]
29. Chatterjee, K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tamosaitiene, J.; Adhikary, K.; Kar, S. A hybrid MCDM technique for risk management in
construction projects. Symmetry 2018, 10, 46. [CrossRef]
30. Ozan, O.; Budayan, C.; Dikmen, I. A knowledge-based risk management tool for construction projects using case-based reasoning.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 173, 114776.
31. Bandara, W.; Gable, G.G.; Tate, M.; Rosemann, M. A validated business process modelling success factors model. Bus. Process
Manag. J. 2021. [CrossRef]
32. Rosemann, M.; zur Muehlen, M. Integrating Risks in Business Process Models. 2005. ACIS 2005 Proceedings. Available online:
https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005/50 (accessed on 30 November 2020).
33. Lambert, J.H.; Jennings, R.K.; Joshi, N.N. Integration of risk identification with business process models. Syst. Eng. 2006, 9,
187–198. [CrossRef]
34. Joseph, T.; Carr, V. Information modelling for a construction project risk management system. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2007, 7,
107–119.
35. Gunduz, M.; Elsherbeny, H.A. Construction Contract Administration Performance Assessment Tool by Using a Fuzzy Structural
Equation Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 523. [CrossRef]
36. Kuo, Y.-C.; Lu, S.-T. Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan
construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 602–614. [CrossRef]

30
sustainability

Article
Decision Tree and AHP Methods Application for Projects
Assessment: A Case Study
Augustinas Maceika 1,† , Andrej Bugajev 2, *,† , Olga Regina Šostak 2,† and Tatjana Vilutienė 3,†

1 The Faculty of Mechanics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected]
2 The Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected]
3 The Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: This research is dedicated to the modelling of decision process occurring during the
implementation of construction projects. Recent studies generally do not assess the robustness of the
decisions regarding the possible changes during the construction project implementation. However,
such an assessment might increase the reliability of the decision-making process. We addressed
this gap through a new model that combines the decision-making process modelling with the AHP
method and includes the analysis of model stability concerning stakeholders’ behaviour. We used
the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Decision tree methods to model the decision-making
process. The proposed model was validated on a case study of multiple construction projects. The
assessment was performed from individual investor’s and independent expert’s perspectives. The
criteria for the assessment were selected according to the principles of sustainability. We performed
the sensitivity analysis, making it possible to assess the possible changes of the decisions depending
Citation: Maceika, A.; Bugajev, A.;
on the potential patterns of the decision-makers’ behaviour. The results of the study show that,
Šostak, O.R.; Vilutienė, T. Decision
Tree and AHP Methods Application
sometimes, small fluctuations in the project factors affect the project selection indicating the possible
for Projects Assessment: A Case lack of the robustness of the project decisions.
Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105502 Keywords: project assessment; sustainability criteria; decision tree; analytic hierarchy process;
construction projects; sensitivity analysis; decision robustness
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen

Received: 19 February 2021

Accepted: 11 May 2021 1. Introduction
Published: 14 May 2021
The problem of project selection has attracted significant attention among construction
project participants [1]. In many decision-making processes, it has become common practice
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
to take uncertainty into account, while considering it as an important part of sustainability
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
assessment [2]. In this research, two key concepts are considered: the robustness of the
published maps and institutional affil-
decision, which describes how well the decision performs across a wide range of futures,
iations.
preferences, and worldviews, although it may not be optimal in any particular one [3]; and,
the sensitivity of the decisions, which describes how big the changes of input of the model
must be in order for decisions to be changed.
The lack of robustness of decisions made in an uncertain project environment raises
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
the risks in decision-making and, accordingly, leads to unreliable solutions [3] negatively
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
affecting the sustainable city development [4]. Additionally, the compromises between the
This article is an open access article
competing goals of different sustainability categories (environmental, social, and economic)
distributed under the terms and
have to be found. There is usually a trade-off between the different objective functions that
conditions of the Creative Commons
can help the decision-maker to choose a particular solution according to the preference of an
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
organisation [5]. For example, [6] focus on the trade-offs between economic sustainability
4.0/).
on one hand, and environmental sustainability and resilience on the other hand. As pointed

31

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105502 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

out by Kamali [7], multi-criteria assessment (MCA) studies generally do not evaluate the
robustness of the overall MCA outcome to uncertainty regarding scores and weights; in
such studies the sensitivity analysis is usually addressed in terms of sensitivity of the results
to the choice of MCA method [8]. However, in the scope of this research, the sensitivity
analysis is similar to the one that is widely used in Operations Research theory, which
deals with finding out the amount by which the input data can be changed for the output
of model to remain almost unchanged.
Construction project is a series of activities to define, design, construct, and put to use
construction work [9]. The term ‘construction project’ refers to a high-value, time bound,
special construction mission with predetermined performance objectives [10]. Construction
projects include new construction, renovation, and demolition for both residential and
non-residential projects, as well as public works projects, such as streets, roads, highways,
utility plants, bridges, tunnels, and overpasses [11]. Construction projects are intricate,
time-consuming undertakings [12]. Construction projects are complex systems involving
multiple and mutual components. Thus, construction projects consist of many interact-
ing stakeholders, such as clients, contractors, consultants, and workers with different
management objectives and functions that contribute to the whole [13].
A construction project involves the use of different resources (e.g., machinery, ma-
terials, manpower, etc.) to produce the final product (e.g., a building, a bridge, a water
distribution system, etc.) that serves the targeted users’ needs. The difficulties that are met
in construction projects include budget limitations, contractual time constraints, safety and
health issues, sustainability ratings, local building codes, the desired level of quality, to
name but a few. Consequently, a construction project has multiple objectives, including
maximum productivity, minimum cost, minimum duration, specified quality, safety, and
sustainability [14].
For most clients, a construction project is necessary for satisfying their business objec-
tives. The client’s objectives may be as complex as the introduction and accommodation
of some new technology into a manufacturing facility or the creation of a new corporate
headquarters; or, they may be as simple as obtaining the optimum return on resources
available for investment in a office building [15].
Building design involves generating several design alternatives and the subjective
assessment of each option according to a variety of requirements [16]. The organisational
and technological complexities of construction projects, diversity of stakeholders, and their
multiple interests result in a variety of risks and complicated decision-making.
This work is a continuation of the research [17] with a brief reiteration of some key
points from that research throughout this article. In the mentioned research, primary
attention is paid to the investor’s needs, thus it was assumed that the investor cannot be
changed, he has a fixed opinion that is applied to solve the optimisation problem using
Dynamic programming method to form a decision strategy. However, this implies the
limitation of the results to only be considered in the context of a single point of view. In the
mentioned paper, the combination of the decision tree and AHP method was proposed,
permitting the to enrichment of the stochastic Markov process modelling by a decision tree
with a multi-criteria AHP method, applied on the leaves of the tree. Such an enrichment
creates the dependency of the decisions in the tree to the possible changes in the evaluations
of the projects.
The modelling, as proposed in the previous research, is used in the current research to
simulate the possible construction project implementation outcomes, even the selection of
the project itself. The projects being assessed are virtual, i.e., the assessment is applied to the
projects as the products of simulation in order to fill the values on the tree leaves which is a
necessary condition to optimise the investor’s decisions. During the simulation, different
projects might be assessed providing an opportunity to include the assessments into the
decision tree. As mentioned before, in [17], it is shown how to create the dependency of
the decisions in the tree to the possible changes in the evaluations of the projects. In the
current research, we analyse this dependency, i.e., we provide the approach to perform a

32
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

sensitivity analysis. In order to achieve that, we suggest constructing a series of mappings

of the rating scale to the monetary values and apply them in order to extract different
monetary values for project evaluation from the AHP assessment. In practice, this makes
it possible to answer questions, like “what will happen if”, i.e., what will happen if the
investor changes, or his priorities shift, etc. The examples of information that might be
included into the mappings are:
1. The changes of the priorities leading to improved value of the object, e.g., the other
burnt house might stimulate the investor to build the current project for himself,
or some various reasons might drop the interest of having some property for the
investor—he might tend to want to sell it, meaning the values in AHP assessment
will shift.
2. The investor might face the financial problems leading to drops in the costs to rat-
ings mapping.
3. The investor might financially succeed with some other projects, extending his abilities
to invest, which would increase the costs to ratings mapping.
4. The investor might react to some external factors, changing his priorities, such as
financial crisis, any other reasons for the changes of the market prices.
Note that the type of the investor being investigated is domestic individual in-
vestor [18]. In the considered case, he is also an owner of the privately owned house
to which the project is going to be applied. The investor has the power to choose the project
from the all propositions, such choice can be modelled via decision tree and AHP method.
This means that the investor is also a developer, he initialises the project, and leads the
process of the project implementation.
This article makes the following contributions:
1. We provide the approach to assess the decision model in terms of sensitivity to the
changes of conditions, more specifically—the mappings of the rating scale to the
monetary values, which describe the investor-specific information.
2. The application of the proposed techniques to the case study leads to a deeper under-
standing of how to apply it in a similar way to other types of applications that are
required in other researches.
3. The proposed methodology contributes to the general analysis of the robustness of
decisions, i.e., how sensitive the possible decisions are, depending on the changes of
the decision-maker.
By considering all of these elements, the paper aims to contribute to the analysis
of the robustness of decisions, specifically, giving the possibility of assessment of how
sensitive decisions of construction project stakeholders are depending on the changes
of the situation and the decision-maker. To this aim, a new decision-making model for
quantitative assessment of solutions was proposed. Applying this model, first, the most
common stakeholders in construction project were analysed. Secondly, the criteria were
selected according to the principles of sustainability, more specifically—from the main
categories of sustainability: social, environmental, and economic. After that, the created
decision-making algorithms were applied to the case study. Note that the impact of the
presence of sustainability criteria on the decision robustness is out of the scope of the
current research.
The remainder of paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 the background of the
research is provided. Section 3 describes the methodology of research. Section 4 presents
the results of the proposed research methodology applied to the real case. Finally, Section 5
presents and discusses the results coming from the case study. It also provides concluding
remarks and proposes future research areas.

2. The Background of the Research

Sustainability in the decision-making process has reached greater influence in the
academic field in the last few years [19]. Decision-making in a changing environment was

33
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

addressed from different viewpoints. Recent researches were focused on the synthesis
of sustainability and decision-making using multidisciplinary approaches [20–23], which
suggested treating sustainability as a first-class element in the early stages of business engi-
neering. Researches comprised sustainability taxonomy that allows stakeholders to take
environmental matters into consideration when making decisions. Cuadrado et al. [21]
used MIVES methodology to determine a global sustainability index of an industrial build-
ing based on environmental, economic, and social factors. MacDonald et al. [22] compared
the decision-making processes of sustainability-focused multi-stakeholder partnerships,
and found that collaborative decision-making has an indirect and positive impact on the
implementation of community sustainability plans [23] proposed an integrated approach
for sustainability assessment in qualitative and quantitative viewpoints using economic,
environmental, and social indices.
A set of policy initiatives [24–28] was issued having the aims to encourage us to make
rational and more robust decisions in our projects, lives, and communities. These initiatives
advise an organisation to take into consideration social, environmental, legal, cultural,
and political heterogeneity, thus assisting organisations in contributing to sustainable
development. It means that, at least, organisations have to balance the stakeholders’ needs
and make decisions taking possible impacts on society and the environment into account.
According to [27], these actions along with improving process sustainability should also
help to improve the competitiveness and profitability of businesses.
Sustainability has been addressed as a part of innovative business strategies, re-
quiring rethinking and reshaping of prevailing business systems and behaviours [29,30].
Sustainable business models examine a spectrum of stakeholders’ interests, including
environmental and social issues [31]. The concept of corporate sustainability gives the
potential to be more embracing in terms of the company benefits, as well as the social and
environmental implications for stakeholders [32].
Sustainability has been studied in many sectors, especially in the construction in-
dustry due to its significant impact on the environment. Assessing the growing impor-
tance of sustainability and project management topics in the current business context,
Martens & Carvalho [33] reported the need for research combining both topics. The initia-
tives, like Green Project Management [28], were committed to stress social, environmental,
and economic risks, as well as opportunities in project activities. However, research fo-
cusing on sustainability in a project context can still be characterised as emergent and
fragmented [34].
Recent studies on a project evaluation and selection suggest different ways to assess
the sustainability of solutions; however, the majority are based on methods of a decision
theory. For example, Hatefi & Tamošaitienė [35] proposed fuzzy AHP-improved grey rela-
tional analysis model to prioritise construction projects that are based on the sustainable
development criteria. Kudratova et al. [32] proposed the project selection decision-making
model that allows investors to find positive sustainability trade-offs without harming
returns on the investment. Decision theory was evolved from the interaction of many disci-
plines: operational research, economics, mathematics, and statistics. However, the origins
of real estate analysis lie in the interaction between the physical, legal, and financial aspects
of land and property [36]. Decision-making in the real estate sector mainly focuses on
selection between the sale and redevelopment of real estate assets. For example, Carbonara
and Stefano [37] analysed the structure of the decision-making process behind the sale or
redevelopment of real estate assets. For the assessment of possible actions, they proposed
three different indexes: urban values index, use index, and technical-maintenance index.
The increasing interest in sustainability concepts led to the incorporation of the latter at
various levels of the decision-making process. For example, the sustainability index for real
estate projects was proposed and analysed using multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM)
methods [38,39] as well as tested to what extent green buildings could have a higher price
and an overall economic performance when comparing to traditional real estate. The
sustainable new construction operations need to take into account the environmental

34
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

sustainability, better living conditions for individuals, and to pursue the highest possible
economic value. There are many opportunities in the real estate market to increase the
value of a property, e.g., by investing in the projects for the creation or renovation of
infrastructure or building structures. The common goal is to renovate the building to
improve living or working conditions and create a higher value of the object. Together
with policy developments, the perceptions of real estate project stakeholders have an
influence on project investor decisions in achieving ambitious goals. When compared to
other industries, projects in the construction industry have been facing numerous risks,
e.g., if they are not managed properly, they will fail in achieving main goals [40].
Construction projects differ in the budget, duration, variety of works, a number of
implementers, and stakeholder [41]. The results of the projects also vary in following ways:
some of them can be implemented successfully and others can be terminated with losses.
The risks that are associated with the execution of construction projects influence each other.
For example, the risks related to construction project delivery time can influence project
costs and vice versa [42]. The success or failure of real estate investment decisions depends
on the assessment and management of the inherent risk and uncertainty [43]. In some AHP
method applications for a real estate investment problem, multi-criteria group decision-
making method first uses analytic hierarchy process to construct decision preference matrix,
and then it uses the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy linguistic set to model uncertainties.
The risks that are related to decision-making in construction projects were recently
studied in many related works [42,44–47]. For example, Hatefi et al. [44] state that the
source of the project risks is the presence of high uncertainty in construction projects.
Because of the existence of factors that are associated with uncertainty, the appropriate
models for decision-making are necessary. Hatefi & Tamošaitienė [42] applied an integrated
fuzzy DEMATEL-fuzzy ANP model to assess the relative importance of risk factors and
alternatives, as well as to prioritise construction projects. Ghasemi et al. [45] developed
Bayesian network (BN) methodology for modelling and analysing the risks and then
applied it to a project portfolio of a construction company. Asadi et al. [46] proposed a
three-stage approach that is based on the fuzzy inference system for project risk evaluation.
The approach combines different parameters (e.g., the time, cost, quality, contribution
rate, resilience, and resistance) to assess the risk index. For sustainable risk analysis and
decision-making in the construction sector [47], an alternative approach based on consistent
fuzzy preference relation and ANP methodology provided. Multi-criteria decision-making
methods are used by individuals and enterprises to achieve effective solutions for many of
their problems, since they usually include subjective, intangible, and not easily quantifiable
aspects [48]. The research [49] applies Fuzzy multi criteria decision-making methodology,
called DEcision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and Analytic Net-
work Process (ANP) method, to investigate the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of project
management. These factors were categorised into five criteria groups: (1) project, (2) project
management, (3) organisation, (4) external environment, and (5) sustainability, from which
the highest weights were assigned to the sub-criteria of top management and sponsors’
support, stakeholders’ expectations, and end users’ imposed restrictions.
In addition to different measurable risks, the investor’s strategy can be strongly
affected by the possible cyclical recurring crises in the real estate market, like the housing
crisis, which affected many economies in 2007–2008 [50]. In times of global financial crisis,
the decision to invest at a certain point in time and the correct assessment of risks are key
issues: investors need to know how to measure risks and identify the relationship between
risks appearance and risks incentives demanded, according to their attitude towards
risks [51]. To operate in unfavourable business conditions, it is appropriate to gather and
analyse more information to make rational decisions. The use of information systems
enables to collect necessary data and the coordinate solutions with business partners
remotely. This can provide an advantage in carrying out construction project activities
in a difficult situation. Because each construction project has specific complexities and

35
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

uniqueness, it is necessary to take these factors into account while proposing an advanced
decision-making tool for project managers [40].
One of the sophisticated tools for improving the decision-making process in construc-
tion projects is the decision tree method. The decision tree, as a construction projects
risk management tool, can be useful in providing real estate market participants with the
necessary information. The information advantage gives agent buyers a greater bargaining
power when buying houses for their use at lower prices than other non-agent buyers (for
example, agents bought houses at prices that are 2.54 lower than comparable houses that
were bought by other buyers) [52].
With the diversification of Internet technology and cloud computing, an increasing
number of Internet companies has started to afford users with a variety of remote ser-
vices. Data analysis and prediction, including risk assessment, image recognition, and
spam detection are among the most popular services. The functions that are mentioned
above were achieved through machine learning classifiers that have recently attracted
considerable attention [53]. Decision trees are among the most popular tools for learning
and extracting classification rules from data [54]. When compared with other algorithms,
decision trees require less effort for data preparation. The constructed decision tree model
is intuitive and easy to explain to technical teams and stakeholders. At the same time, the
result of the decision tree may be unstable because a little change in the data may lead to
the creation of a completely different tree. A problem can be solved by using an ensemble
decision tree [55]. Constructing a decision tree is usually a recursive procedure, where a
function is repeatedly optimized and training data are partitioned into the root and internal
nodes until a termination condition is met [56]. Usually, the termination condition is the
logic disjunction of several stopping predicates that account for different kinds of imposed
limitations, for example, on the branch length, on the possible information gain [57].
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is another tool for improving the decision-making
process [58]. AHP is a broadly applied multi-criteria decision-making method for deter-
mining the weights of criteria and it priorities of alternatives in a structured manner that is
based on pairwise comparison. Because subjective judgements during comparison might
be imprecise, the modifications of AHP by combining fuzzy sets with AHP are proposed
and referred to as fuzzy AHP or FAHP [59]. It is noteworthy that the AHP method is
widely used for construction project assessment, for example, to develop a decision support
system that embodies the relative preferences of the owner and architect among multiple
key criteria [16], in order to assess the building performance in the field of anti-seismic
behaviour [60], to evaluate building material suppliers while taking a large number of
criteria that are often subjective and hard to measure into consideration [61].
Changes of decisions raise the uncertainties and can negatively affect the sustainability
of the project results, e.g., the changes that were made in the middle of a project can
significantly differ from its implementation from the initial plan, as it was pointed out in
the above-mentioned articles. In order to analyse the possible shifts in the decisions, the
analysis of model robustness must be performed, i.e., it is important to understand how
sensitive decisions are to possible changes in project participants’ behaviour. For example,
the investor changes his/her priorities or the project can be transferred to/inherited by
another investor. The resistance of the decisions during project implementation to the
possible changes of the project conditions must be assessed. Thus, there is a lack of studies
that provide clear solutions for the accurate assessment of the stability and robustness of
the decision model in terms of its sensitivity to changes in conditions, including the change
of the investor. Note that the current study is not necessily a source for the improvement
over the mentioned works, it is hard to judge the usefulness of the requirement to perform
the additional analysis mentioned above. Instead, we analyse the case where it is needed,
and the lack of such analysis in other studies creates a gap, which this article intends to
fill. It became especially topical in the context of the recent changes in the policy of EU
regarding the sustainability of the investments.

36
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Assessing investment against sustainability criteria has only just begun to be included
in the debates, and new initiatives are emerging to assess the sustainability of investments,
such as the EU classification system for green investments [62]. Sustainable investment
decisions are commonly referred to as those that involve sustainability-related consid-
erations [63]. However, until now, the assessment of investment solutions was strictly
based on financial indicators, like NPV (Net Present Value), (IRR (Internal Rate of Return),
PI (Profitability Index), and similar [64,65]. Lee et al. (2016) [66] used the rate of return,
relative return, investment, and relative investment rate for the analysis of investment
options. Some of the studies applied qualitative assessment, like SWOT (Strengths, Weak-
nesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis [67]. Seeking to ensure the attractiveness of
investments in the future organization addressing the LEED (The Leadership in Energy
& Environmental Design), BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method), and similar certification methods for managing the construction
projects [68]. However, these methods require a lot of time and effort to evaluate a single
alternative and, due to this shortcoming, are rarely applied to the evaluation of multi-
ple alternatives. The recently issued EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
(COM (2021) 189) [69] requires companies to provide information on the sustainability of
their business practices in a transparent and comparable way, which will also serve as a
reliable guide for investment decisions. Market players should apply the requirements
of this Directive and include sustainability criteria in their investment valuation models
to contribute to the Green Deal objectives and get a chance to benefit from the financial
support mechanisms that are offered by the EU. This study is dedicated to analyse how
different conditions (innovations, restrictions) might affect the behaviour of market players
(investors). Such an analysis could be applied as a part of methodology for developing
the means for supporting the Green Deal objectives. The study of Duong et al. (2021) [70]
revealed that there is a positive stock market reaction to incremental sustainability innova-
tion; however, there is a lack of studies that focus on the analysis of the investor behaviour
in the context of changes in the market.
To fill this gap, this study develops a new model that combines the decision-making
process modelling with AHP method and includes the analysis of model stability in relation
to stakeholders’ behaviour. Accordingly, this study assesses possible patterns of project par-
ticipants’ behaviour, identifying the key aspects of sustainability in a project management
context. It also helps to understand the importance from the project investor’s perspective,
at the same time taking into account other stakeholders’ needs. The methodology was
validated on a case study of eight roofing projects by assessing different options for their
implementation. The sensitivity analysis was performed to determine possible scenarios
and to investigate the robustness of decision-making processes, i.e., how resistant the
decisions are to possible fluctuations of parameters.

3. The Methodology of the Research

In this section, we describe the main methods that were applied to the case study.
The current research is based on the work [17], in which we have provided an example
of how to apply the methods of a decision tree and AHP to select the best project. In
this article, we further develop the topic of a decision tree and AHP methods application
by addressing additional problems, such as the parametrisation of investor’s behaviour,
sensitivity analysis, and visualisation of results. The sensitivity analysis is especially
important, since it permits assessing the possible changes of the investor’s opinion and
its impact on selection of the project. The methodology applied in the paper consists of
following main steps:
1. Identification of the major stakeholders involved in the project execution process.
2. Development of a decision tree scheme to select the best project from the planned set
of alternatives.
3. Creation of the algorithms for the decision tree solution.

37
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

4. Adaptation of AHP method to assess the investor’s subjective opinion about the
various projects, predicting whether the investor would like to sell the completed
project or not.
5. The parametrisation of the investor’s behaviour with a special mapping of the ratings
scale to the monetary values and the sensitivity analysis.
6. Analysis of how the different mappings of the rating scale to the monetary values
affect the assessment of the projects in the decision tree and visualisation of the
obtained results.
The developed methodology was validated on the real case study to demonstrate how
algorithms work in real conditions.

3.1. Identification of Major Stakeholders

The creation of the decision tree starts from the analysis of the participants’ behaviour
during the project execution. These participants are identified as stakeholders in the
project outcomes.
Local governments, community-based organisations, foundations, neighbourhood
and other advocacy groups (for example, Greenpeace organisation), construction com-
panies, investors, commercial banks, tenants and their brokers, ecologists, media and
unions—all of these are the city stakeholders and participants of the city development.
They should be able to create feasible projects that generate benefits and reduce the risk
that is involved in urban development [71].
It is important to consider the factors that are driven by stakeholders in order to
manage construction projects. The impact of these factors can lead to the project success
or failure. Depending on the directions of the research, various authors indicate the
factors, components, and dimensions that need to be evaluated and controlled during
project implementation.
In the research [72] that was performed by N. Srinivasan and S. Dhivya, the major
factors that were concerned with stakeholder management in construction projects were
identified, as follows: stakeholder participation, decision making powers, organisational
structure, quality performance, customer related factors, and employee related factors.
S. Demirkesen and B. Ozorhon in article [73] identify integration components and
dimensions that are important for successful construction project management. These
components are presented, as follows: the development of a project charter, knowledge
integration, process integration, staff integration, supply chain integration, and integration
of changes. The dimensions of project management performance are presented, as follows:
time, cost, quality, safety, and client satisfaction.
Various authors who study stakeholder theory, distinguish various groups of them.
Table 1 presents the stakeholder groups that can influence roof installation projects.

Table 1. Groups of stakeholders that were researched in the sources related to construction projects and sustainability.

Sources Researched Groups of Stakeholders Content of the Research

Buyers, sales personnel, financial
institutions, developers, designers and
drafting personnel, estimators, project
Stakeholder’s studies and the social
Li et al. (2018) [74] managers/coordinators, regulators,
networks of NetZero energy homes
superintendents, inspectors,
trades/suppliers, home occupants and
warranty staff
Employees, customers, shareholders,
creditors, suppliers and partners,
environment and resources agencies, A corporate social responsibility indicator
Zhao et al. (2012) [75]
local communities, government, system for construction enterprises
competitors and
non-governmental organisations

38
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Table 1. Cont.

Sources Researched Groups of Stakeholders Content of the Research

Social stakeholders, financial
Freudenreich et al. (2020) [76] stakeholders, customers, business Value creation for sustainability
partners and employees
Evolutionary game analysis on
Chu et al. (2020) [77] Government, developers and residents improving collaboration in sustainable
urban regeneration
Finance institutions, local authorities,
Key performance indicators for quality
building owners, tenants, contractors,
Vilutiene and Ignatavičius (2018) [78] monitoring during
technology providers, material suppliers,
sustainable renovation
consultants and facility managers
Governments, cost consultants, owners,
Quantifying and visualising value
building information modelling
Zheng et al. (2019) [79] exchanges in building information
consultants, designers, general
modelling projects
contractors and subcontractors
Internal stakeholders (end users,
developers and investors, main
contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and Stakeholders’ influence strategies on
Lin et al. (2019) [80] employees) and external stakeholders social responsibility implementation in
(governments, non-governmental construction projects
organizations, communities and
the public)
Project owner, state organisations,
building design company, interested
The modelling of roof installation projects
Maceika et al. (2020) [17] community, construction company,
using decision trees and the AHP method
suppliers, construction business partners,
consultants and supervisors

Based on the Table 1, especially with regard to the [17], the major stakeholders that
are involved in the roofing project execution process were identified, as follows:
1. Investor in a roof installation project.
2. State organisations.
3. Building design company.
4. Interested community.
5. Construction company.
6. Suppliers.
7. Consultants.
8. Supervisors.
The interests of the major stakeholders and probability to impact were assessed using
the expert method [81]. Figure 1 presents the obtained results of stakeholders’ positioning.
The investor was rated as the most interested and able to make the greatest impact on the
project, as can be seen from Figure 1.
It is notable to mention that the building process is mainly implemented by a con-
struction company, although with the involvement of building design company, suppliers,
consultants, and supervisors. The investor is not directly involved in the building process;
however, in the considered case, many key decisions must be made by the investor (more
details will be provided later, see Section 4.2).
Therefore, investor’s decisions were examined using both the AHP method and deci-
sion tree. However, the influence of other stakeholders was only assessed in the decision
tree. Each of the stakeholders influenced the decision making. Each activity involving
stakeholders generated revenue or expenses that were expressed in monetary units. The
probable additional costs that might be incurred were also assessed with an appropri-
ate probability. Such additional costs might arise if the project needing correction or the

39
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

project could not be coordinated by interested local community, and state organisations,
or construction and supply companies failed. The tree also calculated the probable loss
if the project fails completely. It should be noted that the creation of the fragments of the
decision tree is a non-trivial task, which is out of our research scope. As an example, the
assessment to select supply organisation is needed and that information must be converted
into a fragment in the decision tree. For this purpose, some advanced supplier selection
techniques might be applied, as shown in [82].
High

State organisation The Investor

KEEP STATISFIED MANAGE CLOSELY

Probability to impact

Supervisors Building design Construction

company company

Interested community
Consultants
Suppliers

MONITOR KEEP INFORMED

Low

Low High
Interest of stakeholder

Figure 1. Positioning of major stakeholders involved in roof installation project according to interests and probability to impact.

3.2. The Decision Tree

Here, we briefly present the modelling of stochastic process that was introduced
in the previous researches. The objective function is to maximize value (profit), which
should be received by the investor (the model was developed for a private investor). The
decisions were expressed in integer form by Xijk = 0 or 1, i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , g (describes
the decision tree level); j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , m (describes the branch group in the decision
n
tree level); k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n (describes the branch in the group); Xijk ≥ 0; ∑ Xijk = 1; if
k =1
Xijk = 1—alternative ijk is selected; if Xijk = 0—alternative ijk is not selected; Pijk —

40
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

n
describes probability of events, Pijk ≥ 0; ∑ Pijk = 1. We also measure the profit/losses
k =1
S(i−1) jk , which can be chosen as a better alternative:

n
S(i−1) jk = ∑ Sijk Xijk ; (1)
k =1

or it can be a probabilistic quantity:

n
S(i−1) jk = ∑ Sijk Pijk . (2)
k =1

The mathematical model of the decision tree was constructed based on the algorithms
that are presented in [4].

3.3. The Main Steps for the Sensitivity Analysis

To perform the modelling of the investor’s behaviour, we propose applying a special
mapping of the ratings scale to the monetary values, describing the influence of the
wealthness on the decision of the individual. We show how to integrate that mapping into
the model and evaluate the obtained results.
Initially, the model was developed for a single investor. Thus, possible changes in
the assessment or parameters were taken into account, which would be the case if the
number number of investors will increase. The parametrisation of investor’s behaviour
and sensitivity analysis of AHP method were performed in the following steps:
1. The investor’s behavior was parameterized based on a subjective opinion regarding
the monetary value of the project (more details will be provided later, see Section 4.4).
2. Subsequently, by changing the introduced monetary value for the economic criterion,
a series of mappings with the rating scale were formed.
3. It was calculated how the parameters of the economic criterion would change if we
apply different scale mapping multipliers.
4. It was analysed how the results (of the decision tree and AHP method application)
were changed, depending on the changes in the scale.
5. It was analysed how the investor’s behavior would change if we offer him various
projects based on the market price.
6. The consequences of decisions regarding whether to sell project results or not were
investigated. It was taken into account that not only the investor was interested in the
results of the project, but there were also other stakeholders affected by the investor’s
changing opinion. It is well known that stakeholders were interested in how the
starting market price was formed.
7. The visualisation of the results of the decision tree for various projects was performed.
8. It was described how the possible final result that was obtained in the decision tree
might be changed, depending on possible changes in the investor’s opinion.
Note that, in the steps mentioned above, only economic criteria can be seen explicitly.
However, the assessment by the AHP method implicitly includes all of the criteria that
were discussed in Section 4.3.

3.4. The AHP-Based Project Assessment

The data of the decision tree end nodes on the investor’s subjective opinion when
assessing possible options were obtained by applying the AHP method, as already shown
in the article [17].
At this stage, we used the AHP method, because we wanted to evaluate the investor’s
subjective opinion regarding the value of the project. The AHP method was chosen because
it was simple enough to use and it enabled to perform the sensitivity analysis based
on [83,84].

41
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

The APH method was adapted according to the methodology that was proposed
by [58]. Based on this methodology, a comparison matrix was initially created to determine
the weights of the criteria of pair-wise Clm elements:
⎡ ⎤
C11 C12 ... C1z
⎢ C21 C22 ... C2z ⎥
⎢ ⎥; (3)
⎣ ... ... ... ... ⎦
Cz1 Cz2 ... Czz
all elements are positive (Clm > 0) and reciprocal (Clm = 1/Clm , ∀, m = 1, 2, . . ., z).
The relative value in comparison to the sum of the columns consisting of z criteria is
then found:

Clm
Ylm = z ; (4)
∑ Clm
l =1

where z is the number of criteria.

A normalised matrix is formed for comparison:
⎡ ⎤
Y11 Y12 ... Y1z
⎢ Y21 Y22 ... Y2z ⎥
⎢ ⎥. (5)
⎣ ... ... ... ... ⎦
Yz1 Yz2 ... Yzz

Dividing by the number of criteria gives a weight matrix:

z
∑ Ylm
m =1
Wl = ; (6)
z
⎡ ⎤
W1
⎢ W2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ... ⎦, (7)
Wz
The consistency vector is calculated according to the formulas:

1
Cν1 = [C W + C12 W2 + ... + C1z Wz ];
W1 11 1
1
Cν2 = [C W + C22 W2 + ... + C2z Wz ];
W2 21 1
...
1
Cνz = [C W + Cz2 W2 + ... + Czz Wz ]. (8)
Wz z1 1
The Eigen value λmax is found by:

1 z
z l∑
λmax = Cνl (9)
=1
then a consistency index (CI) was calculated by formula:

λmax − z
CI = ; (10)
z−1
and consistency ratio (if CR of 0.1 or below, the results are acceptable):

CI
CR = ; (11)
RI
42
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

where RI is the random index that is determined by [58], for example, in our case the
number of criteria is 4, so RI = 0.9.
We determined the criterion of economic logic that we will use in the decision tree.
Using the redesigned AHP method, when two possible alternatives—to sell the object or
keep it for yourself—are the same (F = 0.5 weighted and normalised points):
z
Wm Vm
F= ∑ Vm + 1
, (12)
m =1

where Vm is the rating value of m-th criteria before the normalisation. The rating value of
the first criteria:

z
a Wm Vm
V1 = ,a = F− ∑ /W1 , (13)
1−a V +1
m =2 m

Subsequently, we calculated the value (the rating is represented by a real value in

intervals [−9, −1] and [1, 9]):

−1/V1 , when V1 < 1

V̄1 (V1 ) = (14)
V1 , otherwise.
If the rating value V̄1 exceeds the maximum permissible limit of 9 points or is less
than −9 points, then this value is specified as equal to 9 or −9, depending on the situation.
The implementation of this requirement must be done in formula (13) by limiting a ≤ 0.9,
because it is the value where the rating 9 is achieved, otherwise there is a possibility for a
to obtain the negative values.
Regarding the rest of criteria, we assume that the rating values V̄i , i = 2, . . . , z are
given, according to the fundamental rating scale that is used to evaluate the weights of
criteria. Table 2 presents these criteria

Table 2. The fundamental rating scale for AHP elements assessment (based on [58]).

Rating Definition Explanation

The evidence favouring the first element over the
9 Extreme importance of the first element
second is of highest possible order of affirmation
Intermediate value between two adjacent
8 Very, very strong importance of the first element
judgments when a compromise exists
The first element is strongly favoured and its
7 Very strong or demonstrated importance of the first element
dominance is demonstrated in practice
Intermediate value between two adjacent
6 Strong plus importance of the first element
judgments when a compromise exists
Experience and judgement strongly favour the
5 Strong importance of the first element
first element over the second
Intermediate value between two adjacent
4 Moderate plus importance of the first element
judgments when a compromise exists
Experience and judgement favour a little more
3 Moderate importance of the first element
the first element over the second
Intermediate value between two adjacent
2 Weak importance of the first element
judgments when a compromise exists
1 and −1 Equal importance of the elements Both elements contribute equally to the objective
Intermediate value between two adjacent
−2 Weak importance of the second element
judgments when a compromise exists
Experience and judgement favour a little more
−3 Moderate importance of the second element
the second element over the first

43
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Table 2. Cont.

Rating Definition Explanation

Intermediate value between two adjacent
−4 Moderate plus importance of the second element
judgments when a compromise exists
Experience and judgement strongly favour the
−5 Strong importance of the second element
second element over the first
Intermediate value between two adjacent
−6 Strong plus importance of the second element
judgments when a compromise exists
Very strong or demonstrated importance of the second The second element is strongly favoured and its
−7
element dominance is demonstrated in practice
Intermediate value between two adjacent
−8 Very, very strong importance of the second element
judgments when a compromise exists
The evidence for favouring the second element
−9 Extreme importance of the second element over the first is of the highest possible order
of affirmation

We used rating scale from 1 to 9 if the first comparable criterion was more important
than the second, and from −9 to −1 if vice versa. A higher number on the rating scale
means a higher degree of criterion importance. A rating scale from 1 to 9 was used in the
standard AHP method. We extended that scale with the usage of negative values −1 to −9
for more convenient assessment of the criteria and interpretation of the obtained data.
Note that, in Formulas (12) and (13), the values Vi , i = 2, . . . , z are calculated from the
inverse function of Formula (14) which is the same function:

−1/V̄m , when V̄m < 1

Vm (V̄m ) = (15)
V̄m , otherwise.

Note that V̄m < 1 in Formula (15) means integer values from −9 to −1, however, in
Formula (14) V1 < 1 means real values from interval [1/9, 1).
The AHP assessment in the context of this research can be summarised as follows:
1. Opinion data is written to Formula (3).
2. Weights are calculated by Formulas (4)–(7).
3. The consistency ratio (11) is checked to fulfill the AHP method requirements (other-
wise the opinion data must be re-evaluated).
4. The value V̄1 representing the economic logic is calculated using Formula (14). Note
that according to formula, this criterion expresses the remaining criteria.
5. Depending on the case, the value V̄1 is converted to a monetary value, e.g., using the
scale and interpolation between scale values. See Section 4.4 for more details about
the case which was studied in this research.

3.5. The Algorithms for a Solution

The basic element of our data structure (a tree) is a node with connections to parent
and children nodes (Figure 2).
Algorithm 1 describes a data structure that includes a type of node, which can be
equal to 1 if a positive decision was made, and 0 otherwise, a tariff that is used to calculate
the costs of consulting, the price of the event and the additional price, the estimate of an
event duration, and other data.

44
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Algorithm 1: Data structure

struct {
int type; //type of the node
float p; //probability for this node to be selected by a parent
float price; //price of the event
float time; //time before the event starts
float ap; //probability of the additional cost and duration
float aprice; //additional price
float atime; //additional time
float tariff; //additional price per day
node* parent; //the pointer to parent node
vector< node* > children; //list of children
float priceTotal; //accumulated price
float timeTotal; //accumulated time
float value; //value of the expected profit of the node
float extime; //expected time of the node
string project; //reference to the project data
} node;

parent

node

child
1
child
2 ... child m

Figure 2. The relations between a node and its parent and children nodes (the picture was taken
from [4]).

The details of the fields are provided in paper [17]. The field project describes a
reference to the project data; in practical implementation, it can be a name of the file with
the required data. We will also use algorithms from the mentioned work to define the
solving procedure, more specifically function CalcPars from Algorithm 1, CalcValues from
Algorithm 2. Algorithm 2 presents the general calculation procedure. Here, ReadTree
defines the procedure for reading the tree data from the given input that is defined by the
variable data. GenerateScales returns the list of the possible mappings of rating values to
the monetary price values.

Algorithm 2: The general calculation procedure

input : data
output : Array of functions F
tree = ReadTree(data);
mappings = GenerateScales(data);
for each scale p in mappings do
ApplyAHP(tree, data, p);
CalcPars(tree);
CalcValues(tree);
P = {};
CollectProjectValues(tree, P);
F.add(P);
end

45
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

The mapping p can be seen as a function describing the dependency of the monetary
price values on rating values, since, later in Algorithm 3, the interpolation procedure is
applied. The array P represents the evaluations of all projects in the tree with a given
mapping p. Such evaluations are collected in the array functions F, where we assume that
method add adds a single point for each function in the array.
Algorithms 3 and 4 both use typical preorder tree traversal to reach the leaves of the
tree and apply the necessary operations to them—the AHP method in Algorithm 4 and
collection of the project values as a final output in Algorithm 3.

Algorithm 3: Sensitivity analysis procedure

Function CollectProjectValues(node, P)
if node.project! = NULL then
P[node.name] = node.value;
end
if node.children! = NULL then
for each node t in node.children do
CollectProjectValues(t);
end
end
end

Algorithm 4: The algorithm for the application of AHP to the tree

Function ApplyAHP(node,data,p)
if node.project! = NULL then
evaluate v from AHP parameters from data according to formula (14);
evaluate node.value by interpolating at the point v using mapping p;
end
if node.children! = NULL then
for each node t in node.children do
ApplyAHP(t);
end
end
end

4. Case Study: The Modelling of Investor’s Behaviour

4.1. The Description of the Case
In this section, we briefly introduce the case and apply the previously described
methodology to that case, more specifically, the general procedure from Algoritm 2 was
applied. Algorithms are described by pseudo-code that can be easily converted using any
general purpose programming language, like Python, Java, etc., depending on the needs of
integrating this logic into existing systems or other reasons for the language preferences.
In this research, the algorithms were implemented using C++ solely for the purposes of
this research without any support of user interface or any other advanced features for the
general user.
The case study was chosen as an empirical research method to demonstrate how
algorithms work by applying them to a real-life example, i.e., the type the case study
is illustrative in this research. The case study examines a real-life individual building
project that was implemented in Vilnius, Lithuania. An individual residential house project
with a usable area of 167.84 square meters was chosen as an example. It is very close to
typical housing. For comparison: in Lithuania in 2019, the average usable living space in
an individual house was 136.2 square meters, while in an apartment it was 57.3 square
meters [85]. In the considered case, the old roof was removed and a new one was installed.
Thus, this is a reconstruction project involving the installation of roof structures, which
is the modelled process in this research. The reconstruction project in the presented case
faced problems that are typical when the investor is a person, not a company. For example,
46
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

it was necessary to adapt the project to meet the investor’s requirements, paying special
attention to the professional installation of the roof. The work performance was inspected
by hired consultants and supervisors, who identified errors and helped to correct them.
The possible alternatives for the roof implementation of this project were examined and
presented in the decision tree as eight different projects, which were also evaluated using
the AHP method. Groups of stakeholder were also identified, and their influence on project
progress and decision-making were taken into account.
The roof installation projects were considered as a separate case of construction
projects. The implementation of such projects covers the typical stages of construction
projects [86]—feasibility, design, construction, and the beginning of the operation. Note
that the selected illustrative case is a separate case of construction projects, which is a part
of the real estate. Besides the mentioned case, the proposed model is suitable for a wide
range of other projects within the real estate life cycle. Moreover, the methodology can be
easily expanded to cover other types of projects, such as R&D projects, which support the
return to the previous stages (for example, after testing stage) [87]—for that purpose, the
cyclic expansion algorithm can be used [4].
Note that the considered case of roof installation projects does not represent all possible
construction projects, and the projects must share these main properties:
1. The pool of possible construction solutions must be well-defined in order to define
the leaves of the decision tree.
2. The investor must have the leading developers role, i.e., he must initialise the project
and lead the process of the project implementation. The involvement of additional
stakeholders might change the role of the investor making some possible decisions in
the tree obsolete, the decision strategy might become trivial from the investor’s point
of view, and such modelling might become not useful.
There are no major limitations other than those listed above, for hypothetical possibil-
ity to apply the discussed approach to the projects modelling, as long as the process can
be described as a Markov process, which is a very general way of process formalisation.
Problems to apply the technique may arise because some of the cases might require a lot of
information to be defined in order to fill the decision tree by possible events.

4.2. The Application of the Proposed Approach to the Case Study

During the project implementation, there are many decisions to be made by different
project participants; however, in the context of the current research, the only the decisions
made by investors were considered. Additionally, in this study, we analyse the small
scale construction project, which implies the limited set of the decisions for the considered
case. The peculiarity of other projects could greatly affect the decisions and their order,
potentially creating a more complex graph of dependencies between decisions.
The investor must decide whether or not to carry out the roof reconstruction project,
taking into account the potential losses if nothing is done. He also makes decisions
regarding whether or not to hire consultants and supervisors. The investor can choose a
building design company from options marked with the letters “A” and “B”. The different
roof installation projects to be selected are marked with the letters “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”,
“E”, “F”, “G”, and “H”. The construction companies are connected to each of the projects
according to the planned works, and they are marked “AA”, “AB”, “BA”, “BB”, “CA”,
“CB”, “DA”, “DB”, “EA”, “EB”, “FA”, “FB”, “GA”, “GB”, “HA”, and “HB”. The supply
companies are connected to the construction site of intended construction companies and
they are marked “AAS”, “ABS”, “BAS”, “BBS”, “CAS”, “CBS”, “DAS”, “DBS”, “EAS”,
“EBS”, “FAS”, “FBS”, “GAS”, “GBS”, “HAS”, and “HBS” (Figure 3). We provide all
decisions in the Table 3, where we sort them in the order in which they must be performed.
The decision tree scheme for selecting the best project (Figure 3) presents the chances
of failure or success of a project execution, and the decisions that are related to the different
stages of the project. Three types of nodes were used:

47
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

1. Decision nodes which are represented by rectangle shapes.

2. Chance nodes represented by circles.
3. End nodes represented by triangles.

Table 3. A description of the investor’s decisions that form the basis of the decision tree.

The Order Description of the Investor’s Decisions

1 Decision whether to implement the project
2 Decision whether to hire the consultants and supervisor
Decisions whether to select the building design company “A” or “B”
3
for the branches of the decision tree with or without consulting
Decisions whether to select the medium-cost project from a set of projects
4
“A”, “C”, “E”, “G” or expensive project from a set of projects “B”, “D”, “F”, “H”
Decisions whether to select the construction company “AA” or “AB” for the
project “A”;
“BA” or “BB” for the project “B”; “CA” or “CB” for the project “C”;
5
“DA” or “DB” for the project “D”; “EA” or “EB” for the project “E”;
“FA” or “FB” for the project “F”; “GA” or “GB” for the project “G”;
“HA” or “HB” for the project “H”
Decisions whether to select the supply company “AAS” or “ABS” for
construction company “AA”;
“AAS” or “ABS” for construction company “AB”; “BAS” or “BBS” for
construction company “BA”;
“BAS” or “BBS” for construction company “BB”; “CAS” or “CBS” for
construction company “CA”;
“CAS” or “CBS” for construction company “CB”; “DAS” or “DBS” for
construction company “DA”;
6 “DAS” or “DBS” for construction company “DB”; “EAS” or “EBS” for
construction company “EA”;
“EAS” or “EBS” for construction company “EB”; “FAS” or “FBS” for
construction company “FA”;
“FAS” or “FBS” for construction company “FB”; “GAS” or “GBS” for
construction company “GA”;
“GAS” or “GBS” for construction company “GB”; “HAS” or “HBS” for
construction company “HA”;
“HAS” or “HBS” for construction company “HB”
Decisions whether to sell the object of the project,
7
based on the results of applying the AHP method

It is worth mentioning that the decisions are performed based on the values of the
nodes in a tree; these values are computed as a probabilistic expectation by Formula (2).
This means that the dynamic programming method allows for indirectly including the
AHP evaluation into the whole tree, i.e., the criteria to decide are the ones that are used in
AHP method.
The AHP output for the tree is represented by a single value; however, this value is
not necessarily the actual price of the object—it is the result of the evaluation of all criteria
that are included into AHP method. For example, the criteria that are connected to the
environment might raise the value in the eyes of the investor, as a result—the values on the
leaves change, followed by changes of the solution of the dynamic programming method,
which could affect the decision to select the consultants. Next, the actual criteria that are
included in the analysis will be discussed.

48
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Figure 3. The decision tree scheme fragment for construction projects selection.

4.3. Criteria
The criteria for AHP method were selected based on the results of the article [17]. The
main difference of current research is that one of these criteria (the criterion of compliance
with the economic logic) is very special—it varies depending on the scale, and we consider a
series of scales in order to perform the sensitivity analysis. Additionally, in this section, we

49
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

provide deeper insight of the dependence of the criterion of compliance with the economic
logic on the rest. These four criteria were selected:
1. The criterion of compliance with the psychological and social needs (situation of
neighborhood, habitual place, status, lifestyle, appearance, romanticism, and history).
2. The criterion of compliance with the economic logic including an assessment of the
object price.
3. The criterion of compliance with the strategic (political) objectives including an as-
sessment of the investor’s plans—whether the object will be rented, sold, or used
for living.
4. The criterion of compliance with the best location option—best location option in-
cluding an assessment of the site quality, accessibility, and amenities of public and
private service.
It is notable that the selected criteria fit into the general sustainability categories (see
Figure 4): Economic (compliance with the economic logic), Social (compliance with the
psychological and social logic), and Environmental (compliance with the best location
option) [88].

The criterion of compliance

with the psychological and
social needs

Social

Sustainable
Sus
ustainab
us able
ab

Economic Environmental

The criterion of The criterion of

compliance with the compliance with the
economic logic best location option

Figure 4. Sustainability categories for different criteria.

The selected criteria are weighted using a rating scale from 1 to 9 if the first comparable
criterion is more important than the second, and from −9 to −1 if vice versa.
The investor compared the selected criteria according to their importance in choosing
the best roof installation project, thus determining the weight of each criterion. Table 4
presents this assessment.

50
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Table 4. Comparison table for weights of the criteria.

Criteria for Comparison Importance and Intensity

Compliance with the psychological and social needs −3
vs. Compliance with economic logic
Compliance with the psychological and social needs −3
vs. Compliance with strategic objectives
Compliance with the psychological and social needs 2
vs. Compliance with best location option
Compliance with economic logic −1
vs. Compliance with strategic objectives
Compliance with economic logic 5
vs. Compliance with best location option
Compliance with strategic objectives 5
vs. Compliance with best location option

The data from Table 4 are entered into the Formulas (3)–(7) according to AHP method.
After applying these formulas, the weights of the criteria were compared and normalised;
Table 5 presents the obtained results. Note that the consistency ratio (11) in that case is
equal to 0.001541.

Table 5. Weights for the criteria.

Compliance with the

Compliance with Compliance with Compliance with Best
Criteria Psychological and
Economic Logic Strategic Objectives Location Option
Social Needs
Weights 0.1376 0.3935 0.3935 0.0754

The criteria for selecting projects were assessed using a rating value from 1 to 9 if the
investor wanted to sell the project and from −9 to −1 if the sale was undesirable.
At this point, we assume that the evaluations of all ratings of criteria are known, with
the exception of the compliance with the economic logic, i.e., we model a situation when
this single parameter could differ, depending on various conditions, and the rest of values
are fixed. We derive the single case where that value is such that the decision is on the
edge, i.e., the weighted scores for both alternatives are equal, and they are equal to 0.5.
Thus, the value of criterion of compliance with the economic logic is calculated from the
rest of criteria, assuming that both alternatives whether to sell the object or not have the
same weighted scores 0.5. In order to illustrate the dependency of the compliance with the
economic logic (the main criteria) on the rest of criteria, we chose the same values for all
three of them. Figure 5 presents the result function. The graph shows how the points of
compliance with the economic logic criterion decrease as the rest of the criteria rise, i.e., for
a better project, the calculated price (estimated according to the economic logic) is worse. It
is also worth mentioning that, due to the AHP method restrictions, we have a maximum of
assessment, which is nine points. It means that both of the alternatives are not necessarily
equal anymore, and it leads to a natural restriction of the proposed approach.

51
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

5DWLQJYDOXHIRUWKHFULWHULRQRIHFRQRPLFORJLF

(QWHUHGUDWLQJYDOXHVIRUWKHUHVWRIFULWHULD

Figure 5. The dependency function of the compliance with the economic logic on the rest of criteria.

Table 6 presents the investor’s assessment of the compliance of A-H projects criteria
with psychological and social needs, strategic objectives and best location. The criterion
of compliance with economic logic was calculated on the basis of the assessment of the
above criteria using Formulas (12)–(14); it is shown at the bottom of Table 6. Here, it should
be noted that, due to the restrictions of the AHP method when the investor evaluates the
criteria as more appropriate for alternative do not to sell the project, and the scores are
negative below the limits, the values of the economic logic criterion are nine points.

Table 6. THe assessment of the criteria by the investor (decision whether to sell the object).

Values of Projects Criteria

Criteria
A B C D E F G H
Compliance with the psychological
−3 −9 −3 −9 −3 −9 −3 −9
and social needs
Compliance with strategic objectives −2 −5 −1 −4 −3 −6 −2 -5
Compliance with best location option 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Compliance with economic logic,
points from AHP 2.6 9 1.25 9 4.14 9 2.6 9
when both alternatives are equal

4.4. The Sensitivity Analysis

This section presents the parametrisation of the investor’s behaviour and sensitivity
analysis of the AHP method. Sensitivity analysis helps to assess the robustness of the
decision. We propose modelling the investor’s behaviour using a special linking of the
rating scale to the monetary values, describing the influence of the property on the individ-
ual’s decision. We show how to integrate that mapping into the model and evaluate the
obtained results.
The model was initially developed for a single investor. Thus, possible changes in the
assessment or parameters that will occur if the number of the investors increases are taken
into account.
For the sensitivity analysis, we introduce different mappings of the ratings scale to
the monetary values of project prices, as presented in Table 7. For the sake of simplicity,
we use a single parameter describing the differences between mappings—a multiplier
which ranges from 0.2 to 2 with a step of 0.2; the values in the table are proportional to that
52
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

multiplier. The investor has estimated project prices that correspond to the maximum and
minimum ratings when the multiplier is equal to one. The rating scale is the result of the
investor’s survey. In our case, the investor agreed that the project intermediate prices will
be determined by linear interpolation and assigned to the remaining ratings of the scale.

Table 7. The mappings of the scale to monetary values of the project for economic criteria.

Multiplier of the Scale Mapping and the Corresponding Monetary Values in Euros
Scale
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
9 8000 16,000 24,000 32,000 40,000 48,000 56,000 64,000 72,000 80,000
8 7625 15,250 22,875 30,500 38,125 45,750 53,375 61,000 68,625 76,250
7 7250 14,500 21,750 29,000 36,250 43,500 50,750 58,000 65,250 72,500
6 6875 13,750 20,625 27,500 34,375 41,250 48,125 55,000 61,875 68,750
5 6500 13,000 19,500 26,000 32,500 39,000 45,500 52,000 58,500 65,000
4 6125 12,250 18,375 24,500 30,625 36,750 42,875 49,000 55,125 61,250
3 5750 11,500 17,250 23,000 28,750 34,500 40,250 46,000 51,750 57,500
2 5375 10,750 16,125 21,500 26,875 32,250 37,625 43,000 48,375 53,750
1 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
−1 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
−2 4625 9250 13,875 18,500 23,125 27,750 32,375 37,000 41,625 46,250
−3 4250 8500 12,750 17,000 21,250 25,500 29,750 34,000 38,250 42,500
−4 3875 7750 11,625 15,500 19,375 23,250 27,125 31,000 34,875 38,750
−5 3500 7000 10,500 14,000 17,500 21,000 24,500 28,000 31,500 35,000
−6 3125 6250 9375 12,500 15,625 18,750 21,875 25,000 28,125 31,250
−7 2750 5500 8250 11,000 13,750 16,500 19,250 22,000 24,750 27,500
−8 2375 4750 7125 9500 11,875 14,250 16,625 19,000 21,375 23,750
−9 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

In Table 8, we present the market prices of projects A–H, which, in the decision tree, are
compared with the prices that are determined by the AHP method based on the investor’s
subjective opinion. The market prices for the roof projects A–H were determined on the
basis of an expert’s assessment, while taking into account statistical indicators and the fact
that the roof area of all projects was 63.2 square meters, the geographical location of the
building was also identical, and the price varied due to the differences of roof and attic
layout, materials, finishing, comfort, and design features. The detailed procedure of market
pricing is outside the scope of our study and, therefore, is not presented in this paper.

Table 8. Market prices of the investigated roof installation projects to be used in the decision tree.

Projects
Criteria
A B C D E F G H
Market price for sale (b) 27,313 42,341 28,468 43,501 16,326 80,231 27,486 41,401

Figure 6 shows the data that were obtained by solving the decision tree in the presence
of various multipliers. Data on the values of projects for the investor were entered into the
relevant end nodes of the decision tree. These values are determined by interpolating the
monetary values from Table 7 at the points of the scores of the criterion of the economic
logic value from Table 6. The market prices of the projects, which are presented in Table 8,
were also entered into the relevant end nodes of the decision tree.
53
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

3URILWORVVLQ(XURV

%
&
'
(
)
*
+

6FDOHPDSSLQJPXOWLSOLHU

Figure 6. The best options of the projects A-H according to the investor.

As the scale changes, the results obtained in the decision tree for each project change
differently, as can be seen from Figure 6. Initially, when the values of the multipliers
are small, the main factors influencing the final result are the market price and project
implementation costs; a little later, when the multipliers increase, the value for the investor
exceeds the market price, and causes a breaking point on the graph. As the multiplier
continues to increase, the final result is determined by the investor’s subjective opinion
and the cost of the project. Here, it is possible to find points of lines intersection where
the monetary value of some different projects is the same. Analysis of the changes in the
investor’s subjective opinion is useful in the selection of parameters for scale mapping, in
assessment how the final result depends on the chosen scale. The results of this analysis
can be used to determine the price of the project and reconcile the stakeholders’ interests.
Depending on the investor’s subjective opinion about the value of the project, brokers can
make attractive offers to the investor that would lead to the sale of the project outcomes, if
there is a corresponding need.
It is worth mentioning that the horizontal parts of the curves represent the cases when
the decision to sell the project is made. With the mapping multiplier 1 and lower, the
investor decides to select the project F and sell it, as can be seen from Figure 7. However,
with higher values the decision not to sell the project is made, the results might differ,
depending on value of the mapping multiplier: with values 1.2 and 1.4, A and G projects
are selected, both having very similar values (A has approximately 0.7% higher values).
This behaviour of changes in decision can be interpreted as:
1. Lower values of scale mapping mean a greater tendency to sell the project rather than
not to.
2. When choosing the project with lower values for sale, the project F is the best option.
3. Higher mapping values mean the investor’s bigger tolerance to the higher costs, thus
he tends not to sell the project.
4. With values 1.2 and 1.4 the investor selects the medium-cost project, but does not
sell it.
5. As the scale multiplier raise, the investor chooses to invest in expensive project and
not to sell it.

4.5. An Example of Case Assessment Made by Independent Expert

Up to this point, decisions were made solely on the basis of the investor’s opinion. In
the context of the research, one investor is sufficient for performng the analysis, because it
is necessary to analyse his behaviour. In other words, there is no need to aggregate the data
of multiple experts’ opinion, as it is useful to do for an estimation of some objects, where

54
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

multiple opinions give a better and less subjective picture—in the case of the considered
situation we want to assess the effect of investor’s subjective opinion. However, in order
to estimate the possible changes in the results in the case of the radical changes during
the implementation of the project, such as the change of the investor, we had to consider
all of the steps affected by the investor. What we assumed up to the point is that the
mapping of the scale to the monetary values will change; however, it is obvious that the
whole assessment could also change. Here, all possible parts of the model, affected by such
changes, will be taken into account, and, for this purpose, to achieve, we will briefly follow
all of the necessary steps.
A person with five years of experience in the field of construction marketing was
selected as an independent expert. Further, we assume that the expert assesses the situation
from the investor’s point of view. Note that we do not want to enrich the results of the
assessment of the considered case; instead, we provide an illustration of what needs to
be changed if the investor changes. Further, we will provide the following steps that are
needed for modification:
1. The independent expert compares the criteria for weights determination (analogically
to Table 4). All of the criteria are rated as equally important, i.e., by 1 point.
2. Using AHP, the weights (Table 5) for criteria are calculated. The weights of the criteria
in this case are the same and equal to 0.25.
3. Table 6 is re-evaluated by the expert, the results are provided in Table 9.
4. The table, analogous to Table 7, is filled according to the new opinion. It is important to
note, that every field in it can be evaluated individually, however, it can be simplified
as it was done already—the interpolation can be applied to form the base mapping,
and the multiplier can produce the rest of mappings. We interpolated between two
values to create the base mapping; the results are provided in Table 10.
5. Based on the achieved results, the new set of curves describing the dependency of
profit/loss on the scale mappings are produced; the results are provided in Figure 7.

3URILWORVVLQ(XURV

$
%

&
'
(

)
*

+

6FDOHPDSSLQJPXOWLSOLHU

Figure 7. The best options of the projects A-H according to the expert.

With the mapping multiplier 0.8 and higher, the expert selects project A, as can be
seen from Figure 7. The result shows that the expert’s decision in favour of selecting project
A and not selling the project is robust, and it does not change with higher multiplier values.
However, with lower multiplier values, the expert decides to select the project F and sell it.

55
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

Table 9. Criteria assessment made by the expert (decision whether to sell the object).

Values of the Projects Criteria

Criteria
A B C D E F G H
Compliance with psychological and social needs −2 1 1 1 2 5 3 7
Compliance with strategic objectives 1 2 2 2 −2 5 2 3
Compliance with best location option −2 −2 1 −2 −2 5 1 3
Compliance with economic logic, points from AHP
5 1 −2 1 2 −9 −9 −9
when both alternatives are equal

Table 10. The mappings of the scale to monetary values of the project for economic criteria (based on expert’s opinion).

Multiplier of the Scale Mapping and the Corresponding Monetary Values in Euros
Scale
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
9 10,200 20,400 30,600 40,800 51,000 61,200 71,400 81,600 91,800 102,000
8 9793.75 19,587.5 29,381.25 39,175 48,968.75 58,762.5 68,556.25 78,350 88,143.75 97,937.5
7 9387.5 18,775 28,162.5 37,550 46,937.5 56,325 65,712.5 75,100 84,487.5 93,875
6 8981.25 17,962.5 26,943.75 35,925 44,906.25 53,887.5 62,868.75 71,850 80,831.25 89,812.5
5 8575 17,150 25,725 34,300 42,875 51,450 60,025 68,600 77,175 85,750
4 8168.75 16,337.5 24,506.25 32,675 40,843.75 49,12.5 57,181.25 65,350 73,518.75 81,687.5
3 7762.5 15,525 23,287.5 31,050 38,812.5 46,575 54,337.5 62,100 69,862.5 77,625
2 7356.25 14,712.5 22,068.75 29,425 36,781.25 44,137.5 51,493.75 58,850 66,206.25 73,562.5
1 6950 13,900 20,850 27,800 34,750 41,700 48,650 55,600 62,550 69,500
−1 6950 13,900 20,850 27,800 34,750 41,700 48,650 55,600 62,550 69,500
−2 6543.75 13,087.5 19,631.25 26,175 32,718.75 39,262.5 45,806.25 52,350 58,893.75 65,437.5
−3 6137.5 12,275 18,412.5 24,550 30,687.5 36,825 42,962.5 49,100 55,237.5 61,375
−4 5731.25 11,462.5 17,193.75 22,925 28,656.25 34,387.5 40,118.75 45,850 51,581.25 57,312.5
−5 5325 10,650 15,975 21,300 26,625 31,950 37,275 42,600 47,925 53,250
−6 4918.75 9837.5 14,756.25 19,675 24,593.75 29,512.5 34,431.25 39,350 44,268.75 49,187.5
−7 4512.5 9025 13,537.5 18,050 22,562.5 27,075 31,587.5 36,100 40,612.5 45,125
−8 4106.25 8212.5 12,318.75 16,425 20,531.25 24,637.5 28,743.75 32,850 36,956.25 41,062.5
−9 3700 7400 11,100 14,800 18,500 22,200 25,900 29,600 33,300 37,000

4.6. The Application of the Model to Other Cases

Up to this point, it was focused on the selected case study that was used as a tool to
demonstrate the proposed ideas. However, the modelling approach provides a powerful
way to deal with a wide range of situations. Here are some key points that the applicator
must take into account:
• The process being modelled must be described as a Markov process.
• All possible scenarios in different process states must be evaluated by the probabilities
of their occurrence.
• The dependencies between states must form a tree, so, in some cases, some redundant
information must be included (i.e., the structure of the tree branch is identical in both
cases: either the consultant will be selected or not). However, there is an important
feature—the model supports some process costs that occur as additional costs with
some probabilities, it can be added directly without the duplication of some branches
of a tree.

56
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

• The pool of projects must be formed with an appropriate assessment of each of them
via AHP method.
• If one would like to an add additional parametrisation of the project, he should
consider every set of parameters (e.g., some quality parameters) as a separate project
entity and then add it as a leaf to the tree together with the needed branch.
• As was mentioned above, s wide variety of decisions can be added and the proposed
algorithms are absolutely compatible with as many decision choices from the single
state as needed, i.e., there is no requirement for the tree to be binary.
• The mappings of the scale to the monetary values are decisive for the outcome of
the modelling. Thus, these mappings must be carefully thought of before the final
sensitivity analysis.

5. Discussion
After studying a joint derivative of the Decision Tree and AHP methods, it was found
that a combination of these methods can be used for project assessment. Although data
collection and modelling is quite labour-intensive, the development of a model template
opens up a wide range of possibilities for project assessment, exploiting the potential of
information technology and remote working.
It was found that the rating values for the economic criterion, which were obtained
using the AHP method, sometimes exceed the limits that are set by AHP method (i.e., the
maximum score according to the considered scale is 9). This happens, for example, in the
case when the rest of criteria have the same rating, and when the rating values for the
remaining criteria reach −3.1588 points. This situation is typical for expensive projects,
when the investor tends not to sell the results of the project, i.e., the economic criterion
rating exceeds the maximum value in the rating scale—in such a case, the maximum value
will be used.
When modelling the investor’s behavior, it is necessary to examine his opinion in
detail, as well as to know the real estimate of the project, which also poses certain difficulties.
On the one hand, in order to solve this problem, the examples of known projects that are
similar in content and value can be used; on the other hand, many typical projects can be
created and their data can be applied to the model.
The methodology that was considered in the article, which combines AHP and deci-
sion tree methods, solves the problem of the selection of the most suitable project. As a
part of the methodology, it was introduced a sensitivity analysis, which enables taking the
investors’ different opinions into account. Such sensitivity analysis shows how sensitive
the possible decisions are, depending on changes of the situation (e.g., if the investor
changes)—it is dedicated to the analysis of the robustness of decisions.
In this research, different options of medium-cost and expensive roofing projects were
examined. The costs of all roof elements and project activities were provided and applied
according to the methodology; these values were used in the decision tree. The AHP
method was used to estimate the investor’s subjective opinion.
It is notable to mention that the criteria for the AHP method were selected in ac-
cordance with the principles of sustainability, more specifically—the main categories of
sustainability: social, environmental, and economic. The proposed approach was applied
to estimate how one of the parameters (the economic one) reacts to changes of the rest
parameters, provided that the assessment by the AHP method is on the edge between two
decisions for two alternatives. In this research, we examined variations of mappings, which
directly affected the economic criterion. The economic criterion is derived from the rest of
criteria, thus the analysis can be extended by additional modification of the rest of criteria,
which would greatly expand the analysis; however, from a methodological point of view,
the current method does not need any modifications.
The considered case study has the primary typical attributes of building projects, thus
we assume that it is sufficient to demonstrate the proposed approach. We believe that
this approach can be applied to other cases—it is a topic for future research. Moreover,

57
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

investor’s and independent expert’s opinions were used to produce a base mapping of the
scale to the monetary values. The rest of the scales were derived using a simple multiplier
representing different opinions, which was applied to a simple linear interpolation of the
monetary values. Thus, the logical addition would be to use different scales without clear
dependency between them; however, it is out of scope of this research, as it would not
qualitatively improve the results—in this research, the illustrative type of the case study
was performed. The set of the decisions and their order were selected from the point of
view of the investor. Thus the set of the decisions to form the decisions strategy might
look quite limited, because the decisions performed or affected by other stakeholders are
included into probabilistic nodes and via additional costs and duration with probabilities.
It is worth mentioning that the AHP method was chosen, since it is widely used
and the explicit formula (see Formula (13)) can be derived for the required assessment.
Other methods of multi-criteria assessment can also be applied; however, it is not a
straightforward task and it needs a separate investigation. The analysed case can be directly
described as a Markov process that permits formulating the optimisation problem in order
to maximise investor’s profit—it was used to model the investor’s behaviour. The solution
of this problem was exact and it was achieved using the dynamic programming method.
Thus, as long as the modelled process was the Markov process, and the computations were
performed in the reasonable time, there was no reason to analyse any other methods to
solve that optimisation problem. The AHP method gives the assessment of the economic
criterion for the decision tree method; the usage of the alternative multi-criteria methods
could be studied in future work.
In this research, the case covering most of the aspects that must be taken into account
when filling the model with data was analysed. The investor is individual and the project
is single. Additionally, it was assumed that the projects are well-defined, so the investor
can choose one of them that absolutely defined the constructional solutions (unless some
risks will trigger, for example, with mistakes, etc.). This means that all quality parameters
or any project specific constructional details must be bundled with one of project and used
in the model as a separate example. The considered case was a limited by a single project,
the decisions were made using the probabilistic expectation values according to dynamic
programming method that was defined by Formula (2), which can be altered to estimate the
risks in a non-linear way. However, if the investor considers the pool of projects forming a
possible portfolio, then the diversification of the investment can lead to a better tolerance
to the possible risks, making the mentioned expectation values more suitable for the needs
of the investor.
The main stakeholder in this research is the investor; thus, for the reader, it might
create the suspicion that this research is dedicated to some sort of a tool for the investor.
However, the mentioned sensitivity analysis considers the investor as a part of the model
that might be prone to the changes, so the proposed techniques are potentially useful for
any stakeholder who want to analyse the possible scenarios and changes. For example,
the building design company might be interested to analyse what do investor choose and
under which conditions, for example, if the investor tends to choose some specific type of
projects, the company might want to prepare more variations for this type of projects.
The conducted research is not oriented to investor’s needs; however, the investor
might find the discussed techniques useful for:
1. including the possible changes of priorities, financial abilities, etc., into risk assess-
ment routines; and,
2. getting recommendations for selection of the consultants and supervisors, companies
of building design, construction, and supply, also different roof installation projects.
Summarising, the topic of such analysis of possible changes is important for hypothet-
ical usage, for example, for these stakeholders:
• By investors to include the information into their risk assessment and obtain some
recommendations.
• By building design or construction companies to improve their pool of potential projects.
58
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

• By government to model how possible restrictions might affect the priorities of investors.
• The representatives of interested community might be interested in predictable suc-
cessful project implementation as a part of sustainable city development, so the lack of
decision robustness might indicate an important information for these stakeholders.
Note that the exact procedure of how to apply the results in the mentioned cases is up
for discussion, and it is out of scope of this research.
As it was already mentioned in introduction, the AHP application assumes that the
criteria are evaluated by individual; thus, the current approach is limited to dealing with
an opinion of a single evaluator. Thus, the reader should not try to apply it to some study
where the collective evaluation is needed by the group of experts. This research considers
the opposite—taking the bias of the individual investor into account in the case when the
type of project implies the assessment by a single person. Certainly, it can be assumed
that the evaluation made by that individual is performed with the help (consultations)
of some sort experts; however, technically it is not important for the methods in the
current research.
In the context of this research, the AHP assessment is dedicated to the decisions on
whether to sell the project or not, which directly reflects the opinion of the investor about
that project: if in the eyes of the investor the project is not worth the price, then he will tend
to sell it. In the case when some of the criteria are very important for the investor, the value
of the project will exceed the value of the price—here, the word “value” stands to represent
the evaluation of the project or the money (this value might depend on the richness of the
investor) that can be earned from it. The fact of the direct comparison between these two
values might create the illusion that only the actual object price is included into decision
directly; however, the value that comes from the AHP assessment has nothing to do with
the actual price of the object—in fact, it is the opposite, it represents all of the remaining
criteria and does not include any direct information about the market prices or the prices
of materials, etc. In other words, the comparison in the nodes is a comparison between the
actual price, which does not depend on the investor’s opinion and the value of the rest
criteria that is scaled, so it could be comparable to the value of the price. Thus, all of the
criteria are directly included into the decision via AHP method. However, the evaluation
of the rest of the decisions is derived from the last decision (to sell or not), so it is up for
discussion as to whether the criteria should affect those decisions in the same manner as
they do on the decision to sell the object or not. For example, the importance of hiring
consultants might be driven by the importance of some criteria to a greater degree that it is
in the case of the decision to sell the object. The proposed approach is unable to include
a special role for different criteria for intermediate decisions directly, it needs a special
analysis to identify the necessity for support of such decisions and the way to implement
them—this could lead to the potential improvement of the proposed model; however, it is
out of scope of the current research.

6. Conclusions
It was shown that different mappings influence the project assessment differently,
leading to changes in the best project selection. It was found that, with a small map-
ping multiplier, more expensive projects were unprofitable, with the exception of E and
F projects.
The effect of the investor’s and the independent expert’s subjective opinion on the
selection of the best project was visualised. The obtained results are visually presented
in the form of graphs (Figures 6 and 7). The graphs of the dependence of the projects
assessment results on the special mapping of the ratings scale helped to understand the
situation of the most appropriate project selection. It showed how close the potential
projects were to each other in terms of the assessment, which was directly used for the
selection of the best project. The visualisation of the obtained results can be useful in
forecasting the investor’s behaviour during project development and in negotiations for
the sale of project outcomes.

59
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

After examining the results of the decisions tree, it was found that more expensive
project F was the most attractive with a multiplier of 1. Project F, due to its design features,
was rated significantly better from a market perspective than other more expensive projects.
With multiplier values from 1.1 to 1.6, the profit value of this project was lower than the
values of some other projects; in other cases, project F was more profitable. The medium-
cost project E was rated badly by the market—it was not profitable to sell it, although the
investor with some multiplier values rated it as the most suitable for him in comparison
with other medium-cost projects. The independent expert’s opinion was also evaluated.
The expert’s decisions differed from the investor’s opinion—if multipliers were higher than
0.7, then the expert selected project A, but, if the multiplier was less than 0.7, both opinions
almost coincided. A small increase in project implementation costs can affect the project
selection—this means a possible lack of the robustness of the project decisions may appear.
The analysed methodology can be generalised for application to other project selec-
tion problems, not only for implementation of roofing projects. For the application, it is
necessary to take the specifics of the projects, the costs of certain types of activities, the
probabilities, the possible losses, the factors that affect the system, and the possible patterns
of the process participants’ behaviour into account. It is also worth considering the amount
of time for project preparation and implementation, because, in some cases, this factor can
be extremely important.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, A.M. and O.R.Š.; Data curation, A.M. and A.B.; Formal
analysis, T.V.; Investigation, O.R.Š. and T.V.; Methodology, A.M., A.B. and O.R.Š.; Resources, A.M.
and A.B.; Software, A.B.; Supervision, O.R.Š.; Validation, A.M. and A.B.; Visualisation, O.R.Š. and
T.V.; Writing—original draft, A.M.; Writing—review & editing, A.B. and T.V. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Issa, U.H.; Mosaad, S.A.; Hassan, M.S. Evaluation and selection of construction projects based on risk analysis. In Structures;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 27, pp. 361–370.
2. Edjossan-Sossou, A.M.; Galvez, D.; Deck, O.; Al Heib, M.; Verdel, T.; Dupont, L.; Chery, O.; Camargo, M.; Morel, L. Sustainable
risk management strategy selection using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 45, 101474.
[CrossRef]
3. Kalra, N.; Hallegatte, S.; Lempert, R.; Brown, C.; Fozzard, A.; Gill, S.; Shah, A. Agreeing on Robust Decisions: New Processes for
Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
4. Bugajev, A.; Šostak, O. An algorithm for modelling the impact of the judicial conflict-resolution process on construction
investment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 182. [CrossRef]
5. Khan, A.S.; Pruncu, C.I.; Khan, R.; Naeem, K.; Ghaffar, A.; Ashraf, P.; Room, S. A Trade-Off Analysis of Economic and
Environmental Aspects of a Disruption Based Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7056. [CrossRef]
6. Pedersen, S.; Gangås, K.E.; Chetri, M.; Andreassen, H.P. Economic Gain vs. Ecological Pain—Environmental Sustainability in
Economies Based on Renewable Biological Resources. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3557. [CrossRef]
7. Kamali, F.P.; Borges, J.A.; Meuwissen, M.P.; de Boer, I.J.; Lansink, A.G.O. Sustainability assessment of agricultural systems: The
validity of expert opinion and robustness of a multi-criteria analysis. Agric. Syst. 2017, 157, 118–128. [CrossRef]
8. Muñoz, B.; Romana, M.G.; Ordóñez, J. Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Decision Making Methodology Developed for
Selection of Typologies of Earth-retaining Walls in an Urban Highway. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 18, 135–139. [CrossRef]
9. Hughes, W.; Murdoch, J.R. Roles in Construction Projects: Analysis and Terminology; Construction Industry Publications:
Birmingham, UK, 2001.
10. Chitkara, K. Construction Project Management; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NT, USA, 1998.
11. Banaitiene, N.; Banaitis, A. Risk management in construction projects. Risk Management–Current Issues and Challenges. In Risk
Management–Current Issues and Challenges; Banaitiene, N., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 429–448.

60
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

12. Clough, R.H.; Sears, G.A.; Sears, S.K. Construction Project Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000.
13. Phoya, S.; Pietrzyk, K. Holistic view on multi-stakeholders’ influence on health and safety risk management in construction
projects in Tanzania. In Risk Management in Construction Projects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019.
14. Alothaimeen, I.; Arditi, D. Overview of multi-objective optimization approaches in construction project management. In
Multicriteria Optimization-Pareto-Optimality and Threshold-Optimality; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019.
15. Roberts, A. Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.
16. Al-Saggaf, A.; Nasir, H.; Hegazy, T. An Analytical Hierarchy Process-based system to evaluate the life-cycle performance of
buildings at early design stage. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101364. [CrossRef]
17. Maceika, A.; Bugajev, A.; Šostak, O.R. The Modelling of Roof Installation Projects Using Decision Trees and the AHP Method.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59. [CrossRef]
18. Che, L. Investor types and stock return volatility. J. Empir. Financ. 2018, 47, 139–161. [CrossRef]
19. da Silva, R.F.; Razzolini Filho, E. Sustainability in the Decision Making Process: A Systematic Review of Literature; Universities and
Sustainable Communities: Meeting the Goals of the Agenda 2030; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 291–305.
20. Cabot, J.; Easterbrook, S.; Horkoff, J.; Lessard, L.; Liaskos, S.; Mazón, J.N. Integrating sustainability in decision-making processes:
A modelling strategy. In Proceedings of the 2009 31st International Conference on Software Engineering-Companion Volume,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 16–24 May 2009; pp. 207–210.
21. Cuadrado, J.; Zubizarreta, M.; Rojí, E.; García, H.; Larrauri, M. Sustainability-related decision making in industrial buildings: An
AHP analysis. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015. [CrossRef]
22. MacDonald, A.; Clarke, A.; Huang, L. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainability: Designing decision-making processes
for partnership capacity. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 160, 409–426. [CrossRef]
23. Beiragh, R.G.; Alizadeh, R.; Kaleibari, S.S.; Cavallaro, F.; Zolfani, S.H.; Bausys, R.; Mardani, A. An integrated multi-criteria
decision making model for sustainability performance assessment for insurance companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 789. [CrossRef]
24. European Commission.The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European
Investment Bank. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.
pdf (accessed on 13 May 2021).
25. Taha, F.F.; Hatem, W.A.; Jasim, N.A. Effectivity of BIM technology in using green energy strategies for construction projects.
Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 21, 995–1003. [CrossRef]
26. European Commission. The 11th Sustainable Development Goal. 2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/international-
partnerships/sdg/sustainable-cities-and-communities_en (accessed on 13 May 2021).
27. European Commission. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
28. GPM, G. Insights into Sustainable Project Management. 2019. Available online: https://greenprojectmanagement.org/2019
-insights-into-sustainable-project-management (accessed on 1 December 2020).
29. Morioka, S.N.; Bolis, I.; Evans, S.; Carvalho, M.M. Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage: Multiple
case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 723–738. [CrossRef]
30. Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Terzi, S. Towards Circular Business Models: A systematic literature review on classification frameworks
and archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117696. [CrossRef]
31. Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [CrossRef]
32. Kudratova, S.; Huang, X.; Kudratov, K.; Qudratov, S. Corporate sustainability and stakeholder value trade-offs in project selection
through optimization modeling: Application of investment banking. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 815–824.
[CrossRef]
33. Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project
managers’ perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1084–1102. [CrossRef]
34. Aarseth, W.; Ahola, T.; Aaltonen, K.; Økland, A.; Andersen, B. Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature review.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1071–1083. [CrossRef]
35. Hatefi, S.M.; Tamošaitienė, J. Construction projects assessment based on the sustainable development criteria by an integrated
fuzzy AHP and improved GRA model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 991. [CrossRef]
36. French, N. Decision theory and real estate investment: An analysis of the decision-making processes of real estate investment
fund managers. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2001, 22, 399–410. [CrossRef]
37. Carbonara, S.; Stefano, D. An Operational Protocol for the Valorisation of Public Real Estate Assets in Italy. Sustainability 2020,
12, 732. [CrossRef]
38. Dobrovolskienė, N.; Tamošiūnienė, R.; Banaitis, A.; Ferreira, F.A.; Banaitienė, N.; Taujanskaitė, K.; Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I.
Developing a composite sustainability index for real estate projects using multiple criteria decision making. Oper. Res. 2019,
19, 617–635. [CrossRef]
39. Mangialardo, A.; Micelli, E.; Saccani, F. Does Sustainability Affect Real Estate Market Values? Empirical Evidence from the Office
Buildings Market in Milan (Italy). Sustainability 2019, 11, 12. [CrossRef]
40. Shojaei, P.; Haeri, S.A.S. Development of supply chain risk management approaches for construction projects: A grounded theory
approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 128, 837–850. [CrossRef]

61
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

41. Zavadskas, E.K.; Vilutienė, T.; Turskis, Z.; Šaparauskas, J. Multi-criteria analysis of Projects’ performance in construction.
Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2014, 14, 114–121. [CrossRef]
42. Hatefi, S.M.; Tamošaitienė, J. An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-fuzzy ANP model for evaluating construction projects by
considering interrelationships among risk factors. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 114–131. [CrossRef]
43. Singh, A.; Beg, I.; Kumar, S. Analytic Hierarchy Process for Hesitant Probabilistic Fuzzy Linguistic Set with Applications to
Multi-criteria Group Decision-Making Method. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 22, 1596–1606. [CrossRef]
44. Hatefi, S.M.; Basiri, M.E.; Tamošaitienė, J. An evidential model for environmental risk assessment in projects using dempster–
shafer theory of evidence. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6329. [CrossRef]
45. Ghasemi, F.; Sari, M.H.M.; Yousefi, V.; Falsafi, R.; Tamošaitienė, J. Project portfolio risk identification and analysis, considering
project risk interactions and using Bayesian networks. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1609. [CrossRef]
46. Asadi, P.; Zeidi, J.R.; Mojibi, T.; Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Tamošaitienė, J. Project risk evaluation by using a new fuzzy model based
on Elena guideline. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 284–300. [CrossRef]
47. Chatterjee, K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tamošaitienė, J.; Adhikary, K.; Kar, S. A hybrid MCDM technique for risk management in
construction projects. Symmetry 2018, 10, 46. [CrossRef]
48. Benítez, J.; Carpitella, S.; Certa, A.; Izquierdo, J. Constrained consistency enforcement in AHP. Appl. Math. Comput. 2020,
380, 125273. [CrossRef]
49. Mavi, R.K.; Standing, C. Critical success factors of sustainable project management in construction: A fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 751–765. [CrossRef]
50. Yunus, N. Dynamic Linkages Among US Real Estate Sectors Before and After the Housing Crisis. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2019,
58, 264–289. [CrossRef]
51. D’alpaos, C.; Canesi, R. Risks assessment in real estate investments in times of global crisis. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2014,
11, 369–379.
52. Agarwal, S.; He, J.; Sing, T.F.; Song, C. Do real estate agents have information advantages in housing markets? J. Financ. Econ.
2019, 134, 715–735. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, C.; Wang, A.; Xu, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, F. Outsourced privacy-preserving decision tree classification service over encrypted
data. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2020, 53, 102517.
54. Mu, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, L.; Zhou, J. A parallel fuzzy rule-base based decision tree in the framework of Map-Reduce. Pattern Recognit.
2020, 103, 107326. [CrossRef]
55. Tian, Z.; Xiao, J.; Feng, H.; Wei, Y. Credit Risk Assessment based on Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020,
174, 150–160. [CrossRef]
56. Yan, J.; Zhang, Z.; Lin, K.; Yang, F.; Luo, X. A hybrid scheme-based one-vs-all decision trees for multi-class classification tasks.
Knowl.-Based Syst. 2020, 198, 105922. [CrossRef]
57. Barsacchi, M.; Bechini, A.; Marcelloni, F. An analysis of boosted ensembles of binary fuzzy decision trees. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020,
154, 113436. [CrossRef]
58. Saaty, T.L. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 2000; Volume 6.
59. Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Syst. Appl.
2020, 113738. [CrossRef]
60. Sangiorgio, V.; Uva, G.; Fatiguso, F. Optimized AHP to overcome limits in weight calculation: Building performance application.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04017101. [CrossRef]
61. Plebankiewicz, E.; Kubek, D. Multicriteria selection of the building material supplier using AHP and fuzzy AHP. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015057. [CrossRef]
62. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Taxonomy, Corporate Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability
Preferences and Fiduciary Duties: Directing Finance towards the European Green Deal. Brussels, 21.4.2021. COM(2021) 188
Final. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/law/210421-sustainable-finance-communication_en.pdf
(accessed on 1 April 2021).
63. Migliorelli, M. What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing Frameworks and Policy Risks. Sustainability 2021,
13, 975. [CrossRef]
64. Huang, X. Optimal project selection with random fuzzy parameters. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2007, 106, 513–522. [CrossRef]
65. Puška, A.; Beganović, A.; Šadić, S. Model for investment decision making by applying the multi-criteria analysis method.
Serb. J. Manag. 2018, 13, 7–28. [CrossRef]
66. Lee, S.; Ahn, S.; Park, C.; Park, Y.J. Development of a resource allocation model using competitive advantage. Sustainability 2016,
8, 217. [CrossRef]
67. Stojcetovic, B.; Nikolic, D.; Velinov, V.; Bogdanovic, D. Application of integrated strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
and analytic hierarchy process methodology to renewable energy project selection in Serbia. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2016,
8, 035906. [CrossRef]
68. Wang, W. The concept of sustainable construction project management in international practice. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 1–23.
[CrossRef]

62
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5502

69. European Commission. Proposal for a Directive Amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC
and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as Regards Sustainable Corporate Reporting by Certain Undertakings, COM (2021) 189.
2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/law/210421-proposal-corporate-sustainability-reporting_en.pdf
(accessed on 1 April 2021).
70. Duong, L.N.K.; Wang, J.X.; Wood, L.C.; Reiners, T.; Koushan, M. The value of incremental environmental sustainability innovation
in the construction industry: An event study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2021, 1–21. [CrossRef]
71. Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A.; W˛egrzyn, J. Understanding of Public–Private Partnership Stakeholders as a Condition of Sustainable
Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1194. [CrossRef]
72. Srinivasan, N.; Dhivya, S. An empirical study on stakeholder management in construction projects. Mater. Today Proc. 2020,
21, 60–62. [CrossRef]
73. Demirkesen, S.; Ozorhon, B. Impact of integration management on construction project management performance. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1639–1654. [CrossRef]
74. Li, H.X.; Patel, D.; Al-Hussein, M.; Yu, H.; Gül, M. Stakeholder studies and the social networks of NetZero energy homes
(NZEHs). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 9–17. [CrossRef]
75. Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhao, X.J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises.
J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 277–289. [CrossRef]
76. Freudenreich, B.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Schaltegger, S. A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for
sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 166, 3–18. [CrossRef]
77. Chu, X.; Shi, Z.; Yang, L.; Guo, S. Evolutionary Game Analysis on Improving Collaboration in Sustainable Urban Regeneration: A
Multiple-Stakeholder Perspective. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2020, 146, 04020046. [CrossRef]
78. Vilutiene, T.; Ignatavičius, Č. Towards sustainable renovation: Key performance indicators for quality monitoring. Sustainability
2018, 10, 1840. [CrossRef]
79. Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Li, Y.; Le, Y.; Xiao, J. Quantifying and visualizing value exchanges in building information modeling (BIM)
projects. Autom. Constr. 2019, 99, 91–108. [CrossRef]
80. Lin, X.; McKenna, B.; Ho, C.M.; Shen, G.Q. Stakeholders’ influence strategies on social responsibility implementation in
construction projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 348–358. [CrossRef]
81. Stackpole, C.S. A User’s Manual to the PMBOK Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
82. Zhang, Z.; Liao, H.; Al-Barakati, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antuchevičienė, J. Supplier selection for housing development by an
integrated method with interval rough boundaries. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2020, 24, 269–284. [CrossRef]
83. Khalil, N.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Baharum, M.R. Ranking the indicators of building performance and the users’ risk via Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 567–576. [CrossRef]
84. Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Lou, E.C.W.; Wong, P.F.; Wood, R.; Che-Ani, A.I. Developing weighting system for refurbishment building
assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 280–290. [CrossRef]
85. Portal, O.S. Building Construction. 2019. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/informaciniai-pranesimai?articleId=6908417
(accessed on 13 May 2021).
86. Antunes, R.; Gonzalez, V. A production model for construction: A theoretical framework. Buildings 2015, 5, 209–228. [CrossRef]
87. Farokhad, M.R.; Otegi-Olaso, J.R.; Pinilla, L.S.; Gandarias, N.T.; de Lacalle, L.N.L. Assessing the success of R&D projects and
innovation projects through project management life cycle. In Proceedings of the 2019 10th IEEE International Conference
on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), Metz, France,
18–21 September 2019; Volume 2, pp. 1104–1110.
88. Vilutiene, T.; Kumetaitis, G.; Kiaulakis, A.; Kalibatas, D. Assessing the Sustainability of Alternative Structural Solutions of a
Building: A Case Study. Buildings 2020, 10, 36. [CrossRef]

63
sustainability

Article
Digitalization as a Strategic Means of Achieving Sustainable
Efficiencies in Construction Management: A Critical Review
Bahareh Nikmehr 1 , M. Reza Hosseini 1, *, Igor Martek 1 , Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas 2
and Jurgita Antucheviciene 3

1 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia;
[email protected] (B.N.); [email protected] (I.M.)
2 Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania;
[email protected]
3 Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Construction is a complex activity, characterized by high levels of capital investment,

relatively long delivery durations, multitudinous risks and uncertainties, as well as requiring the
integration of multiple skills delivering a huge volume of tasks and processes. All of these must
be coordinated carefully if time, cost, and quality constraints are to be met. At the same time,
construction is renowned for performing poorly regarding sustainability metrics. Construction
activity generates high volumes of waste, requires vast amounts of resources and materials, while
consuming a significant proportion of total energy generated. Digitalization of the construction
workplace and construction activities has the potential of improving construction performance both in
terms of business results as well as sustainability outcomes. This is because, to put it simply, reduced
Citation: Nikmehr, B.; Hosseini,
energy usage, for example, impacts economic and “green” performance, simultaneously. Firms
M.R.; Martek, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.;
Antucheviciene, J. Digitalization as a
tinkering with digitalization, however, do not always achieve the hoped-for outcomes. The challenge
Strategic Means of Achieving faced is that a digital transition of construction firms must be carried out at a strategic level—requiring
Sustainable Efficiencies in a comprehensive change management protocol. What then does a digital strategy entail? This study
Construction Management: A Critical puts forward an argument for the combined economic and sustainability dividends to be had from
Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040. digitizing construction firm activities. It outlines the requirements for achieving digitalization. The
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095040 elements of a comprehensive digitalization strategy are cataloged, while the various approaches to
developing a digitalization strategy are discussed. This study offers practitioners a useful framework
Academic Editor: Sunkuk Kim by which to consider their own firm-level efforts at digitalization transition.

Received: 23 March 2021

Keywords: digital transformation; digital technology; sustainability; strategy; construction manage-
Accepted: 27 April 2021
ment; change management
Published: 30 April 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. The construction industry is one of the largest sectors of the global economy [1]. On a
global scale, construction-related spending accounts for 13%, and the total annual revenue
of the sector is estimated to be around $10 trillion, predicted to be up to $14 trillion by
2025 [1]. The construction industry has also one of the greatest economic spillover effects,
namely, it represents an additional economic benefit of $2.86 for every $1 of construction
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [2]. As a result, even a slight improvement in the sector
This article is an open access article
will carry huge positive implications for the national economy [2,3].
distributed under the terms and Despite its significance, the construction industry is still struggling with a wide range
conditions of the Creative Commons of problems: high construction costs; unsatisfactory project performance [4]; poor site safety
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// records; low construction productivity; a lack of creativity and innovation; and above all
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ poor sustainability outcomes [3,5–7]. Several developments offer the potential of mitigating
4.0/). these pitfalls, of which, the most promising is industry reform through digitalization [5,8,9].

65

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095040 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

Digitalization benefits any industry in various ways: greater convenience, lower prices,
variety of choice, better information, enhanced sustainability, and the profitability of ex-
isting business models and investments [10,11]. Better business models, cost reduction,
improved quality of communications, enhanced customer satisfaction, and so forth are
other advantages of digital technologies. Indeed, these are interrelated where improve-
ments across any economic, social and environmental outcomes collectively contribute to
a more sustainable construction industry [12–15]. Given these potentials, digitalization
has emerged as instrumental in driving sector change [16]. Traditional resistance to efforts
at making construction more sustainable has been that it costs too much. However, the
evidence shows that the potential added value of digitalization could be around $25 billion
annually in the years 2017–2027, in Australia alone, while at the same time improving
sustainability outcomes [8].
Digitalization can be simply defined as the use of digital technologies to change
business models to increase revenue and value-producing opportunities for companies
and businesses; the term refers to the process of moving to a digital business [17,18].
Digitalization is largely seen as a powerful intervention into the core business of companies
and is associated with organization-wide modernization efforts affecting all structures,
systems, and processes within companies [18,19]. Similarly, sustainability is widely defined
as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their future needs. In practical terms, this breaks down into three mutually inclusive
“bottom-line” measures. Present economic outcomes must be improved in ways that do
not undermine future economic growth; present use of resources must be undertaken in
ways that do not degrade the environment of the future; and social justice must be pursued
such that nobody is left excluded, disadvantaged, or otherwise denied from an equitable
share of accrued societal gains.
This paper argues that in order to successfully absorb the economic and sustainability
benefits of digitalization into construction companies, appropriate digitalization adoption
strategies must be proactively adopted. Thus, the factors and steps required in order to
implant a successful digitalization strategy are here outlined. To this end, this paper begins by
identifying the driving forces compelling the digitalization of construction firms. Next, the
role of digitalization strategies along with the various approaches to digitalization available to
construction companies are discussed. The paper concludes by describing the required steps
for the development of a construction company-specific digitalization strategy able to meet
economic and sustainability performance improvement outcomes simultaneously.

2. The Digital Transformation of the Construction Industry

Innovations comprise a wide range of transformative systems, from lean concepts
through to information and communications technologies [20]. These innovations are
enablers that reduce industrial process emissions and energy consumption from manufac-
turing construction components, to construction, operations, and building decommission-
ing. Their underlying intelligent operating platforms and automated solutions have the
potential to optimize task outcomes, and in so doing greatly limit the otherwise adverse
effects of traditional systems and processes regarding greenhouse gas emissions, pollution,
and indeed even on potentially exploitative or hazardous work practices [21].
Construction companies seek remedial solutions to these issues [22], as a result of
which, the field observes an increasing shift towards the use of digital technologies in the
construction industry [23]. Evidence shows that they can benefit from various techno-
logical innovations in delivering projects [23]. Technological innovations can overcome
a wide range of challenges that affect the construction industry, including cost overruns,
rework, low project performance, poor safety records, substandard quality and undesired
productivity [16]. And digital technologies offer solutions. These include vast capabilities
offered by the Internet of Things (IoT) [24,25]; unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [26,27];
3D printing [28,29]; augmented reality (AR) [30,31]; virtual reality (VR) [32–34]; mixed
reality (MR) [35,36]; Building Information Modeling (BIM) [37–45]; Artificial Intelligence

66
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

(AI); and intelligent decision support systems (DSS) [46–49]. At the organization level,
digital engineering (DE) is proposed to complement the limitations of BIM beyond the
boundaries of projects. So too, digital platforms for material procurement; robots; digital
marketing; and digital tools for administration purposes, have profound positive impacts
on the business front of companies [16,50].
There are many real-life examples and success stories of using various digital system
in construction projects. Standing at the forefront of digitalization, there is compelling
evidence for the advantages and benefits of using BIM in dealing with the complexities
of multidisciplinary teams, identifying clashes, and reducing rework in and large-sized
projects from around the globe, from Australia to Norway [51,52]. A coalescence of BIM
and blockchain is proven effective in enhancing the effectiveness of managing financial
transactions, enabling modern procurement methods, increase profit and cost savings [53].
In view of the full range of benefits, the construction sector has also embraced the use of
UAVs in laying out sites; conducting remote and hazardous observations and surveying;
risk-free site inspections; and safety monitoring [23,26]. Recently, the construction industry
is observing a shift to the adoption of AI, with many benefits documented in the litera-
ture [20]. With AI, sophisticated algorithms are trained to learn from big data, and apply the
acquired knowledge in revolutionizing industry practice, and improve productivity [54].
Although digitalization improves a wide range of construction business aspects that
also ultimately produce better sustainable outcomes [50], digitalization adoption is fraught
with challenges. Chief among these is that construction companies may need to consider
changing almost every aspect of their business to achieve “digital transformation.” Digital
transformation is defined as “a process that aims to improve an entity by triggering signifi-
cant changes to its properties through combinations of information, computing, communication,
and connectivity technologies.” [55] Digital transformation can be achieved in construction
companies by focusing on five key activities, as illustrated in [50].
In the construction context, implementation of a digital technology relies heavily on
various types of information: enough knowledge about the company such as the firm’s
structure, type of work, and the characteristics of human resources [56]. As illustrated
in Figure 1, the digitalization of a construction firm is synonymous with successful digital
transformation. This, in turn, requires the completion of five key activities, as described below:
• Integration of digital technologies into existing systems to exchange information
among all construction market contributors.
• Improve business procedures with the aim of smoother exchange of data and informa-
tion, control of products, and managing methods.
• Modification of organizational structures and human resources with the aim of choos-
ing skillful workforces according to the digital transformation needs.
• Ensure that digital transformation is supported by all the staff and business contributors.
• Digital transformation investments must be assessed according to both financial and
economic activities, not just economic ones.

Figure 1. Digitalization and digital transformation activities.

67
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

Achieving the aims and objectives of each of these pillars requires the development of
a robust strategy, as discussed next.

3. The Need for a Digital Transformation Strategy

The digitalization of an existing firm is much more difficult than the establishment of a
new digital company [22]. Hence, there is a need to develop a suitable strategy as a solution
for construction companies to identify the main objectives, roadmaps, relevant actions,
and methods of assessment [19]. This strategy transforms several essential elements and
dimensions of business, including customer experience, business procedures, operations,
stakeholders, and networks [57]. A company without a digital transformation strategy
completes some isolated and small-sized projects, with little effect, where much-needed
resources are wasted [19].
Several definitions for a digital transformation strategy exist in the literature [58,59],
yet no universal consensus has been reached to define it [60]. Simply, a digital transfor-
mation strategy is defined as the comprehensive vision of a firm in its move towards
digitalization. To achieve this vision, a digital transformation strategy should include
strategic measures; it should describe goals and tools for services, products, and value
creation for a company/organization too [19]. Besides, adjustment of digital technologies’
impacts and the nature of merging with internal firm’s procedures and external firm’s
interfaces must be defined as essential elements of a digital transformation strategy.
Construction companies face many problems in developing a digital transformation
strategy, mostly due to the novelty and complication of digitalization processes [61]. Famil-
iarity with various dimensions of digital transformation and procedures of developing a
successful digital transformation strategy are prerequisites, as discussed next.

4. Challenges in Developing Such a Strategy

The importance of digital transformation for companies, organizations, industries, and
firms has resulted in the creation of a growing body of knowledge. However, recent studies
suffer from a lack of a holistic approach to developing digital transformation strategies [62],
where most existing studies represent a limited number of relevant factors and dimensions
of digitalization. Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, and Venkatraman [58], as will be discussed
in great detail later on in the chapter, introduced four factors for providing a framework
towards a digital transformation strategy for an organization: value creation, scope, scale,
and speed of digital transformation. The speed of digital transformation is defined based
on four factors: speed of product launching, speed of decision making, speed of supply
chain orchestration, and speed of network formation and adaptation. Dimensions of
a model for the development of a digital transformation strategy as provided by Matt,
et al. [63] are the utilization of technology, structural changes, financial perspectives, and
changes in value creation which can be defined as the effects of digital transformation on
the companies’ value chains due to the use of innovative technologies. These four items
were believed to form a framework that informs companies in analyzing their existing
capabilities, culminating in the development of a digital transformation strategy, as an
ongoing procedure. Holotiuk and Beimborn [61] also developed a framework with eight
dimensions: sales and customer experience; culture and leadership; abilities and human
resources (HR) qualifications; forethought and vision; data and information technology
(IT); functions; partners; and 40 critical success factors. Gimpel, et al. [64] proposed a
framework of action fields following interviews with the chief digital officers from fifty
organizations. This framework comprises six action fields: clients, value creation, functions,
data, organization, and transformation management, in order to offer guidelines to engage
in digital transformation.
Few studies have explored the development of a process for a digital transforma-
tion strategy. According to Schallmo, et al. [65], the integration of six steps results in the
development of a digital transformation strategy. These are strategic principles, choices,
forecasting, external and internal strategic analysis, and strategy formulization. Pflaum

68
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

and Gölzer [66], also represent a four-stage process framework to facilitate the digital
transformation of a firm, through the combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches.
the steps are the business strategy step, knowledge creation, knowledge application, and
the procedure of making decisions. However, they did not study the position of digi-
tal transformation strategy among the three levels of corporate, business, or functional
strategies. As for finding the position of the digital transformation strategy, Lipsmeier,
Kühn, Joppen, and Dumitrescu [19] argue that digital transformation strategy should be
addressed at the corporate level. Hence, the digitalization of all business units should be
aligned with the general strategic direction. The authors also conducted a process model
for developing a digital transformation strategy as well as introducing the main factors
of a digital transformation strategy. Albukhitan [67] also introduced a process for the
development of a strategy by analyzing potential challenges that digital transformation at-
tempts face, in the form of a process in six steps. Steps entailed identifying the vision, firms’
digital transformation capability, customers and workforce experience, and analyzing and
choosing alternative solutions, creating action plans, providing the required infrastructure
and skilled human resources.
The construction industry is innately complex; it is project-based, unique in terms
of high demand and supply variability [68]. Moreover, squeezed profit margins due to
different forms of delays and accidents bring other challenges [69], where construction
practitioners suffer from improper communication and issues with accountability [70].
In light of these challenges, providing a strategy to direct and inform the digitalization
journey is of utmost importance, however, there are few studies that offer a strategy for
digitalization for the construction industry. Among these, Stoyanova [71] provides sugges-
tions for enhancing the likelihood of success in the digital transformation of construction
firms. Koscheyev, Rapgof, and Vinogradova [50] introduce various dimensions of digi-
tal transformation. Ernstsen, et al. [72] represent three visions of efficient construction,
user-data-driven built environment, and value-driven computational design for the digital
transformation of construction firms in the UK.

5. Considerations in Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy

Several studies have attempted to define the key dimensions of digital transforma-
tion, as the elements which need to be defined early in the process [58,63,73]. These are
discussed next.
The scope of a digital business strategy includes references to products, business
actions, and the functions of running a company. The scope of a digital business strategy
defines the relationships between digital elements and companies, industries, IT infrastruc-
tures, and the external environment. Furthermore, it can help to facilitate the assessing of
various impacts of digital technology on firms’ business strategy [58].
The scale of a digital business strategy is used as a profitability driver. There are four
ways that the scale of a digital business strategy can benefit a company: fast scale up or
down according to dynamic market conditions, change of scale based on big data, rapid
scale due to network effects, and better scale through alliances and partnership—sharing
assets with other companies [58].
The speed of a digital business strategy has an important role in digital business
management, recognized as an important item that can benefit firms in terms of strategic
management. Speed should be considered through the speed of product launching, speed
of making decisions, speed of supply chain arrangement, speed of network formation, and
adaptation [58].
The utilization of technology refers to the attitude of the company to the innovative
technology, and the capability of a firm to benefit from it [63].
Changes in value creation often occur with the application of innovative technologies.
The digital business strategy brings increased value through information, multisided
business models, coordinated business models in a network, and control of digital industry
architecture [58,63].

69
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

As for structural changes, the application of digital activities results in improving

products and services; however, they often need advanced technological skills and expose
companies to various risks due to lack of experience in a new domain. Hence, utilization
of various technologies and different forms of value creation require substantial structural
changes to provide a sound basis for new activities. Structural changes consist of changes
in a company’s organizational arrangement, especially efforts to diffuse innovative digital
function into all corporate elements [63].
Financial perspectives are needed to achieve all other dimensions. Companies that
suffer from financial pressures may face difficulties in finding external financial ways to
support digital transformation. Hence, companies need to consider digital transformation
strategies alongside their resources and funding capacities [63].

6. Approaches to Defining a Digital Transformation Strategy

Two major approaches are suggested for digital transformation, comprising of top-
down and bottom-up. The former, also referred to as strategy-driven, includes changes to
the business model by using modernizers. This is a long-term approach that focuses on
changing the existing value chain, value proposition, and revenue modeling. The bottom-
up approach, or technology-driven approach, focuses on small or medium-sized changes
in companies through using technology-driven tools and techniques. The objective of this
approach is to drive slow improvements in productivity, employees’ responsibility, and
better customer experience and satisfaction [71]. The bottom-up approach is, however, in-
adequate for developing a successful digital transformation strategy, given the overarching
impacts of digitalization on companies’ fundamental components such as organizational
structure, competencies, organizational procedures, and working culture. The bottom-up
approach might have a detrimental impact on a company such as a productivity dip.
The strategy-driven or top-down approach avoids such negative impacts and accelerates
transformation. Nevertheless, developing a digital transformation strategy with a purely
top-down approach is prone to some risks. These include increasing the likelihood of
defining unrealistic objectives, scant attention to existing procedures, structures, initiatives,
and a lack of buy-in from employees. The combination of these two approaches dominated
by the bottom-up approach is suggested in the literature to tackle the problems facing
digital transformation and speed up the process of digitalization [19,66].
Another important factor is the position of a digital transformation strategy among
three levels of corporate, business, and functional levels, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Strategy levels (adapter from Lipsmeier, Kühn, Joppen, and Dumitrescu [19]).

Corporate strategy corresponds to managing business units and the entire portfolio.
The position of digital transformation strategy in relation to the corporate strategy can be
70
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

considered in three different positions, including independent, being a part of it, or having
the same weight as that of corporate strategy [65]. Most companies tend to develop their
digital transformation strategy as a subsection of their corporate strategy [59]. With this,
the strategy should be noted as an important consideration pertinent to the position of
digital transformation. That is, digital transformation strategy should be defined at the
corporate level and all other digitalization tools of business units should be aligned with
the corporate strategy [19].

7. The Process of Developing a Digital Transformation Strategy

The development of a digital transformation strategy starts with defining a strategic
direction according to digital guiding principles. This involves five components: digital
vision, digital mission, digital policies, digital targets, and digital terms [19]. The first step
is the definition of a strategic business vision for the proposed digital organization [66,67].
The strategic vision should consider long-term goals and short-term resources [67]. A
digital vision can aim at the digital transformation of products and services or at value
creation or both [19]. Vision should also involve business tools and digital use cases,
based on business strategies and goals [66]. The vision for the digital transformation of
construction firms has three dimensions, as follows [72]:
• Efficient construction focuses on expediting the construction procedure and enhancing
efficiency. This can be achieved by concentrating on perspectives such as off-site
construction, AI, BIM, lean construction, standardization, modularization, automation
of design tasks, and alliancing business models.
• A user-data-driven built environment focuses on gathering real data, for instance,
by IoT systems in the built environment. This vision requires the use of big data,
IoT-based asset management, VR and 3D design, AR and maintenance, IoT-based
energy utilization, sustainability, and health, and comfort of users.
• Value-driven computational design focuses on simulating various digital design alter-
natives and changing the design to satisfy various design criteria and clients’ priorities
within the construction procedure. This vision can be earned by concentrating on
“digital fabrication on-site, gig economy, design simulations, blockchain, bespoke
semi-automation, data-driven companies, distributed off-site production, and digital
twin of the city.”
The mission, pertinent to the digital transformation, however, seeks to find the reasons
for the involvement of a company in digitalization; where digital policies propose regula-
tions related to digital elements of a company such as digital management, digital initiative,
data usage, information technology (IT), and safety, as well as the implementation of the
digitalization process. Digital targets are initially described as qualitative values taken from
digital vision, mission, and digital policies. In order to achieve the consistent realization of
all these within a company, primary digital terms should be introduced [19].
After the identification of digital guiding principles, the next step is the assessment
of the existing conditions of an organization in terms of digital transformation. To this
end, systems, tools, and software applications should be assessed to evaluate their capabili-
ties in fulfilling current and future requirements. The outcome of this step can facilitate
decision-makers to understand which technologies, tools, and processes need to be im-
proved [69]. Major tools for the assessment include market analysis and digital maturity
assessment tools. Market analysis is of paramount importance. This tool provides the
company with an up-to-date strategy [67]. A digital maturity tool should be provided to
assess the framework of the IT infrastructure, organization, workforce, culture, partnering,
technology, and functions, etc. in five levels of “unaware, conceptual, defined, integrated,
and transformed” [66,67].
Subsequently, new systems and functions for facilitating employee jobs and clients’
experiences should be provided. This can be achieved through proper use-cases of employ-
ees and new experiences for customers through digital technologies and platforms [67].
Use-cases should be prioritized and then implemented according to the allocated ranks [66].

71
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

A good tool for the structuring of required digital action plans—each functional
area—is called “digital target” (Figure 3), which includes four factors. These are (1) digital
vision which is a main objective of a functional area; (2) digital use-cases, which are
digital tools for each working area; (3) strategic objectives, which should be determined in
light of digitalization and aligns with digital guiding principles; (4) digital focus topics,
extracted based on digital use cases, and work for communicating among functional
areas and synchronizing primary actions in light of digitalization. Consequently, cross-
functional topics are obtained according to the digital focus topics for each functional area.
Cross-functional topics are extracted by the combination of digital focus topics, leading to
determining the principal digitalization topics for the business unit. The qualitative goals
are defined as cross-functional topics and then can be changed into quantitative values [19].

Figure 3. Digital target picture (adapted from Lipsmeier, Kühn, Joppen, and Dumitrescu [19]).

Knowledge creation is another step, which involves the modeling of all necessary
data for possible problems related to use cases. The next step is knowledge application, in
which, knowledge obtained from previous steps is analyzed by AI to forecast solutions
for each use case [66]. Choosing the best solution that addresses digital objectives and
people’s experiences needs to be assessed according to their capabilities by a tool such as a
comparison matrix of solutions [67].

72
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

The decision-making process is the last step, in which, the method of integration
among knowledge-driven solutions and organizational decision processes is obtained
(specification) [66]. Later, all of the digital objectives, solutions, and technologies are
merged to form an action plan [67]. Vision, road map, and frameworks are also modified
to be closer to the vision of a digital company [66].
It should be mentioned that firms need skilled staff members along the way towards
digital transformation. These competent employees should work under the supervision of
someone who possesses transformation leadership skills [63]. Therefore, preparation of the
skillful human resources, with expertise in digital change management, is an important
step for digital transformation [67].

8. Conclusions
Construction represents a significant proportion of the economy in both developing
and developed nations. Yet, the profitability of construction firms, generally, remains below
par when compared with other sectors within an economy. Moreover, construction activity
is a major source of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation.
Competitiveness and sustainability, therefore, are two key challenges the construction
industry must face worldwide. Fortunately, there is a way forward and that is through the
digitalization of the industry at the firm level. The other good news is that the efficiency
gains to be had through the digitalization of construction firms can be expected to repair
the poor sustainability record of the industry, as it currently operates. Specifically, cost
reductions, efficiency gains, and better returns on assets that digitalization promises would
be achieved through reduced energy consumption, better resource and material utilizations,
and stronger control of waste, pollution, and carbon emissions.
However, meaningful digital transformation cannot be successfully realized without
a strong commitment to such change. This means more is required than the frequently
observed manner in which firms attempt to transition to a digitized business model; that is,
employing IT experts to run introduced digitalization software on new hardware platforms,
while also persisting with traditional forms of operations. Running parallel construction
management practices within a firm—older analog systems and new digitized systems—
has not been shown to be an effective means of evolving firms to full digitalization. What
is needed is genuine change management. For that to be realized, a clear digitalization
transition strategy must be formulated and implemented.
This study has documented the way forward in this regard. The need for change is
argued. The quest for digitalization is shown to require firm-level digital transformation.
The dimensions of a digital strategy are presented. Finally, the various approaches to
embracing a digital transformation strategy are discussed. It is hoped that this paper
will provide practitioners intent on making the transition to digitalization with a guiding
framework for making the changes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.N. and M.R.H.; methodology, M.R.H. and I.M.; analysis
of the literature, B.N.; writing—original draft preparation, B.N. and I.M.; writing—review and editing,
M.R.H., J.A., and E.K.Z.; visualization, J.A.; supervision and quality control, E.K.Z. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

73
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

References
1. Barbosa, F.; Woetzel, J.; Mischke, J.; Ribeirinho, M.J.; Sridhar, M.; Parsons, M.; Bertram, N.; Brown, S. Reinventing Con-
struction Through a Productivity Revolution. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-
infrastructure/our-insights/reinventing-construction-through-a-productivity-revolution (accessed on 12 September 2020).
2. Sategna, L.G.; Meinero, D.; Volontà, M. Digitalising the Construction Sector; Committee for European Construction Equipment:
Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
3. Leviäkangas, P.; MokPaik, S.; Moon, S. Keeping up with the pace of digitization: The case of the Australian construction industry.
Technol. Soc. 2017, 50, 33–43. [CrossRef]
4. Ghodoosi, F.; Bagchi, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Vilutienė, T.; Zeynalian, M. Enhancement of bid decision-making in construction projects:
A reliability analysis approach. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 149–161. [CrossRef]
5. Loosemore, M. Australia’s Construction Industry Must Unite around a Cohesive Strategy. Available online: https:
//www.thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/building-construction/australias-construction-industry-must-unite-around-a-
cohesive-strategy/ (accessed on 30 October 2020).
6. Fathalizadeh, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Vaezzadeh, S.S.; Edwards, D.J.; Martek, I.; Shooshtarian, S. Barriers to sustainable construction
project management: The case of Iran. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2021. [CrossRef]
7. Hosseini, M.R.; Banihashemi, S.; Martek, I.; Golizadeh, H.; Ghodoosi, F. Sustainable Delivery of Mega projects in Iran: Integrated
Model of Contextual Factors. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 05017011. [CrossRef]
8. Gruszka, A.; Jupp, J.R.; DeValence, G. Digital Foundations: How Technology Is Transforming Australia’s Construction Sector.
Available online: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/124861 (accessed on 30 October 2020).
9. Hampson, K.D.; Brandon, P. Construction 2020—A Vision for Australia’s Property and Construction Industry; CRC Construction
Innovation: Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane City, QLD, Australia, 2004.
10. The Productivity Commission Growing the Digital Economy in Australia and New Zealand: Maximising Opportunities for
Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Available online: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/growing-digital-economy
(accessed on 30 October 2020).
11. Hilty, L.M.; Aebischer, B. Ict for sustainability: An emerging research field. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 3–36.
12. Grubic, T.; Jennions, I. Remote monitoring technology and servitised strategies–factors characterizing the organizational applica-
tion. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2133–2149. [CrossRef]
13. Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Binkyte-Veliene, A.; Kuzminske, A.; Cerkauskas, J.; Cerkauskiene, A.; Valaitiene, R. Multiple
Criteria Evaluation of the EU Country Sustainable Construction Industry Lifecycles. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3733. [CrossRef]
14. Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable business models:
Areview. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1663. [CrossRef]
15. Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Binkyte-Veliene, A. Assessment of Progress towards Achieving
Sustainable Development Goals of the “Agenda 2030” by Using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy Methods: The Case of the
EU Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5717. [CrossRef]
16. Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Banihashemi, S.; Chan, A.P.; Darko, A.; Tahmasebi, M. Distinguishing characteristics of corruptionrisks
in Iranian construction projects: A weighted correlation network analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 205–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Gartner Gartner Glossary: Digitalization. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/
digitalization (accessed on 5 January 2020).
18. Plekhanov, D.; Netland, T. Digitalisation stages in firms: Towards a framework. In Proceedings of the 26th EurOMA Conference,
Helsinki, Finland, 17–19 June 2019.
19. Lipsmeier, A.; Kühn, A.; Joppen, R.; Dumitrescu, R. Process for the development of a digital strategy. Procedia CIRP 2020, 88,
173–178. [CrossRef]
20. Jafari, K.G.; Noorzai, E.; Hosseini, M.R. Assessing the capabilities of computing features in addressing the most common issues
in the AEC industry. Constr. Innov. 2021. [CrossRef]
21. Ghansah, F.A.; Owusu-Manu, D.-G.; Ayarkwa, J.; Edwards, D.J.; Hosseini, M.R. Exploration of latent barriers inhibiting project
management processes in adopting smart building technologies (SBTs) in the developing countries. Constr. Innov. 2021. [CrossRef]
22. Ianenko, M.; Ianenko, M.; Kirillova, T.; Amakhina, S.; Nikitina, N. Digital transformation strategies of trade enterprises: Key
areas, development and implementation algorithms. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing:
London, UK, 2020; Volume 940, p. 012051.
23. Elghaish, F.; Matarneh, S.; Talebi, S.; Kagioglou, M.; Hosseini, M.R.; Abrishami, S. Toward digitalization in the construction
industry with immersive and drones technologies: A critical literature review. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020. [CrossRef]
24. Ghosh, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Al-Ameri, R.; Kaklauskas, G.; Nikmehr, B. Internet of Things (IoT) for digital concrete quality control
(DCQC): A conceptual framework. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference Modern Building Materials, Structures and
Techniques; VGTU Press: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2019.
25. Ghosh, A.; Edwards, D.J.; Hosseini, M.R. Patterns and trends in Internet of Things (IoT) research: Future applications in the
construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 457–481. [CrossRef]
26. Golizadeh, H.; Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Edwards, D.; Gheisari, M.; Banihashemi, S.; Zhang, J. Scientometric analysis of research
on “remotely piloted aircraft”. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 27, 634–657. [CrossRef]

74
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

27. York, D.D.; Al-Bayati, A.J.; Al-Shabbani, Z.Y. Potential Applications of UAV within the Construction Industry and the Challenges
Limiting Implementation. In Construction Research Congress 2020: Project Management and Controls, Materials, and Contracts, 2020;
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2020; pp. 31–39.
28. Romdhane, L.; El-Sayegh, S.M. 3D Printingin Construction: Benefits and Challenges. Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 2020, 9, 314–317.
[CrossRef]
29. El-Sayegh, S.; Romdhane, L.; Manjikian, S. A critical review of 3D printing in construction: Benefits, challenges, and risks. Arch.
Civ. Mech. Eng. 2020, 20, 34. [CrossRef]
30. Noghabaei, M.; Heydarian, A.; Balali, V.; Han, K. Trend Analysis on Adoption of Virtual and Augmented Reality in the
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry. Data 2020, 5, 26. [CrossRef]
31. Fenais, A.S.; Ariaratnam, S.T.; Ayer, S.; Smilovsky, N. A review of augmented reality applied to underground construction. J. Inf.
Technol. Constr. 2020, 25, 308–324. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Kang, S.-C.; Al-Hussein, M. Virtual reality applications for the built environment: Research trends and
opportunities. Autom. Constr. 2020, 118, 103311. [CrossRef]
33. Lucas, J. Rapid development of Virtual Reality based construction sequence simulations: A case study. ITcon 2020, 25, 72–86.
[CrossRef]
34. Ahmed, S. A review on using opportunities of augmented reality and virtual reality in construction project management. Organ.
Technol. Manag. Constr. Int. J. 2018, 10, 1839–1852. [CrossRef]
35. Cheng, J.C.; Chen, K.; Chen, W. State-of-the-art review on mixed reality applications in the AECO industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2020, 146, 03119009. [CrossRef]
36. Rokhsaritalemi, S.; Sadeghi-Niaraki, A.; Choi, S.-M. A Review on Mixed Reality: Current Trends, Challenges and Prospects. Appl.
Sci. 2020, 10, 636. [CrossRef]
37. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Abu-Samra, S. Revolutionising cost structure for integrated project delivery: A
BIM-based solution. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020. [CrossRef]
38. Hamidavi, T.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R. Towards intelligent structural design of buildings: A BIM-based solution. J. Build.
Eng. 2020, 32, 101685. [CrossRef]
39. Khalesi, H.; Balali, A.; Valipour, A.; Antucheviciene, J.; Migilinskas, D.; Zigmund, V. Application of Hybrid SWARA–BIM in
Reducing Reworks of Building Construction Projects from the Perspective of Time. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927. [CrossRef]
40. Pavlovskis, M.; Migilinskas, D.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kutut, V. Ranking of heritage building conversion alternatives by applying
BIM and MCDM: A case of Sapieha Palace in Vilnius. Symmetry 2019, 11, 973. [CrossRef]
41. Qin, X.; Shi, Y.; Lyu, K.; Mo, Y. Usinga TAM-TOE model to explore factors of Building Information Modelling (BIM) adoption in
the construction industry. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 259–277. [CrossRef]
42. Wang, G.; Wang, P.; Cao, D.; Luo, X. Predicting behavioural resistance to BIM implementation in construction projects: Ane
mpirical study integrating technology acceptance model and equity theory. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 651–665. [CrossRef]
43. Zhang, L.; Yuan, J.; Xia, N.; Ning, Y.; Ma, J.; Skibniewski, M.J. Measuring value-added-oriented BIM climate in construction
projects: Dimensions and indicators. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 800–818. [CrossRef]
44. Vilutiene, T.; Kalibatiene, D.; Hosseini, M.R.; Pellicer, E.; Zavadskas, E.K. Building information modeling (BIM) for structural
engineering: A bibliometric analysis of the literature. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5290690. [CrossRef]
45. Vilutiene, T.; Hosseini, M.R.; Pellicer, E.; Zavadskas, E.K. Advanced BIM applications in the construction industry. Adv. Civ. Eng.
2019, 2019, 6356107. [CrossRef]
46. Kaklauskas, A.; Abraham, A.; Dzemyda, G.; Raslanas, S.; Seniut, M.; Ubarte, I.; Kurasova, O.; Binkyte-Veliene, A.; Cerkauskas, J.
Emotional, affective and biometrical states analytics of a built environment. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 91, 103621. [CrossRef]
47. Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A
literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 2019, 11, 350. [CrossRef]
48. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kar, S. Multi-objective and multi-attribute optimization for sustainable development decision
aiding. Sustainability. 2019, 11, 3069. [CrossRef]
49. Fallahpour, A.; Wong, K.Y.; Rajoo, S.; Olugu, E.U.; Nilashi, M.; Turskis, Z. A fuzzy decision support system for sustainable
construction project selection: An integrated FPP-FIS model. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 247–258. [CrossRef]
50. Koscheyev, V.; Rapgof, V.; Vinogradova, V. Digital transformation of construction organizations. In IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Saint-Petersburg, Russian, 2019; Volume 97, p. 012010.
51. Mignone, G.; Hosseini, M.R.; Chileshe, N.; Arashpour, M. Enhancing collaboration in BIM-based construction networks through
organisational discontinuity theory: A case study of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2016, 12, 333–352.
[CrossRef]
52. Merschbrock, C.; Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Arashpour, M.; Mignone, G. Collaborative role of sociotechnical components in
BIM-based construction networks in two hospitals. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 05018006. [CrossRef]
53. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R. Integrated project delivery with blockchain: An automated financial system. Autom.
Constr. 2020, 114, 103182. [CrossRef]
54. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Adabre, M.A.; Edwards, D.J.; Hosseini, M.R.; Ameyaw, E.E. Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry:
Scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities. Autom. Constr. 2020, 112, 103081. [CrossRef]
55. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [CrossRef]

75
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5040

56. Sackey, E.; Tuuli, M.; Dainty, A. Sociotechnical systems approach to BIM implementation in a multi-disciplinary construction
context. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, A4014005. [CrossRef]
57. Ismail, M.H.; Khater, M.; Zaki, M. Digital business transformation and strategy: What do we know so far. Camb. Serv. Alliance
2017, 10. [CrossRef]
58. Bharadwaj, A.; ElSawy, O.A.; Pavlou, P.A.; Venkatraman, N. Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS
Q. 2013, 37, 471–482. [CrossRef]
59. Schallmo, D.; Williams, C.A.; Lohse, J. Clarifying Digital Strategy–Detailed Literature Review of Existing Approaches. In ISPIM
Conference Proceedings, 2018; The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM): Stockholm, Sweden,
2018; pp. 1–21.
60. Dang, D.; Vartiainen, T. Digital strategy patterns in information systems research. In Proceedings of the PACIS 2019 Proceedings,
Xi’an, China, 8–12 July 2019.
61. Holotiuk, F.; Beimborn, D. Critical success factors of digital business strategy. In Proceedings of the Track 9—Business Innovations
and Business Models, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 12–15 February 2017.
62. Korachi, Z.; Bounabat, B. General Approach for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy. J. Comput. Sci. 2020, 16, 493–507.
63. Matt, C.; Hess, T.; Benlian, A. Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2015, 57, 339–343. [CrossRef]
64. Gimpel, H.; Hosseini, S.; Huber, R.X.R.; Probst, L.; Röglinger, M.; Faisst, U. Structuring Digital Transformation: A Framework of
Action Fields and its Application at ZEISS. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 2018, 19, 31–54.
65. Schallmo, D.; Williams, C.A.; Lohse, J. Digital Strategy—Integrated Approach and Generic Options. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2019,
23, 1940005. [CrossRef]
66. Pflaum, A.A.; Gölzer, P. The IoT and digital transformation: Toward the data-driven enterprise. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2018, 17,
87–91. [CrossRef]
67. Albukhitan, S. Developing Digital Transformation Strategy for Manufacturing. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 170, 664–671. [CrossRef]
68. Morris, P.W. Project management in the construction industry. Wiley Guide Manag. Proj. 2004, 1350–1367.
69. Behera, P.; Mohanty, R.P.; Prakash, A. An investigation of implementation issues, process phases and knowledge areas of project
management in the performance of construction supply chains. Int. J. Proj. Organ. Manag. 2018, 10, 137–157. [CrossRef]
70. Patanakul, P.; Kwak, Y.H.; Zwikael, O.; Liu, M. What impacts the performance of large-scale government projects? Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2016, 34, 452–466. [CrossRef]
71. Stoyanova, M. Good Practices and Recommendations for Success in Construction Digitalization. TEM J. 2020, 9, 42–47.
72. Ernstsen, S.N.; Whyte, J.; Thuesen, C.; Maier, A. How Innovation Champions Frame the Future: Three Visions for Digital
Transformation of Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 147, 05020022. [CrossRef]
73. Mitroulis, D.; Kitsios, F. Digital Transformation Strategy: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 6th National Student
Conference of HELORS, Xanthi, Greece, 28 February–2 March 2019; pp. 59–61.

76
sustainability

Article
Environmental Performance of Residential Buildings: A Life
Cycle Assessment Study in Saudi Arabia
Hatem Alhazmi 1 , Abdulilah K. Alduwais 1 , Thamer Tabbakh 2 , Saad Aljamlani 3 , Bandar Alkahlan 3
and Abdulaziz Kurdi 3, *

1 National Center for Environmental Technology, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 6086, Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (H.A.); [email protected] (A.K.A.)
2 Material Science Institute, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 6086,
Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
3 National Center for Building and Construction Technology, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 6086, Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (B.A.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The building and construction sector has a huge impact on the environment because of the
enormous amounts of natural resources and energy consumed during the life cycle of construction
projects. In this study, we evaluated the potential environmental impact of the construction of a
villa, from cradle to grave, in the Saudi Arabian context. Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML)
for Centre of Environmental Science of Leiden University-IA baseline v3.03 methods were used to
obtain the environmental profile for the impact categories, and Cumulative Energy Demand v1.09
Citation: Alhazmi, H.; Alduwais, was used to measure the embodied energy of the villa life cycle. The analyzed midpoint impact
A.K.; Tabbakh, T.; Aljamlani, S.;
categories include global warming (GWP100a), ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification (AP),
Alkahlan, B.; Kurdi, A.
eutrophication (EP), photochemical oxidation (POCP), and indicator cumulative energy demand
Environmental Performance of
(CED). The operation use phase of the villa was found to have the highest global warming potential
Residential Buildings: A Life Cycle
Assessment Study in Saudi Arabia.
and acidification with 2.61 × 106 kg CO2 -eq and 1.75 × 104 kg SO2 -eq, respectively. Sensitivity
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542. analysis was performed on the Saudi Arabian plans to increase the share of renewable sources and
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063542 reduce the amount of electricity generated from hydrocarbons, which currently represents 46% of
the total installed power, by 2032. The results showed that compared with the current electricity
Academic Editors: Edmundas environmental impact, the CO2 emission from electricity will decrease by 53%, which represents a
Kazimieras Zavadskas, significant reduction in environmental impact. The findings will help with the life cycle assessment
Jurgita Antuchevičienė, M. of structures during future planning and for energy conservation.
Reza Hosseini and Igor Martek

Keywords: sustainability; buildings; life cycle assessment; materials; greenhouse

Received: 22 February 2021
Accepted: 19 March 2021
Published: 23 March 2021

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
The global focus on sustainability has increased in recent years given the dangers
published maps and institutional affil-
posed by climate change, global warming, and environmental degradation. Over 85% of
iations. the world’s primary energy needs are still met using fossil fuels, making them the most
significant contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1]. Overall, the efficient and
effective use of energy and materials is needed across sectors. The United Nations Sustain-
ability Development Goals for 2030 consolidate many of these challenges and highlight the
need for inclusive development through building sustainability, resource conservation, and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
innovation in development [2]. The building sector is no exception to sustainable develop-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
ment. In developed economies, such as those of the United States and the European Union,
distributed under the terms and
buildings account for nearly 40% of all primary energy consumption [3]. An extensive
conditions of the Creative Commons study [4] across building types and climate conditions in the United States showed that
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// interventions in the building sector can result in average energy savings of 29%, thus signif-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ icantly reducing the overall emissions. In the European Union, the building construction
4.0/). industry annually consumes nearly half of all raw materials and one-third of the water

77

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063542 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

used while generating 25–30% of the waste [5]. Better construction and other sustainable
interventions could lead to a 42% reduction in final energy consumption and a reduction
of over 35% in greenhouse gas emissions [6]. Similar potential savings can be achieved
by countries around the globe. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement [7], Saudi Arabia is
committed to reducing its greenhouse emissions through multiple interventions involving
renewable energy, carbon capture, and energy efficiency management [8]. The building
sector in Saudi Arabia consumes large quantities of materials and energy, with contracts
estimated at $52.6 billion awarded in 2019 alone [9]. In Saudi Arabia, buildings consume
nearly 80% of the overall electricity generated, with residential buildings accounting for
50% of the total [10]. Hence, there is room for significant energy and emission savings
within this sector.
However, it is necessary to comprehend how buildings consume energy and resources
throughout their lifetime to identify potential energy-saving interventions. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) is an approach commonly employed in this context. This method allows
the researcher to study the energy and resource consumption of a certain building starting
from the stage of resource extraction up to the demolition of the building and waste
management at the end of a building’s life cycle [11]. Insights gained from the LCA can
lead to optimized resource and energy use at all stages of a building’s life cycle, leading to
building LCA becoming a distinct area within the practice of life cycle assessment. Building
LCA can help tackle specific characteristics that are unique to the construction industry.
For example, the choice and sourcing of raw materials needed for construction can impact
the energy and environmental footprint of a building. This includes the environmental
degradation and energy footprint associated with the extraction, processing, packaging,
and transportation of these materials [12]. This preconstruction phase is followed by
construction, which generates significant waste and pollution. Because buildings have
a long-life cycle, the next operational phase, in general, accounts for the most energy
consumption of all phases. Studies estimate this value to be between 40% and 90% of the life
cycle energy consumption depending on climatic conditions and usage habits [13,14]. This
also includes any impact associated with the building maintenance operations. At the end
of the building’s life cycle, demolition activities consume energy and generate waste that
can be recycled, reused, or sent to landfills. These impact the overall life cycle assessment
of buildings [15]. All these stages are analyzed in a complete building LCA. A multitude
of such studies can be found in the literature; a few pertaining to residential buildings is
discussed below.
Life cycle assessments of residential buildings have been conducted for multiple
climatic and economic conditions [16]. A study on various types of residential build-
ings (multifamily dwellings and single-family dwellings) in Brazil was conducted by
Evangelista et al. [17]. The study found that single-family dwellings often have a higher
potential environmental impact than multifamily dwellings of similar sizes and standards.
In addition, for the same family size, high-standard dwellings have higher environmental
costs. The study found that some aspects such as structures, foundations, and coatings
have higher environmental costs than others, and that the operational phase is respon-
sible for 80% of the energy demand. This is similar to other reported findings [18] on
a three-bedroom house in Scotland, identifying concrete, timber, and tiles as the most
energy-intensive materials used in its construction. They are extensively used for foun-
dations, structures, and interior coatings. Evangelista et al., however, did not consider
many options for the demolition phase and assumed that the entire building would end up
in landfill. A similar study on a single-family home in Sweden showed that production
stage and maintenance operations accounted for the largest footprint (67%), while the
operational and end-of-life phases together accounted for less than 12% of GHG emissions
from the building. This study, however, was extremely subjective as most of Sweden’s
electricity comes from renewables, and the house was a wooden construction [19]. A study
on Canadian residential buildings [20] found a linear correlation between the operational
energy footprint and the overall energy footprint of buildings regardless of their differences,

78
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

much like in another study [18] where high-rise multifamily housing units performed bet-
ter than single dwellings and low-rise apartments. The relatively high energy footprint
associated with the operational phase was also highlighted, in agreement with the results
obtained for Canadian houses [21]. The number of studies on buildings from the Middle
East [22], Africa [23], and South Asia [24] is limited; much of the literature in this field
is restricted to China [25], North America, and Europe [26]. The environmental loads
associated with each phase of the entire life cycle of the residential building as defined by
the European Committee for Standardization (EN 15804) [27,28]. In 2017, the Saudi Arabian
government prepared a strategy called the 2030 Vision. The objective of the Saudi Vision
2030 (SV2030) is to set up renewable and sustainable energy (RnSE) projects to meet the
electricity demand—which is expected to surpass 120 GW by 2032—by increasing the use
of renewable resources, reducing dependency on fossil fuels, and reducing the country’s
CO2 emissions. Concluding the existing research, no building life cycle assessment study,
from cradle to grave, has been conducted in the context of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, to fill
this gap, an LCA of a residential building in Saudi Arabia should be conducted.
The literature discussed so far shows that LCA can be a valuable tool for optimizing
energy consumption in buildings. Given the size of Saudi Arabia’s construction industry,
significant energy savings can be achieved by better understanding this sector. However,
there is a lack of examples in the literature of building LCAs (or a cradle-to-grave study
of building energy consumption) pertaining specifically to Saudi Arabia; most studies are
limited to Europe and North America. Because residential buildings consume 50% of the
electricity generated in Saudi Arabia, in this study, LCA was used to better understand
the energy footprint and environmental impact of a typical residential villa. Information
obtained from this study will aid industry professionals and government agencies in
incorporating environmental health and sustainability into planning and construction.
The aim of this study is to understand the potential environmental impact caused by
the whole life cycle of a typical residential building (villa) in the Saudi Arabian context. The
reference building taken into consideration is a Saudi Arabian villa built in the capital city,
Riyadh, using the latest standards in construction techniques and conventional materials
normally used in the local context. Thus, this study focuses on evaluating the potential
environmental impact of a villa (a typical Saudi Arabian residential building) in five
impact categories and one life cycle indicator: global warming (GWP100a), ozone layer
depletion (ODP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), photochemical oxidation (POCP),
and indicator cumulative energy demand (CED). This study will help to analyze the
performance of Villa buildings with reference to Life cycle assessment implementation.

2. Materials and Methods

The LCA methodology was used to evaluate the environmental impact of a typi-
cal residential building in Saudi Arabia considering the whole life cycle, from cradle to
grave. The attributional LCA was conducted according to International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14040 [29] and ISO 14044 [30]. SimaPro software version 9.1 was
used to model the LCA [31]. The methods used to obtain the environmental profile of the
average villa life cycle included CML-IA baseline v3.03 [32,33] for impact categories and
Cumulative Energy Demand v1.09 to calculate the embodied energy in the life cycle of
the villa. The CML methodology, developed by the Center of Environmental Science of
Leiden University, is widely accepted; EN 15804 [27,28], the core standard for products
categorized as construction products, takes the characterization factors from this method
and allows for the comparison of results with those of other LCA studies. The midpoint
impact categories that were analyzed with CML-IA baseline v3.03 methods were global
warming (GWP100a), ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP),
photochemical oxidation (POCP), and indicator cumulative energy demand (CED) follow-
ing the Cumulative Energy Demand v1.09 method. The villa was modeled using Revit
software (Chetu, Plantation, FL, USA), the widely used building information modeling soft-
ware. Data were obtained from local construction firms via questionnaires and interviews,

79
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

ensuring the villa is representative of the current average residential building in Saudi
Arabia. The Ecoinvent version 3.2 database [34] was used to model upstream processes and
is globally recognized as one of the most consistent Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases
available. The step wise methodology of this research can be expressed as:
Step.1: Selection of Case Study Area-Villa
Step.2: Description of Villa Characteristics
Step.3: Defining the System Boundaries
Step.4: Life Cycle Inventory and Assumptions
Step.5: Results and Assessment
Step.6: Decision Making.

2.1. Selection of Case Study Area-Villa

This study is designed to assess the potential environmental impact caused by the life
cycle of a single-family house, called a villa, in the Saudi Arabian context. Because all stages
are specific to the Saudi Arabian context, a comparison with similar buildings located in
different regions was performed. Finally, because Saudi Arabia is committed to reducing
its greenhouse emissions through multiple interventions—one of which is implementing
renewable energy—a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess how the reduction in
the electricity impact would affect the building’s life cycle. Similar to other studies [35–37]
and the principles of Product Category Rule (PCR) 2014:02 for buildings [38], in this
investigation, the functional unit (FU) is a villa with a total gross floor area (GFA) of 387 m2
and a lifespan of 50 years.

2.2. Description of Villa Characteristics

The assessed villa is an average single-family building with a concrete-based structure.
The GFA is 387 m2 . It is a two-floor villa with an open space on the second floor and five
bedrooms and bathrooms. The building plans are provided in Figures 1–3.

Figure 1. Villa ground floor plan.

80
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

Figure 2. Villa first floor plan.

Figure 3. Villa second floor plan.

The villa was built mainly with concrete. In Table 1, the building components are
described in terms of materials and quantities. Both the foundation and structure were
made of reinforced concrete, whereas walls, both internal and external, were built with
concrete blocks. The external concrete blocks contain extruded polystyrene (XPS), which
provides thermal insulation to the building. Other materials used in villa construction
were ceramic tiles, cement tiles, bitumen to provide waterproofing, gypsum plasterboards
for ceilings, and paint, among others. The domestic appliances, such as washing machines,

81
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

refrigerators, cooking appliances, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC),
were excluded in line with EN 15804 as they represent less than 1% of the total mass input
in the construction stage.

Table 1. Villa Components and Material Inventory.

Building Component Component/Material Units Quantity

Foundation Reinforced concrete slab on grade m3 20.75
Structure Reinforced concrete m3 138.7
Layers: 20 mm cement tile + 40 mm mortar layer + 50 mm XPS
Roof and Open space m2 138.60
+ 10 mm bitumen sheet + 4 mm bitumen coating
Ceiling 12.5 mm gypsum board on metal furring + paint m2 322.81
400 mm × 200 mm × 300 mm concrete block with insulation +
m2 303.3
adhesive mortar + 2 faced 20 mm cement plaster + ladder mesh
Exterior walls and parapet
200 mm parapet wall m2 23
Paint m2 519.65
400 mm × 200 mm × 150 mm hollow concrete block + adhesive
m2 231
Internal walls mortar + 2 faced 20 mm cement plaster + ladder mesh
Paint m2 821.60
Dry areas: 10 mm ceramic tile + 40 mm mortar m2 302.2
Wet areas: 10 mm ceramic tile + 40 mm mortar + 2 layered
Floor and wall tiles m2 30.78
5 mm bitumen sheet + 4 mm bitumen coating
Wall tiles: 10 mm ceramic tile + 4 mm bitumen coating m2 81.258
Windows Double glazed window with aluminum frame windows 37
Steel door doors 2
Doors
Wood door doors 16
Stairs Welded tubular stainless steel m 13.5
Electrical network Cooper wire m 360

2.3. Defining the System Boundaries

A cradle-to-grave evaluation was conducted for the whole life cycle of the villa within
the system boundaries defined in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows the life cycle phases of the
constructed building in conformance with UNE 15804 [25].
The pre-use phase consisted of the subphases of material production comprising raw
material supply, transportation, and manufacturing (modules A1-A3 of EN 15804), and that
of building construction, which consisted of the transport and assembly of components,
energy consumption related to land soil preparation and excavation, and building material
waste generation (modules A4–A5 of EN 15804). During the use stage, the operational
use of energy and water are considered along with the repainting of the building and
replacement of the floor (modules B6, B7, B2, and B4 of EN 15804). At the end of their life
cycles, buildings are demolished, and building materials are transported and managed
into landfill (modules C1, C2, and C4 of EN 15804) [39].

82
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

(QHUJ\ ^LJƐƚĞŵďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
0 DWHULDOV
: DWHU

PRE-USE PHASE USE PHASE END OF LIFE PHASE

Building materials stage Building materials Construction stage Maintenance and Operational stage End of life stage
transport stage Replacement stage
$ 5 DZ P DWHULDO %2 SHUDWLRQDO & ' HFRQVWUXFWLRQ
VXSSO\ $ & RQVWUXFWLRQ %8 VH
$ 7UDQVSRUWWR HQHUJ\XVH ' HP ROLWLRQ
EXLOGLQJVLWH
%0 DLQWHQDQFH
$ 7UDQVSRUW %2 SHUDWLRQDO & 7UDQVSRUW
%5 HSDLU Z DWHUXVH
$ 0 DQXIDFWXULQJ & : DVWHSURFHVVLQJ
%5 HSODFHP HQW
& ' LVSRVDO
%5 HIXUELVKP HQW

(P LVVLRQV
: DVWH

Figure 4. Life cycle assessment (LCA) system boundary based on EN 15804 modularity (included modules are shaded) and
stages defined for the villa assessment.

The use phase includes any emissions to the environment (module B1); technical
operations on the building: maintenance, repair, replacement, and refurbishment (respec-
tively module B2 to B5); and operation of the building, divided into operational energy use
(module B6) and operational water use (module B7). Only maintenance and replacement
operations and operational energy and water use are considered relevant for the villa
use phase.
At the end of its life, the entire building is deposited as waste in landfill, which means
that the C3 module of waste processing is not relevant in this system.
Other life cycle processes were omitted because they account for less than 1% of the
total environmental impact, and data availability was limited for infrastructure, construc-
tion, production equipment, and tools that are not directly consumed in the construction
process; as well as for employee-related activities such as transport to and from work,
packaging of construction products and packaging waste produced during the A5 module,
communication installations, villa equipment, HVAC, and lamps.

2.4. Life Cycle Inventory and Assumptions

The inputs and outputs used to calculate the environmental impact of the average
villa were compiled from the building’s bill of materials. Specific data collected from
local construction firms via questionnaires and interviews were used to model each life
cycle stage and taken as representative of the Saudi Arabian construction process for this
type of building. Generic data that were not based on measures or direct calculations for
the specific processes or stages were obtained from the Ecoinvent version 3.2 database.
The hypothesis of the Ecoinvent database was assumed, even though some processes
were adapted to the Saudi Arabian context. Detailed process data were considered in this
study during the life cycle for each material during manufacturing, transportation, and
disposal [40,41].

2.4.1. Building Materials Stage

Quantities of materials specified in the bill of materials were used to model the
building materials stage (Table 1). Because no specific information was available on the
manufacturing of the construction products in Saudi Arabia and previous stages, the
Ecoinvent database was used. The datasets were modified to include the Saudi Arabian
electricity mix and water supply as recommended by other studies [40].

83
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

2.4.2. Building Materials Transport Stage

The scenario for the transportation stage was set from the local construction sector
experience. The transportation distance was assumed to be 50 km from the manufacturer
to the construction site for all materials because all materials would have been obtained
from Riyadh’s second industrial city. Materials transportation from manufacturers to the
construction site was assumed to be carried by an average 16–32 ton truck.

2.4.3. Construction Stage

In the construction phase, waste material was added as an additional 10% of the
overall quantity for the bill of quantities because during this stage, the wastage rate is
assumed to be 10%. For this additional 10%, the same assumptions were used for the
building materials and transportation stages. In Saudi Arabia, the common practice for
building waste is the landfill process. Hence, the construction waste was assumed to be
transported 50 km for disposal. Waste generated via transportation and management was
assumed to be carried by an average 16–32 ton truck.
In the construction stage, the soil preparation and excavation were included based on
the bill of materials information.

2.4.4. Maintenance and Replacement Stage

The proposed scenario for the use stage, which refers to technical operations, covers
both maintenance and replacement. Based on the service life of components and materials
and the building lifespan, the external walls will be repainted twice, while internal walls
will be repainted three times. The replacement tasks cover the replacement of floor tiles and
all layers that conform to the floor (twice during the building lifespan) and wall tiles (once)
along with the required materials. The materials used for replacement and maintenance
were assumed to be transported 50 km by an average of 3.5–7.5-ton truck. The replacement
materials waste was assumed to be transported and disposed of. The same scenario defined
in the construction stage was used in this stage.

2.4.5. Operational Stage

The energy consumption for the villa was collected by Energy Plus software conduct-
ing a one-year simulation based on the villa’s characteristics. The data obtained and used
for the scenario in the operational stage are shown in Table 2. It was assumed that the villa
would be occupied by six people and the temperature inside the villa would be 21.3 ◦ C
for comfort. The most demanding uses are cooling, accounting for 62% of the electricity
demand, and interior lighting, accounting for 14% of the consumption.

Table 2. End-use energy consumption (one-year simulation). GFA, gross floor area.

End Use Electricity Consumption (kWh/year)

Cooling 29,221.30
Interior Lighting 6367.27
Exterior Lighting 2185.08
Interior Equipment 3719.76
Fans 1791.72
Pumps 0.57
Water Systems 3743.88
Total 47,029.58
Total/GFA (kWh/m2 ) 121.52

Water is consumed during the operational stage. The tap water Ecoinvent dataset was
modeled to consider part of the water supply coming from groundwater and the other part
from seawater in Saudi Arabia.

84
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

2.4.6. End-of-Life Stage

In Saudi Arabia, the common practice for Construction and demolition waste (CDW)
is the landfill process. Hence, the scenario that models the end-of-life stage states that the
building is dismantled and all building materials are transported by truck and disposed of.

3. Results and Discussion

The life cycle of the villa was divided into the following stages as aligned with
the European core rules for the product category of construction products EN 15804
and the construction sector: product (building materials), building materials transport,
construction, operational, maintenance and replacement, and end of life. The midpoint
impact categories that were analyzed with CML-IA baseline v3.03 methods were global
warming (GWP100a), ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification (AP), eutrophication
(EP), photochemical oxidation (POCP), and indicator cumulative energy demand (CED)
following the Cumulative Energy Demand v1.09 method.

3.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

3.1.1. Main Findings
Table 3 presents the results of the life cycle of the villa from a cradle-to-grave perspec-
tive for the functional unit and m2 (GFA). Figure 5 depicts the contribution of each life
cycle stage. The results show that for all impact categories, the operational use stage is the
most important stage, with a contribution ranging from 91% (photochemical oxidation) to
96% (ozone depletion and acidification). A total of 7.26 tons CO2 -eq per m2 (GFA) were po-
tentially emitted during the villa life cycle, and 6.76 tons CO2 -eq were from the operational
use stage, electricity, and water consumed over 50 years. The impact of the operational
stage was obtained mainly from electricity consumption, which was modeled on an annual
basis using Energy Plus. The obtained data show that 47,030 kWh was consumed annually,
representing 122 kWh/m2 (GFA). Of the total electricity consumed, 62% was used for
cooling, whereas 14% was used for interior lighting. The villa was composed of 695 tons of
materials, but the building materials stage, that is, the material supply and manufacturing,
represented a maximum of 6% of the life cycle impact in the category of photochemical
oxidation. This stage is analyzed in detail in the next section. The transport of building
materials to the construction site did not have a significant impact considering the whole
building life cycle, accounting for less than 1% of all impact categories. The transport
distance was assumed as 50 km because factories are in Riyadh, the second industrial city,
so all transport operations were optimized. During the construction stage, 10% of building
materials were assumed to be transformed into waste materials. Thus, the extra number
of materials is consumed as part of this stage as well as in waste transport and the man-
agement of landfills. Some other operations were included, such as excavation. Therefore,
the contribution of this stage was highly dependent on the building material stage, but its
contribution to the total life cycle of the villa was less than 1% for all impact categories
and indicators. The maintenance and replacement stages considered the replacement of
some building elements that have a shorter lifespan than that of the building. In this case,
two relevant substitutions of floor tiles and one substitution of wall tiles and painting
works of external and internal walls were considered. Even though the amount of material
consumed during the use of the building was relevant—almost 12 tons of materials—the
contribution of this stage was, at most, 1.5% of the impact of the photochemical oxidation
impact category.

85
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

Table 3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of the life cycle of the villa considering a lifespan of 50 years (per FU) and
per m2 of GFA.

Impact Category or Indicator Acronym Units Total per FU Total per GFA (m2 )
GWP
Global warming kg CO2 -eq 2,807,943.8 7255.668734
100 years
Ozone layer depletion ODP kg CFC-11-eq 0.35283721 0.000911724
Photochemical oxidation POCP kg C2 H4 782.15594 2.02107478
Acidification AP kg SO2 -eq 18,279.348 47.23345736
Eutrophication EP kg PO4 3− -eq 1577.4363 4.076062791
Cumulative energy demand CED MJ 43,015,866.13 111,152.1089

Figure 5. Contribution of each life cycle stage to the FU environmental impact.

86
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

At the end of the life cycle, it was assumed that all the building materials were
landfilled because this the current protocol for handling construction and demolition waste
in Saudi Arabia. However, the impact of this stage contributes to less than 1% of the total
life cycle impact.
A graphical explanation of these factors is provided for analysis of the impact of indicators.

3.1.2. Building Materials Stage Impact Assessment

The LCA was developed from the villa bill of materials, so the specific contribution
of the building elements is analyzed in Table 4 for each impact category. The average
villa has a reinforced concrete structure, whereby the external and internal walls are made
of concrete and, in this study, concrete blocks. Therefore, the most important material
was concrete because it represented 83% of the building weight, 57% of the structure and
foundation, 19% of the external walls, and 8% of the internal walls.

Table 4. Contribution of building elements to the LCIA of building materials stage.

Impact Category or Indicator GWP 100 years ODP POCP AP EP CED

Foundation 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Structure 49% 48% 58% 47% 49% 46%
Roof and open space 0.9% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 2.0%
Ceiling 1.7% 1.7% 2.6% 2.4% 1.8% 2.0%
Exterior walls and parapet 21% 20% 14% 18% 19% 20%
Internal walls 13% 14% 11% 13% 16% 13%
Floor and wall tiles 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% 4%
Windows 2% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3%
Doors 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 1.6% 1.3% 2.9%
Stairs 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.5% 0.9% 1.3%
Electrical network 0.04% 0.05% 0.4% 1.0% 2.0% 0.1%

In terms of contribution to the environmental impact of building materials, the same

weight relation was followed. Table 4 shows that the contribution of the structure and
foundation ranges from 52% of the impact of the material’s cumulative energy demand to
64% for the photochemical oxidation impact category.
The structure and foundation are followed by exterior and parapet walls, with a contri-
bution ranging from 14% (photochemical oxidation) to 21% (global warming), and internal
walls, with an impact ranging from 11% (photochemical oxidation) to 16% (eutrophication).
In terms of the type of materials and their contribution to global warming (GWP),
concrete accounted for 36% of the impact while contributing 83% of the building’s weight.
Steel, used mainly as reinforcement rebar, had a significant contribution of 34%, despite
representing only 3% of the total consumed material. Approximately 13% of the impact
came from cement mortar and plaster, which accounted for 11% of the materials’ weight.
Cement and mortar are used in several building elements, such as roof or floor, but the
majority of the quantity is used in internal and external walls to plaster both faces of the
concrete blocks and to paste them.

3.2. Sensitivity Analysis—2030 Vision

In Section 3.1, the results showed that the main life cycle stage contributing to the
environmental impact was the operational use stage, where electricity and water were mainly
consumed and wastewater was generated. For all categories, the impact came from electricity,
contributing at least 70% (eutrophication). Currently, Saudi Arabia is highly dependent on
fossil fuels to produce electricity. The electricity mix of the country is 1.072 kg CO2 -eq/kWh
(obtained from the Ecoinvent v3.2 dataset and CML-IA baseline method).
In 2017, the Saudi Arabian government prepared a strategy called the 2030 Vision. The
objective of the Saudi Vision 2030 (SV2030) is to set up renewable and sustainable energy
(RnSE) projects to meet the electricity demand—which is expected to surpass 120 GW by

87
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

2032—by increasing the use of renewable resources, reducing dependency on fossil fuels,
and reducing the country’s CO2 emissions.
In this sensitivity analysis, we modeled the impact of the electricity mix based on the
share of energy sources proposed by the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable
Energy (K.A.CARE) to deliver clean energy by 2032, that is, 9 GW of wind, 41 GW of solar
(25 GW of concentrated solar and 16 solar photovoltaic (PV) cells), 17.6. GW nuclear, 1 GW
geothermal, and 3 GW WtE sources, with a total 60 GW hydrocarbon capacity to meet the
expected future energy demand and supply [42,43]. Thus, power mix resources by 2032 are
planned to be 41% from renewable sources (12% PV cells, 19% concentrated solar, 7% wind,
1% geothermal, and 2% from WtE), 13% nuclear, and 46% hydrocarbon. Based on the 2032
scenario, the carbon footprint of the electricity mix would be 0.501 kg CO2 -eq/kWh, which
is 53% lower than the current impact.
Considering that a villa would consume 47,030 kWh annually based on the calculations
with EnergyPlus, significant environmental savings could be achieved every year by
improving the electricity carbon intensity.
Table 5 compares the current annual operational use stage and the 2030 vision opera-
tional use stage together with the reduction of the impact by implementing the strategy.

Table 5. Environmental impact of annual operational use stage with current electricity mix and 2030 Vision.

Current Operational 2030 Vision Variation 2030 Vision Compared

Impact Category Units per Year
Use Stage Operational Use Stage to Current Situation
GWP 100 years kg CO2 -eq 52,289.474 25,465.652 −51%
ODP kg CFC-11-eq 0.00678169 0.003886419 −43%
POCP kg C2 H4 14.3007096 6.8689938 −52%
AP kg SO2 -eq 350.32884 167.201548 −52%
EP kg PO4 3− -eq 29.243718 18.3043584 −37%
CED MJ 815,503.1655 525,875.8671 −36%

The increase in the share of renewable sources in the Saudi Arabian electricity mix con-
tributes to a reduction in the operational impact on a yearly basis, with a minimum of 36%
for eutrophication and a maximum of 52% for photochemical oxidation and acidification.
Decarbonizing the electricity generated in Saudi Arabia that is used in the residential
sector could positively impact the life cycle of the villa. It could produce up to half of the
impact, which is the maximum reduction obtained, for the acidification impact category
(Table 6 and Figure 6).

Table 6. Environmental impact of the villa’s life cycle with current electricity mix and 2030 Vision.

Villa with 2030 Variation 2030 Vision

Impact Category Units per Year Current Villa
Vision Operational Stage Compared to Current Situation
GWP 100 years kg CO2 -eq 2,807,943.8 1,466,752.7 −48%
ODP kg CFC-11-eq 0.35283721 0.20807369 −41%
POCP kg C2 H4 782.15594 410.57015 −48%
AP kg SO2 -eq 18,279.348 9122.9835 −50%
EP kg PO4 3− -eq 1577.4363 1030.4683 −35%
CED MJ 43,015,866.13 28,534,501.27 −34%

88
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

Figure 6. GWP, ODP, POCP, AP, EP, and CED impacts by LCA stage, expressed per FU considering the current villa and a
villa during the 2030 Vision operational stage.

Even though the benefits of improving the electricity mix per kWh per year and
for 50 years are important, the operational stage under the improved mix would have
remained the stage with the largest impact on the life cycle of the villa, with a contribution
from 84% (photochemical oxidation) to 93% (ozone layer depletion), as shown in Figure 6.

3.3. Comparison with Previous Studies

From the obtained results, it can be seen that the impact of the Saudi Arabian villa is
highly dependent on the region where it is located because the energy demand is mainly
dedicated to maintaining thermal comfort (Table 2). As suggested in ISO 14044, data
validation is an element of LCA methodology that could be performed by comparing
the results with those of other published research studies. Because no LCA study has
previously been conducted from cradle to grave in Saudi Arabia, we attempted to compare

89
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

our results to those of other studies in different regions that considered similar materials
and scope.
A cradle-to-grave comparison with a residential building in Malaysia [40] and Uruguay [44]
was performed considering the impact of GWP, ODP, AP, and EP, as the three studies used
the same LCA method, CM -baseline, and the scopes were similar, which makes the results
relatively comparable.
The comparison of these four impact categories with those of other studies is presented
in Figure 7.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Cont.

90
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

(c)

(d)

Figure 7. Comparison of (a) GWP, (b) ODP, (c) AP, and (d) EP impacts from cradle to grave of a Saudi Arabian villa with
those of residential buildings from other studies in Malaysia and Uruguay that covered the entire building life cycle.

The three buildings are residential. The Malaysian case assessed a 246 m2 GFA build-
ing, with a building frame structure of reinforced concrete and clay bricks as the building
envelope. The LCA referred to the environmental performance of the building during a
50-year lifespan, including in the assessment of the pre-use, construction, maintenance and
operation, and end of life phases.
The Uruguayan building included in this comparison was a COVISA house, a typical
three-bedroom concrete masonry Uruguayan house with a 57 m2 GFA. The environmental
assessment considered the performance during its 60-year lifespan and included the entire
life cycle except for the use (module B1 of EN 15804), refurbishment (B5), operational water
use (B7), and waste processing (C3) modules.
For all analyzed impact categories, the comparison showed that the Saudi Arabian
villa has the highest impact because of the impact of the operational stage, even though the

91
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

Malaysian and Uruguayan buildings are also highly dependent on the operational stage.
The operational stage of the Uruguayan house contributed at least more than 50% to the
total building life cycle, whereas building materials production and transport represent
around 20% of the impact. The Malaysian case differed as the operational stage was the
most significant for GWP and AP, but for ODP, it is the materials stage, and for EP, the end
of life.
As observed in Figure 7, the operational stage in the Saudi Arabian villa represents
more than 90% of the four impact categories used for the comparison. In this study, the total
amount of electricity consumed per year was 121.52 kWh/m2 ; this was 59 and 57 kWh/m2
in Malaysia and Uruguay, respectively. In Malaysia, cooling energy demand represented
47% of the total electricity use, while in Saudi Arabia, it was 62%.
Regarding building materials, the Saudi Arabian residential building had the lowest
impact for three of four impact categories. The villa has a larger GFA, which can mean
less weight per m2 . Moreover, in the building foundation, a significant difference exists
between the amount of concrete, a material that was widely used in the three buildings. For
the Saudi Arabian villa, a slab on grade foundation was assumed, which is a method most
commonly used in warmer climates where there is no seasonal freezing of the ground.
The comparison shows the results are comparable and confirm that the energy demand
hotspot in the residential sector in Saudi Arabia is the operational stage.

3.4. Key Limitations

An LCA reflects the system analyzed and data used, so all limitations concerning
data availability and system boundaries need to be considered. The bill of materials was
exhaustively analyzed, and different partners were involved in the process, which influence
all villa life cycle stages. The most significant stage, the operational stage, was modeled
with EnergyPlus according to the characteristics of the villa defined using Revit software,
so the limitations of the tools used were assumed when conducting the LCA. Even though
secondary datasets were modeled to represent the Saudi Arabia context, the results are also
sensitive to the datasets used in the assessment, particularly those describing materials
manufacturing. Hence, all used datasets are from the same LCA database, Ecoinvent.

4. Conclusions
The LCA allowed us to analyze the whole life cycle of a typical single-family residential
building in Saudi Arabia considering specific construction materials and scenarios of waste
management and transport. The results showed that the operational stage has the most
impact on energy consumption and the environment in the life cycle of the villa. These
results align with previously published life cycle assessments of residential buildings.
As indicated in Section 1 and as published in previous studies, the operational stage
represents between 40% and 90% of the life cycle energy consumption depending on
climatic conditions and usage habits. The operational stage of a typical Saudi Arabian villa
represented 95% of the total energy demand, which is above this range. The significant
contribution of this stage to the energy demand has implications in terms of environmental
impact, which has two main causes. First, the amount of electricity consumed during
the use stage is very high (122 kWh/m2 (GFA) and year) mainly due to climatization
requirements and, second, because electricity generation is highly dependent on fossil fuels.
In this study, a sensitivity analysis for the second cause was conducted. Saudi Arabia
plans to increase the share of renewable energy sources and reduce the amount of electricity
generated from hydrocarbons, which currently represent 46% of the total installed power,
by 2032. Compared to the current electricity environmental impact, the CO2 emission from
electricity generation will decrease by 53%, which represents a significant reduction in
impact. However, if we analyze how this reduction in environmental impact affects the
residential building life cycle, we conclude that it is an impacting factor as a reduction in
the impact is obtained, but the main factor is the amount of energy demand during the use
stage. Therefore, the results from the sensitivity analysis showed that even with a reduction

92
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

of 54% in hydrocarbons in electricity generation, the contribution of the operational stage

to the total life cycle environmental impact of the villa remained unchanged. For the global
warming impact category, its contribution decreases from 93%, with the current electricity
mix, to 87% with the increase in renewable sources.
Further research needs to be conducted to identify the main cause of building life cycle
environmental impact and energy demand, which is the amount of electricity required
during the use stage. Energy efficiency strategies need to be developed and evaluated in
the Saudi Arabian context to reduce the electricity demand of residential buildings, which
now accounts for 50% of the country’s electricity demand. The life cycle approach will
allow us to evaluate how the focus on operational energy demand of these strategies affects
all building life cycle stages, from building materials manufacturing to the end of life.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.A., A.K. and B.A.; methodology, H.A., A.K.A.; for-
mal analysis, A.K., S.A. and T.T.; writing—original draft writing, H.A., A.K.A., A.K. and T.T.;
writing—review and editing, A.K.A. and B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Project
number (20-0003) from the National Center for Building and Construction Technology.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be available on suitable demand.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their deep and sincere gratitude to King
Abdulaziz City for Sciences and Technology (KACST), for funding and supporting this research
project. Project number (20-0003) from the National Center for Building and Construction Technology.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References
1. Dudley, B. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 67th ed.; BP p.l.c.: London, UK, 2018.
2. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/ (accessed on 22 February 2021).
3. Cao, X.; Dai, X.; Liu, J. Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy
buildings during the past decade. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 198–213. [CrossRef]
4. Fernandez, N.; Katipamula, S.; Wang, W.; Xie, Y.; Zhao, M. Energy savings potential from improved building controls for the US
commercial building sector. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 393–413. [CrossRef]
5. Vandecasteele, C.; Andres, A.; Coz, A. WASCON 2015: Resource efficiency in construction. Waste Biomass Valoris. 2017, 8,
1379–1380. [CrossRef]
6. Ruuska, A.; Häkkinen, T. Material efficiency of building construction. Buildings 2014, 4, 266–294. [CrossRef]
7. Climate Action Tracker. Saudi Arabia. Country Summary. Available online: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/saudi-
arabia/ (accessed on 22 February 2021).
8. Liu, H.; Tellez, B.G.; Atallah, T.; Barghouty, M. The role of CO2 capture and storage in Saudi Arabia’s energy future. Int. J. Greenh.
Gas Control 2012, 11, 163–171. [CrossRef]
9. Oxford Business Group. Saudi Arabia’s Construction Sector Bounces Back in 2019. Available online: https://oxfordbusinessgroup.
com/overview/strong-foundations-sector-bounced-back-2019-infrastructure-works-housing-developments-and-large (accessed
on 22 February 2021).
10. Felimban, A.; Prieto, A.; Knaack, U.; Klein, T.; Qaffas, Y. Assessment of current energy consumption in residential buildings in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Buildings 2019, 9, 163. [CrossRef]
11. Curran, M.A. Life cycle assessment: A review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng.
2013, 2, 273–277. [CrossRef]
12. Halliday, S. Sustainable Construction; Butterworth-Heinemann: Sydney, Australia, 2008.
13. Hong, J.; Zhang, X.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, W.; Feng, Y. A multi-regional based hybrid method for assessing life cycle energy use of
buildings: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 760–772. [CrossRef]
14. Guan, L.; Walmsely, M.; Chen, G. Life cycle energy analysis of eight residential houses in Brisbane, Australia. Proc. Eng. 2015, 121,
653–661. [CrossRef]
15. Ding, G.K. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of sustainable building materials: An overview. In Eco-Efficient Construction and Building
Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 38–62.
16. Babaizadeh, H.; Haghighi, N.; Asadi, S.; Broun, R.; Riley, D. Life cycle assessment of exterior window shadings in residential
buildings in different climate zones. Build. Environ. 2015, 90, 168–177. [CrossRef]

93
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3542

17. Evangelista, P.P.; Kiperstok, A.; Torres, E.A.; Gonçalves, J.P. Environmental performance analysis of residential buildings in Brazil
using life cycle assessment (LCA). Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 748–761. [CrossRef]
18. Asif, M.; Muneer, T.; Kelley, R. Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build. Environ. 2007, 42,
1391–1394. [CrossRef]
19. Petrovic, B.; Myhren, J.A.; Zhang, X.; Wallhagen, M.; Eriksson, O. Life cycle assessment of a wooden single-family house in
Sweden. Appl. Energy 2019, 251, 113253. [CrossRef]
20. Kumar, V.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Life cycle assessment of residential buildings: A case study in Canada. Int. J. Energy Environ.
2015, 9, 1017–1025.
21. Zhang, W.; Tan, S.; Lei, Y.; Wang, S. Life cycle assessment of a single-family residential building in Canada: A case study.
In Building Simulation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 7, pp. 429–438.
22. Asif, M.; Dehwah, A.H.A.; Ashraf, F.; Khan, H.S.; Shaukat, M.M.; Hassan, M.T. Life cycle assessment of a three-bedroom house in
Saudi Arabia. Environments 2017, 4, 52. [CrossRef]
23. Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20,
411–424. [CrossRef]
24. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of a residential building with different envelopes and climates in
Indian context. Appl. Energy 2012, 89, 193–202. [CrossRef]
25. Yang, X.; Hu, M.; Wu, J.; Zhao, B. Building-information-modeling enabled life cycle assessment, a case study on carbon footprint
accounting for a residential building in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 729–743. [CrossRef]
26. Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 129–140. [CrossRef]
27. CEN/TC 350. Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of
Construction Products EN 15804:2012+A1:2013/FprA2:2019; European Committee for Standarization. s.l.: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
28. EN-European Standard. EN15978-Sustainability of Construction Works-Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings-
Calculation Method; No. EN 15978:2011; European Committee for Standarization. s.l.: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
29. ISO-14040. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework, 2nd ed.; International Organization for
Standardization, ISO14040; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
30. ISO-14044. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework, 1st ed.; International Organization for
Standardization, ISO14044; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
31. PRé. SimaPro. Available online: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro (accessed on 22 February 2021).
32. Van Oers, L. CML-IA Database, Characterisation and Normalisation Factors for Midpoint Impact Category Indicators. Version
4.5. April 2015. Available online: http://www.cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html (accessed on 22 February 2021).
33. Guinée, J.B.; Jeroen, B.; Lindeijer, E. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; Volume 7.
34. Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (part I):
Overview and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1218–1230. [CrossRef]
35. Cuéllar-Franca, R.M.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: Life cycle assessment of houses. Build.
Environ. 2012, 54, 86–99. [CrossRef]
36. Adalberth, K.; Almgren, A.; Petersen, E.H. Life-cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings. Low Energy Sustain. Build. 2001,
2, 1–21.
37. Pierluca, V.; Umberto, A. An attributional life cycle assessment for an Italian residential multifamily building. Environ. Technol.
2018, 39, 3033–3045. [CrossRef]
38. EPD International AB. Product Category Rules (PCR) 2014:2, Version 2.01 Buildings; EPD International AB: Stockholm, Sweden,
2019.
39. Clift, R.; Doing, G.; Finnveden, G. The application of life cycle assessment to integrated solid waste management
part1—methodology. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2000, 78, 279–287. [CrossRef]
40. Abd Rashid, A.F.; Idris, J.; Yusoff, S. Environmental Impact Analysis on Residential Building in Malaysia Using Life Cycle
Assessment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 329. [CrossRef]
41. Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M.
Overview and Methodology. Available online: http://www.ecoinvent.org/files/200712_frischknecht_jungbluth_overview_
methodology_ecoinvent2.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2021).
42. Khan, M. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. Def. J. 2016, 19, 36–42.
43. Yamani, H.; Zell, E.; Gasim, S.; Wilcox, S.; Katamoura, S.; Stoffel, T.; Shibli, H.; Engel-Cox, J.; Subie, M.A. 2012. Energy
Sustainability for Future Generatoins. KACARE. Assessment of solar radiation resources in Saudi Arabia. Sol. Energy 2015.
[CrossRef]
44. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; Moya, L. Comparative BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Uruguayan Timber and Concrete-
Masonry Single-Family Houses in Design Stage. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 121958. [CrossRef]

94
sustainability

Article
Determination of Optimal MR&R Strategy and
Inspection Intervals to Support Infrastructure
Maintenance Decision Making
Yingnan Yang 1 and Hongming Xie 2, *

1 College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China; [email protected]
2 School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In the commonly used approach to maintenance scheduling for infrastructure facilities,
maintenance decisions are made under the assumptions that inspection frequency is periodical and
fixed, and that the true state of a facility is revealed through inspections. This research addresses
these limitations by proposing a decision-making approach for determining optimal maintenance,
repair, and rehabilitation (MR&R) strategy and inspection intervals for infrastructure facilities that
can explicitly take into account non-periodical inspections as well as previously considered periodical
inspections. Four transition probabilities are proposed to represent four different MR&R strategies.
Then, an optimization program is suggested to minimize MR&R and inspection costs of a bridge
element network over a given time period, while keeping the condition states of the element network
above a predetermined level. A case study was applied to illustrate the proposed approach. The
results show that the proposal approach can support decision making in situations where non-
Citation: Yang, Y.; Xie, H.
periodical inspections and MR&R actions are incorporated into the model development. If employed
Determination of Optimal MR&R properly, this may allow agencies to maintain their infrastructure more effectively, resulting in cost
Strategy and Inspection Intervals to savings and reducing unnecessary waste of resources.
Support Infrastructure Maintenance
Decision Making. Sustainability 2021, Keywords: maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation (MR&R); inspection; optimization; infrastructure;
13, 2664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ decision making
su13052664

Academic Editor: Edmundas

Kazimieras Zavadskas 1. Introduction
Under continuous wear by traffic, environment and weather, infrastructure facil-
Received: 8 January 2021
ities inevitably deteriorate and require effective maintenance, although most agencies
Accepted: 27 February 2021
Published: 2 March 2021
lack sufficient funding and effective decision-making approaches for allocating limited
resources [1,2]. Given available resources, highway agencies are faced with a number
of choices: (1) How often should the inspection be done? (2) After an inspection, what
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
type of maintenance actions should be performed? (3) How to determine the optimal
published maps and institutional affil-
inspection interval and maintenance strategy to minimize costs [3]. With regard to infras-
iations. tructure issues, these choices are based on the consequences of possible maintenance, repair,
and rehabilitation (MR&R) actions on the future condition of the infrastructure facilities.
Since information about the future condition of infrastructure facilities is not available,
performance prediction models are used. This framework is common in the current main-
tenance decision making of infrastructure facilities, although the actual formulation of the
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
performance prediction and optimization models may differ [4].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
The main difficulty faced by the current maintenance decision making for infrastruc-
distributed under the terms and
ture facilities is the lack of empirical data related to the infrastructure facilities’ historical
conditions of the Creative Commons behaviour, which to a large extent relies on the experience of managers and technical
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// personnel [5,6]. Second, the currently used approaches and models have some limitations,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ which affect the effectiveness of maintenance decision making. Frangopol, et al. [7] re-
4.0/). viewed the research related to models and modelling approaches of maintenance decision

95

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052664 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

making for infrastructure facilities. They concluded that no single model has yet proven to
be generally applicable, and each model has its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore,
several studies have suggested some advanced options to overcome these barriers. Third,
infrastructure maintenance decisions are usually made by practitioners. Therefore, models
in the context of infrastructure applications need to be interpreted in a more direct and
simple manner, and should be easy to use in practice. However, the methods and models
currently proposed for infrastructure maintenance decisions are usually quite theoretical in
nature. It is evident that the difficulties faced by the current maintenance decision making
arise from the data as well as the model. As mentioned by Mishalani and McCord [8],
much more effort needs to be devoted to transferring the models and approaches into
practice by better utilizing more pertinent data, and explicitly addressing limitations to
practical implementation.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to propose a decision-making approach for deter-
mining the optimal MR&R strategy and inspection intervals for infrastructure facilities that
can explicitly take into account non-periodical inspections as well as previously considered
periodical inspections, which mainly include two parts: (1) to identify the limitations of the
current maintenance decision making used for infrastructure facilities based on a literature
review; (2) to develop a decision-making approach that can address these identified limita-
tions. The proposed approach is expected to extend current maintenance decision making
by addressing non-periodical inspection issues, and hence enhance the capability and
feasibility of the optimization module in current maintenance decision-making systems.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the current literature
of maintenance decision making for infrastructure facilities, followed by a discussion of
maintenance decision making for elements undergoing periodical inspection in Section 3.
Section 4 develops an optimization model to support the maintenance decision making of
elements undergoing non-periodical inspection. A general maintenance decision-making
support architecture covering non-periodical as well as periodical inspections is proposed
in Section 5. The last section concludes the paper by discussing the limitations and sugges-
tions for future research.

2. Review of Maintenance Decision Making for Infrastructure Facilities

Based on the current state evaluation and future condition prediction of the infras-
tructure, the key of maintenance decision making for infrastructure facilities is to develop
effective optimization models for programming maintenance and/or inspection schedules
under a limited financial budget [9]. The current maintenance management of infrastruc-
ture facilities relies on information collected from periodical inspections, which can be
used to assess the condition states and conduct maintenance optimization [10]. An impor-
tant requirement when making maintenance decisions for infrastructure facilities is data
availability [11]. However, resources to be invested in data collection and optimization
analysis are usually limited in practice [12]. The Markov decision process (MDP) and
Semi-Markov decision process (SMDP) are often used for maintenance decision analysis
due to the following advantages: (1) they are state-based models suited to incorporate
information from visual inspection [7]; (2) they are probabilistic models which can address
both the uncertainties associated with deterioration patterns and the dynamic decisions
of the model [5]; and (3) they can manipulate networks with a large number of facilities
because of their computational efficiency and simplicity of use [13]. As a result, after an
inspection, the decision maker can apply the MR&R activity specified by the optimal policy
for that condition state of the facility [14,15].
In the MDP and SMDP, infrastructure maintenance decisions are made under the
assumptions that inspections are performed at periodical intervals and that they reveal
the true condition state of a facility, with no measurement error [14,16]. The assumptions
raise several concerns which come from the simplification required to predict deterioration
of the facilities and the uncertainty from the inspection [10,17]. The assumption that
the performance prediction model depends on the state of a facility revealed through

96
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

periodical inspections is an example of the former, while the uncertainty that exists in
generating transition probabilities for the MDP and SMDP is an example of the latter [18,19].
The assumptions ignore the effects, the cost, and the complexity of MR&R actions and
inspections, thus limiting the effectiveness of the approach in many situations. Examples
include the implementation of certain types of infrastructure facilities that are susceptible
to accidental damage and need frequent MR&R actions during the life cycle, but have not
been studied extensively, e.g., expansion joints, pipeline segments, and parapets.
The assumption of error-free inspections has been demonstrated to be incorrect in
several empirical studies [10,20]. Additionally, there is a large measurement uncertainty in
visual inspection, and this uncertainty will affect maintenance decisions. This is because
measurement errors will affect the performance prediction of the facilities and ultimately
lead to the selection of the “wrong” activities. The assumption of periodical and fixed
intervals forces decision makers to schedule inspections at the beginning of planning,
regardless of the cost and effectiveness of the inspection. Indeed, parts of this assumption
may be valid for certain bridge elements, e.g., beam, pier, and girder, those where the
deterioration is primarily governed by mechanical processes. However, it is unrealistic for
some bridge components, e.g., expansion joints, bearing, and parapets, which are suscepti-
ble to accidental damage and need to be inspected non-periodically [21,22]. Madanat and
Ben-Akiva [23] identified that increasing the frequency of inspections increases inspection
costs but enhances the quality of information available to the decision maker.
A latent Markov decision process (LMDP) was proposed for maintenance deci-
sions that accounts for the presence of non-fixed time intervals and measurement un-
certainty [10,20]. Although relaxing the assumptions, LMDP research still manifests some
limitations in determining the optimal inspection and MR&R strategy. First, the effects of
MR&R actions between two adjacent inspections are still not properly incorporated into the
model development. This means that the state derived from LMDP may still not reveal the
true condition state of the bridge elements due to inconsistency in the bridge deterioration
profile. This is especially critical for some infrastructure facilities, e.g., expansion joints,
pipeline segments, and parapets, which are susceptible to accidental damage and need to
be inspected non-periodically and treated in time in order to provide safe and good service
quality for users [21]. Second, the approaches to date assume a presumed and constrained
inspection frequency in MDP [5,14], or only address the decision of whether to inspect in a
given year or not in LMDP [10,20,24]. Nazari, Noruzoliaee, Zou and Mohammadian [16]
used LMDP to seek the optimal facility-specific inspection intervals, and the MR&R poli-
cies, but focused only on inspection error associated with technology. As discussed above,
due to the effects of non-periodical inspections and subsequent MR&R actions not being
incorporated into the model development, a “wrong” maintenance decision will be made,
resulting in unnecessary waste of resources and materials. In fact, as suggested by Hu and
Samer [24], the effects of MR&R actions must be considered and conducted to ensure the
performance of infrastructure at safe and satisfactory levels [24]. Third, the current LMDP
models for infrastructure still seem quite theoretical, and hence appear difficult to use in
practice. It can be seen that the above limitations affect the effectiveness of maintenance
decision making and the use of the model. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research to
address the above limitations.
Furthermore, the proposed maintenance scheduling should take into account the
multiple constraints, including technical and economical considerations, as well as the
balanced development imperatives [25,26]. If a decision maker uses a single objective
algorithm to optimize the inspection intervals or maintenance scheduling separately, the
conflict may result in an unsatisfied demand.

3. Maintenance Decision Making for Elements Undergoing Periodical Inspection

MDPs and SMDPs can be used for maintenance-decision analysis of the elements
undergoing periodical inspection with the following underlying assumptions [14]:
1. The deterioration is represented by transition probabilities;

97
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

2. Perfect inspection is carried out to identify the condition state of the elements;
3. The process has a finite state space-maintenance action, and it is assumed that at in
every each period a set of maintenance actions is available;
4. The elements are inspected on a predetermined and fixed-time interval;
5. After the optimization analysis, the optimal periodical inspection interval and the
optimal MR&R strategies can be determined.
MDPs have been extensively used for maintenance decision making for elements
undergoing periodical inspections. The deterioration in this case is modelled as a Markov
process. The inspection interval in most MDP-based MR&R optimization is pre-determined,
usually 12 or 24 months. Some research has attempted to determine the optimal periodical
inspection with MDP, for example, Kallen and Van Noortwijk [27] proposed a decision
model to determine the optimal time between periodic inspections. Linear programming
(LP) can be used for optimal MDP-based maintenance scheduling, which was first pro-
posed by Golabi, et al. [28]. The decision variables of the optimization model are the
fractions of the facilities in the network that are in various condition states, and to which
different MR&R actions should be applied [29]. To improve computational efficiency,
researchers have proposed evolutionary-based algorithms, e.g., the genetic algorithm (GA),
for searching a near-optimum solution [30–32].
Compared with MDP, the generalized characteristics of SMDP make decision anal-
ysis more effective in choosing the optimal inspection interval. For example, Berenguer,
et al. [33] used SMDP to derive a predictive maintenance policy which indicates, at each
inspection and according to the observed value, whether a preventive maintenance is
necessary and when the next inspection should be performed; Ge, Tomasevicz and Asgar-
poor [3] used SMDP to determine the optimal inspection rate and maintenance policy by
maximizing equipment availability and minimizing the cost.

4. Maintenance Decision Making for Elements Undergoing Non-Periodical Inspection

4.1. Problem Description
Referring to the rating system of PONTIS [5], a bridge network is not considered as a
set of individual bridges but as a combination of bridge elements that interact with each
other in various forms and quantities. Thus, each bridge can be defined as a combination
of its constituent elements. Now, if one unit of an element is considered, it is possible to
define the condition state of a bridge element at any time. This makes it possible to specify
the MR&R actions that can be applied to the specific state of each element. In reality, since
one unit of a bridge element can usually be in one of four or five condition states at any
given time, there are only a few MR&R actions available to correspond. So, at any time, the
possible discrete states and available MR&R actions may be associated with one unit of the
bridge element.
Thus, it is possible to use different types of MR&R actions to discretize the condition
state of a bridge element, i.e., States 1,2,3, and 4 are distinguished by different MR&R actions
(”Do nothing”, “Preventive maintenance”, ”Corrective maintenance”, and “Rehabilitation
or Replacement”). More information about this rating system is described by Yang, Pam
and Kumaraswamy [22]. According to the rating system, the number of possible condition
states is determined for one unit of a bridge element at any given time. More pertinent
data from past inspections and maintenance records are added to the maintenance decision
analysis. The states of the bridge element take into account the impact of non-periodical
inspections and MR&R actions, which can be seen as an extension of the approach from
PONTIS. In earlier MDP and SMDP, the state is an integer representing the condition
of the infrastructure facility, assuming there are no measurement errors [27]. However,
in the model presented in this study, the state is represented by the different types of
MR&R actions. Data from actual MR&R actions were used to supplement information
from non-periodical inspections, relaxing the assumption of no measurement errors. These
aspects include the time since the last inspection, as well as the most recent MR&R actions
and the impact of these actions.

98
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

Markov and semi-Markov models are used for deterioration modelling by defining
discrete condition states and accumulating the transition probabilities from one condition
state to another, over multiple discrete time intervals, in which the deterioration process
is represented by transition probabilities [34]. The transition probabilities are integrated
in a transition probability matrix (TPM). Based on the rating system defined above, the
following four TPMs are derived, denoted as M1 , M2 , M3 , and M4 .These four TPMs are
proposed to represent four different MR&R strategies, which are expected to simplify
MR&R decision making, i.e., strategy I takes all the MR&R actions (“Do nothing”, “Pre-
ventive maintenance”, “Corrective maintenance”, and “Rehabilitation or Replacement”);
strategy II takes three MR&R actions (“Do nothing”, ”Corrective maintenance”, and ”Re-
habilitation or Replacement”) apart from preventive maintenance, strategy III takes three
MR&R actions (”Do nothing”, “Preventive maintenance”, and “Rehabilitation or Replace-
ment”) apart from corrective maintenance, while strategy IV only takes “do nothing” and
“rehabilitation/replacement” actions.
⎡ ⎤
β 11 β 12 β 13 β 14
⎢ β 21 β 22 β 23 β 24 ⎥
⎢
M1 = ⎣ ⎥ (1)
β 31 β 32 β 33 β 34 ⎦
1 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤
β 11 β 13 β 14
M2 = ⎣ β 31 β 33 β 34 ⎦ (2)
1 0 0
⎡ ⎤
β 11 β 12 β 14
M3 = ⎣ β 21 β 22 β 24 ⎦ (3)
1 0 0

β 11 β 14
M4 = (4)
1 0

4.2. Objective Function

Discrete-time SMDP can be used for maintenance-decision analysis of the elements
undergoing non-periodical inspection with the following assumptions:
1. The deterioration is represented by transition probabilities;
2. Perfect inspection is carried out to identify the state of the elements;
3. The process has a finite state space—MR&R actions—and it is assumed that at every
period a set of MR&R actions is available;
4. The elements are inspected at non-periodical intervals;
5. After each analysis, two main issues are determined: (1) the optimal inspection
interval and (2) the optimal MR&R strategies.
Based on the four TPMs derived above, an optimization program is described below.

N
Min · ∑ αi Si · TPM(i,i+1) · C M + C I (5)
i =0

s · t · S0 = 1 0 0 0 (6)
Sk+1 = Sk · TPM(k,k+1) , ∀k = 0, 1, 2 . . . i (7)

Si ≤ S Thr
(8)
where Si = condition state vector (1 × 4) at the time point i; TPM(i,i+1) = TPM (4 × 4) from
time point i to i + 1; C M = MR&R unit cost vector (4 × 1); C I = inspection unit cost; α =
discount rate; T = planning horizon; SiThr = the threshold condition state vector (1 × 4).

99
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

5. Case Study
A bridge element (e.g., expansion joints) was used as an example to validate the
approach, which was proposed to determine the optimal MR&R strategy and inspection
intervals for a network of bridge element. The TPMs derived from Yang, et al. [35] were
used as inputs to the optimization Equation (5). Searching for appropriate algorithms is
the most important step factor in optimization. Network-level optimization problems of
infrastructure are frequently formulated as MDPs, and the optimal MDP-based MR&R
policy can be determined by short-term and/or long-term optimization. Long-term opti-
mization is based on infinite planning horizons, while short-term optimization is based on
a predetermined and finite planning horizon [14]. Considering the inspection frequency
of the actual project, 6 months was used as a calculation step in this case. The planning
period was set at 20 years. A common approach of solving an MDP-based model is by
transforming it into a LP model. Therefore, a short-term LP optimization was considered
in this case study, for which efficient algorithms exist (e.g., Golabi, Kulkarni and Way [28];
Smilowitz and Madanat [10,14]).
The objective function (5) minimizes the total expected cost of MR&R activities and in-
spection by selecting the optimal values of the decision variables over the planning horizon
T. The required constraints for this minimization problem are listed in Equations (6)–(8).
The first constraint (6) limits the initial variable of condition state vector. Constraint
(7) shows the Chapman–Kolmogorov equation. Constraint (8) defines a predetermined
threshold value to the condition states of the bridge element. More detailed calculation
procedures can be seen in [14].
Referring to the real costs and the suggestions from the engineers, the inspection unit
cost is assumed to be 10 (USD/m), and the ratio of MR&R action unit cost is assumed to be
0:10:100:1000 for Strategy I; 0: 100:1000 for Strategy II; and 0:10:1000 for Strategy III. The
last value of the condition state vector is related to the structural safety and can be ensured
by setting a critical value. According to Yang, Kumaraswamy, Pam and Xie [35], 1% can be
used as a critical value for the last value of the condition state vector, i.e., if the last value of
the condition state vector exceeds the critical value, a penalty in the form of an additional
MR&R cost of USD 1000 per unit is applied. The above values can be adjusted according to
the actual project.
As shown in Table 1, Strategy II is a good choice if the lowest total cost is considered,
and Strategy I can be a good choice if good condition performance is considered. One
possible explanation for the lowest total cost of Strategy II is that it does not use the
preventive maintenance, reducing the frequency of inspections and associated costs that
result from the preventive maintenance. In contrast, Strategy III has the worst conditional
state and the highest total cost, making it an unsatisfactory choice.

Table 1. Output of analysis.

Strategy Fractions of Condition State Optimal Inspection Interval (Month) Total Cost ($)
I [0.060; 0.092; 0.765; 0.083] 12–24−30–36−42–78−120–240 3.657 × 103
II [0.073; 0.837; 0.090] 6–24−78–240 2.026 × 103
III [0.438; 0.386; 0.078] 12–114−120–126−210–240 4.328 × 103

The results of the case study also indicate that relaxing the frequency of inspections
may contribute to cost savings, due to the increased costs of frequent inspections. In
particular, for higher levels of measurement error, the increased costs may be higher.
The results suggest that the instrumentation could be used to improve the accuracy of
infrastructure inspections in the future and the importance of jointly optimizing inspection
intervals and MR&R policies. The results of the case study have some similarities to those
of previous research (e.g., [10]).

100
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

6. Discussion
A case study was performed to illustrate the proposed approach to programming
and formulating an optimal inspection interval and MR&R strategy for a network of
bridge elements. The optimization problem is formulated as a short-term LP problem. The
optimization objective is to minimize the MR&R and inspection cost of a bridge element
network over a given time period, while keeping the element network condition above a
predefined threshold level.
For a given time period (e.g., 20 years), the results of the case study comprise the
inspection intervals, the total cost, and fractions of condition state for a given time period.
Decisions are thus made by balancing these items. This application illustrated the feasibility,
efficiency, and capability of the proposed approach. A general maintenance decision-
making support architecture covering non-periodical as well as periodical inspections was
thus proposed (see Figure 1). Four modules are included in the architecture, which are
(1) data input, (2) optimization process, (3) output, and (4) making decisions. Just like the
optimization results generated by the case study, engineers can choose one of them and
make maintenance decisions. If the optimization outputs are not satisfied, the model can
be run again with different parameters adjusted and entered, e.g., adjusting MR&R and
inspection costs, and planning horizon.

'DWD,QSXW
ƒ 5HVXOWVIURPSHUIRUPDQFH
SUHGLFWLRQPRGHOV730V
0RGXOH ƒ &RVW'DWDHJ05 5FRVW
ƒ LQVSHFWLRQFRVWSHQDOW\FRVW
ƒ 3ODQQLQJKRUL]RQ
ƒ

12
2SWLPL]DWLRQ
• 6HDUFKIRUDSSURSULDWHDOJRULWKPV
0RGXOH
• 2SHUDWLRQSKDVHVRIDSSURSULDWH
DOJRULWKPV

2XWSXW
0RGXOH ƒ 2SWLPDOLQVSHFWLRQLQWHUYDO &KRRVHRQHVROXWLRQ
ƒ 2SWLPDO05 5VWUDWHJ\˗ DQGVHHLILWVDWLVILHG
ƒ )UDFWLRQVRIFRQGLWLRQVWDWH 0RGXOH
<(6

0DNHGHFLVLRQV

Figure 1. General maintenance decision-making support architecture.

7. Conclusions
Highway agencies are increasingly recognizing the need for an effective approach to
allocate limited resources in a cost-effective and environmental-friendly way for infras-
tructure maintenance [2,36]. Much of the current research on sustainable infrastructure is
focused on the design phase, encouraging more efficient use of natural resources and green
design [37], and neglecting sustainable issues in the maintenance phase [38]. A literature
review was used to identify the limitations of the current maintenance decision making
used for infrastructure facilities. Based on this, a decision-making approach was proposed
for determining optimal MR&R strategy and inspection intervals for infrastructure facili-
ties that can explicitly take into account non-periodical inspections as well as previously
considered periodical inspections. The optimization model enables highway agencies to
determine the optimal maintenance policy for a given level of performance and minimum
cost, while ensuring the security of critical infrastructures and reducing waste of resources.

101
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

After all, many materials and resources could be wasted, and infrastructure facilities could
deteriorate more severely with improper MR&R policies. The outputs of the proposed
decision-making support architecture comprise the inspection intervals, the total cost, and
fractions of condition states for a given time period. Multi-criteria decisions can thus be
made by optimizing the targeted balance between these items. This makes the proposed
approach attractive, because it considers the engineering practices. It is impractical to
make strong assumptions about performance prediction and maintenance optimization.
For example, the existing approach to maintenance decision making for certain types of
infrastructure elements, e.g., expansion joints, pipeline segments, and parapets, usually
assumes that inspection is fixed, with no measurement error.
Through this approach, there is a great potential for highway agencies to make their
infrastructure sustainable by saving costs and reducing unnecessary waste of resources.
Compared with the optimization models presented in previous research (e.g., Memarzadeh
and Pozzi [12]; Wu, Yuan, Kumfer and Liu [2]), the assumptions were addressed in this
study; and the outputs include not only the optimal MR&R strategy but also the optimal
inspection intervals.
The MR&R strategies vary greatly from one bridge element to another. The TPMs
proposed in this study may not be applicable to another bridge element (e.g., bridge
pier). Appropriate TPMs can be proposed for different types of bridge elements in future
research. The inspection unit cost and the MR&R action unit cost are needed in the
optimization model. Future studies will continue to collect cost data to ensure accurate and
reasonable results. Additionally, the user cost (e.g., including traffic delay and resource
use cost) and other social costs could be incorporated into the overall cost optimization. A
comprehensive database could be developed to obtain such data. Assuming this is possible,
it is also necessary to develop a cost model to incorporate all such pertinent cost data for
overall optimization in future research. The proposed approach was only verified using
the data from one important bridge element. More data from other bridge elements should
be collected to verify the proposed approach in the future. Furthermore, superposing the
additional variables and constraints will lead to an exponential increase in the number of
variables, making it computationally expensive to reach an optimal solution. To improve
computational efficiency, robust optimization techniques, e.g., the genetic algorithm (GA),
could be tested in a future study.

Author Contributions: Y.Y. developed the concept based on the analysis and drafted the manuscript.
H.X. provided constructability feedback and reviewed the manuscript. All of the authors read
and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 71673240 and 71772163), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
LY16G020009 and LY17G020024), and Guangzhou Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (Grant
No.2020GZYB94).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the kind support and cooperation of the Highways
Department of HKSAR in providing valuable data, relevant manuals, and other required information.
The authors thank the anonymous reviews for their valuable suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

102
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

References
1. Chu, J.C.; Huang, K.H. Mathematical programming framework for modeling and comparing network-level pavement mainte-
nance strategies. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2018, 109, 1–25. [CrossRef]
2. Wu, D.; Yuan, C.; Kumfer, W.; Liu, H. A life-cycle optimization model using semi-markov process for highway bridge maintenance.
Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 43, 45–60. [CrossRef]
3. Ge, H.; Tomasevicz, C.L.; Asgarpoor, S. Optimum Maintenance Policy with Inspection by Semi-Markov Decision Processes. In
Proceedings of the 39th North American Power Symposium, Las Cruces, NM, USA, 30 September–2 October 2007; pp. 541–546.
4. Robelin, C.-A.; Madanat, S.M. History-dependent bridge deck maintenance and replacement optimization with Markov decision
processes. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2007, 13, 195–201. [CrossRef]
5. Golabi, K.; Shepard, R. Pontis: A system for maintenance optimization and improvement of US bridge networks. Interfaces 1997,
27, 71–88. [CrossRef]
6. Madanat, S.; Smilowitz, K.; Lago, A. Optimal inspection and maintenance policies for infrastructure systems: Facility and network
problems. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1999, 1667, 1–7. [CrossRef]
7. Frangopol, D.M.; Kallen, M.-J.; Van Noortwijk, J.M. Probabilistic Models for Life-Cycle Performance of Deteriorating Structures:
Review and Future Directions. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2004, 6, 197–212. [CrossRef]
8. Mishalani, R.G.; McCord, M.R. Infrastructure condition assessment, deterioration modelling, and maintenance decision making:
Methodological advances and practical considerations. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12, 145–146. [CrossRef]
9. Fang, Y.; Sun, L. Developing A Semi-Markov Process Model for Bridge Deterioration Prediction in Shanghai. Sustainability 2019,
11, 5524. [CrossRef]
10. Smilowitz, K.; Madanat, S. Optimal inspection and maintenance policies for infrastructure networks. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct.
Eng. 2000, 15, 5–13. [CrossRef]
11. Mandiartha, P.; Duffield, C.F.; Thompson, R.G.; Wigan, M.R. Measuring pavement maintenance effectiveness using markov
chains analysis. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 13, 844–854. [CrossRef]
12. Memarzadeh, M.; Pozzi, M. Integrated inspection scheduling and maintenance planning for infrastructure systems. Comput. Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 31, 403–415. [CrossRef]
13. Morcous, G. Performance prediction of bridge deck systems using markov chains. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2006, 20, 146–155.
[CrossRef]
14. Madanat, S.M.; Park, S.; Kuhn, K. Adaptive Optimization and Systematic Probing of Infrastructure System Maintenance Policies
under Model Uncertainty. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12, 192–198. [CrossRef]
15. Durango-Cohen, P.L. Maintenance and repair decision making for infrastructure facilities without a deterioration model. J.
Infrastruct. Syst. 2016, 10, 1–8. [CrossRef]
16. Nazari, F.; Noruzoliaee, M.; Zou, B.; Mohammadian, A. Optimal facility-specific inspection and maintenance decisions under
measurement uncertainty: Unifying framework. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23, 04017036. [CrossRef]
17. Kim, J.; Ahn, Y.; Yeo, H. A comparative study of time-based maintenance and condition-based maintenance for optimal choice of
maintenance policy. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 12, 1525–1536. [CrossRef]
18. Hong, T.; Chae, M.J.; Kim, D.; Koo, C.; Lee, K.S.; Chin, K.H. Infrastructure asset management system for bridge projects in south
korea. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 17, 1551–1561. [CrossRef]
19. Moreira, A.V.; Fwa, T.F.; Oliveira, J.R.M.; Costa, L. Coordination of user and agency costs using two-level approach for pavement
management optimization. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2017, 2639, 110–118. [CrossRef]
20. Durango-Cohen, P.L.; Madanat, S.M. Optimization of inspection and maintenance decisions for infrastructure facilities under
performance model uncertainty: A quasi-bayes approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pr. 2008, 42, 1074–1085. [CrossRef]
21. Mishalani, R.G.; Madanat, S.M. Computation of infrastructure transition probabilities using stochastic duration models. J.
Infrastruct. Syst. 2002, 8, 139–148. [CrossRef]
22. Yang, Y.N.; Pam, H.J.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Framework development of performance prediction models for concrete bridges. J.
Transp. Eng. 2009, 135, 545–554. [CrossRef]
23. Madanat, S.M.; Ben-Akiva, M. Optimal inspection and repair policies for transportation facilities. Transp. Sci. 1994, 28, 55–62.
[CrossRef]
24. Liang, W.Y.; Huang, C.C.; Lin, Y.C.; Chang, T.H.; Meng, H.S. The multi-objective label correcting algorithm for supply chain
modeling. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 142, 172–178. [CrossRef]
25. Hu, X.; Samer, M. Determination of optimal mr&r policies for retaining life-cycle connectivity of bridge networks. J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 2015, 21, 04014042.
26. Lee, S.Y.; Park, W.; Ok, S.Y.; Koh, H.M. Preference-based maintenance planning for deteriorating bridges under multi-objective
optimisation framework. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2011, 7, 633–644. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, L.; Henning, T.F.P.; Raith, A.; Shamseldin, A.Y. Multiobjective optimization for maintenance decision making in infrastruc-
ture asset management. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04015015. [CrossRef]
28. Kallen, M.J.; Van Noortwijk, J.M. Optimal periodic inspection of a deterioration process with sequential condition states. Int. J.
Press. Vessel. Pip. 2006, 83, 249–255. [CrossRef]
29. Golabi, K.; Kulkarni, R.B.; Way, G.B. A statewide pavement management system. Interfaces 1982, 12, 5–21. [CrossRef]

103
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2664

30. Yang, Y.N.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Towards life-cycle focused infrastructure maintenance for concrete bridges. Facilities 2011, 29,
577–590. [CrossRef]
31. Morcous, G.; Lounis, Z. Maintenance optimization of infrastructure networks using genetic algorithms. Autom. Constr. 2005, 14,
129–142. [CrossRef]
32. Lee, C.K.; Kim, S.K. GA-based algorithm for selecting optimal repair and rehabilitation methods for reinforced concrete (RC)
bridge decks. Autom. Constr. 2007, 16, 153–164. [CrossRef]
33. Cheng, T.M.; Yan, R.Z. Integrating messy genetic algorithms and simulation to optimize resource utilization. Comput. Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2009, 24, 401–415. [CrossRef]
34. Berenguer, C.; Chu, C.; Grall, A. Inspection and maintenance planning: An application of semi-Markov decision processes. J.
Intell. Manuf. 1997, 8, 467–476. [CrossRef]
35. Thomas, O.; Sobanjo, J. Semi-markov models for the deterioration of bridge elements. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2016, 22, 04016010.
[CrossRef]
36. Yang, Y.N.; Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Pam, H.J.; Xie, H.M. Integrating semiparametric and parametric models in survival analysis of
bridge element deterioration. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2013, 19, 176–185. [CrossRef]
37. Benitez, P.; Rocha, E.; Talukdar, S.; Varum, H.; Rodrigues, F. Efficiency analysis of optimal inspection management for reinforced
concrete structures under carbonation-induced corrosion risk. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 1000–1012. [CrossRef]
38. Vicent, P.-P.; Tatiana, G.-S.; José, M.; Víctor, Y. An optimization-lca of a prestressed concrete precast bridge. Sustainability 2018,
10, 685.

104
sustainability

Article
Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation of the Critical Success Factors for
the Sustainability of Public Private Partnership Projects
in China
Binchao Deng 1, *, Dongjie Zhou 1 , Jiachen Zhao 1 , Yilin Yin 1,2 and Xiaoyu Li 1

1 School of Management, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China; [email protected] (D.Z.);
[email protected] (J.Z.); [email protected] (Y.Y.); [email protected] (X.L.)
2 School of Management, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects have attracted wide attention from academia
and industry over the past 20 years, however, they have been plagued by certain factors. This study
identified, classified, and evaluated the success factors that may affect PPP projects for achieving
sustainability. First, a list of 32 critical success factors were categorized into 3 groups, then a
questionnaire survey was conducted, with 108 responses received from experts, researchers, and PPP
project managers in China. Second, using a fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) method, stakeholder
relationships (A1 –A10 ), external environmental (B1 –B8 ), and project management of a special purpose
vehicle (C1 –C14 ) collected data at three different factor group locations in PPP projects were used in
this evaluation. The results obtained nine top factors: private sector financing capacity, government
credit, government commitment or guarantee, completeness of legal framework, available financial
Citation: Deng, B.; Zhou, D.; Zhao, J.;
markets, the feasibility study report and implementation, effectiveness of risk management, project
Yin, Y.; Li, X. Fuzzy Synthetic investment, and cost control and revenue distribution. It was demonstrated that fuzzy synthetic
Evaluation of the Critical Success evaluation techniques are quite appropriate techniques for PPP projects. The research findings should
Factors for the Sustainability of Public impact on policy development towards PPP and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project governance.
Private Partnership Projects in China.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551. Keywords: public private partnership; critical success factors; fuzzy synthetic evaluation; sustain-
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052551 ability; project governance

Academic Editors: Edmundas

Kazimieras Zavadskas and
Fausto Cavallaro 1. Introduction
Public private partnership (PPP) projects have been widely used to ease pressure on
Received: 6 January 2021
Accepted: 20 February 2021
government finances in China since 2013. The core principles of a PPP project include
Published: 26 February 2021
win–win cooperation, risk allocation, sustainability, and revenue sharing [1–7]. However,
PPP projects have been characterized as having a long implementation period [8], large
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
investment scale [9], complex financing structure [10], financial and investment sustain-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
ability [11–13], and diverse participants [14]. The performance of PPP projects is closely
published maps and institutional affil- related to the interests of the public and other stakeholders. A PPP project failure can cause
iations. a significant waste of social resources and affect the government’s reputation. Based on a
recent literature review [15–18], critical success factors over a long-term cooperation period
were identified to help public and private stakeholders control PPP project performance
risks.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
PPP projects need a smoothly sustainable environment. However, it is not clear
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
whether the reality matches the ideal with respect to the cooperation between the public
This article is an open access article
and the private sectors, who, together, achieve value for money (VfM), project success, and
distributed under the terms and sustainability. In particular, 348 PPP projects were forced to pull out of the project manage-
conditions of the Creative Commons ment library of China public private partnerships center (CPPPC) after “Implementation
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// opinions on promoting standardized development of cooperation between the public and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ private sector” (No. 10, 2019 Ministry of Finance of China), because the public sector or pri-
4.0/). vate sector did not provide compliance documents or other non-conforming operations that

105

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052551 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

are required by CPPPC. It is indicated that several risk factors impact PPP project success,
including project demands, location, financing, legal and policy environment, taxation,
design, construction and technology, operation and customer service interlinked risks, and
other factors [19–22]. These risks significantly threaten PPP project success. According to
the CPPPC report (http://www.cpppc.org:8086/pppcentral/map/toPPPMap.do, accessed
on 30 December 2020), from 2013 to 2020, 99,930 PPP projects were finished in CPPPC, with
a total capital expenditure of RMB 15,278.1 billion. This was mainly invested in more than
20 industries. Similarly, over the past 25 years, more than 6000 PPP projects have reached
financial closure in developing countries [23].
Despite the great benefits of PPP, these projects have faced many problems (negative
effects of risk management and risk sharing, technical capacity of the private sector, in-
vestment controls, lacking a complete legal framework, the lack of a feasible operation
model, and lack of a government commitment or guarantee) and many of them failed
or required renegotiation [24–28]. Many studies have investigated why PPP projects fail.
These studies classified reasons for failure into the following areas: risk management
and allocation [29,30], stakeholder management [31,32], feasibility of operation manage-
ment [33–35], government commitment or guarantee [36–39], and completeness of legal
and policy framework [36,40]. All of these areas have all been extensively explored by
researchers worldwide.
The indicators above show the interest researchers have had in exploring the success
factors involved in delivering PPP projects worldwide. In total, 18 Critical Success Factors
(CSF) were examined using a factor analysis in the context of construction PPP and PFI
projects in the United Kingdom [19,41] identified 29 reliable factors, and other studies in-
troduced fuzzy synthetic evaluation to determine CSFs and assess the factors for particular
critical risk groups [32,42,43]. Ng et al. indicated that addressing the tripartite expectations
(public sector, private sector, and other stakeholders) has been indispensable in ensuring
the feasibility and successfulness of PPP schemes in Hong Kong [44]. Zou et al. identified
the CSFs associated with relationship management in PPP projects [45]. Another study
examined stakeholder perceptions of CSFs in Nigeria [46]. Finally, Osei-Kyei et al. [15]
reviewed studies on CSFs from 1990 to 2013; these indicated increased worldwide research
interest in PPP projects. These research publications have provided practitioners and
researchers with more insights into the critical success factors and sustainability of PPP
projects. Therefore, inspired by the above literature and research, this study prioritized
the factors significantly influencing PPP projects. This included applying a fuzzy synthetic
evaluation analysis method to overcome the issues of interdependencies and feedback
among different factor-ranking alternatives. This research also developed a checklist of
CSFs for PPP, which could be adopted in the further empirical and sustainable research.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 offers a brief background
and identification of critical success factors for PPP projects, which uses a literature review
and case study. Section 3 uses fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to analyze the data of
success factors that were collected by a questionnaire survey. Then, the results are discussed
in Section 4, the factors are ranked, and the top nine critical success factors are obtained.
Lastly, Section 5 explains the implications, limitations, suggestions for future research, and
conclusions of this paper.

2. The Identification of Critical Success Factors for PPP Projects

The main aim of this paper is to identify CSFs which influence the establishment of
a sustainable PPP, and which will enable more efficient management of PPP processes
in China. For the past few decades, a major area of PPP studies receiving significant
attention from academic and managerial communities relates to critical success factors
(CSF). Bing et al. [19] used a factor analysis to identify 18 potential factors most likely to
affect PPP and PFI project success in the UK. They included: efficient procurement, the
capacity of project implementation, government guarantees, favorable economic conditions,
sustainable environment, and available financial markets. According to top tier academic

106
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

journals from 1990 to 2013, Osei-Kyei and Chan [15] identified the following factors as
being very significant for PPP project success: risk allocation and sharing, strong private
consortia, political support, public support, and transparent procurement.
CSFs have also been categorized and assessed in studies in different countries, includ-
ing: Iran [35], the UK [47], Ghana [34,48], Greece [49], Hong Kong [44,50,51], Nigeria [52],
Australia [53], Vietnam [54], Malaysia [55,56], and China [43,57]. These studies, of success
factors in those countries, found that different PPP projects are associated with different
critical success factors. Therefore, this study identified CSFs from literature and case stud-
ies, and obtained 14 critical success factors using a comprehensive analysis, providing
support for a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation.

2.1. Literature Review on Critical Success Factors of PPP Projects

To comprehensively research PPP projects, “critical success factor” and “PPP project”
were utilized as search keywords to identify journal papers published from 2000 to 2019 in
international journals using the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database
in China, and the Web of Science database. We obtained 279 papers after the data-cleaning
process, including 186 Chinese papers and 93 international journal papers.
From the above-selected literature, similarities of the success factors for PPPs are
obvious, and priority is placed on nominating perceived CSFs based on perception of
public and private sector participants. A large proportion of the reviewed studies arrived at
their nominated CSFs based on their mean scores or experience analysis [58–84]. Therefore,
it is imperative to establish and statistic the key principal success factors in life cycle of PPP
projects, their interrelationships, management principles, and contribution to successful
implementation of a candidate project. The researcher read these papers to ensure that no
invalid records were included. Table 1 lists 30 critical success factors from the document
analysis.

107
Table 1. Summary of Literature on Success Criteria from CNKI and Web of Science.

No. Critical Success Factors Authers Sum

Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liyanage and Villalba [49];
Effective risk management and risk Dixon et al., 2005 [61]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(b) [15];
1 20
sharing Qiao et al. [65]; Zhen-Yu Zhao [66]; Robert et al. [15]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67];
Binquan and Tong [68]; Hongping and Sudong [69]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [71]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and Villalba [49]; Yuan et al. [60]; Dixon et al.
[61]; Zhang(b) [15] Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Li et al. [73]; Qiao et al. [66];
2 Technical capacity of private sector Zhang [65]; Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan 24
and Tong [68]; Hongping and Sudong [69]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [71]; Chou and
Pramudawardhani [17]; Osei-Kyei and Chan [16]; Keers and van Fenema [30]
Ahadzie et al. [74]; Chan and Chan [58]; Lim and Mohamed [75]; Bryde and Robinson [76]; Al-Tmeemy
et al. [77]; Baccarini [78]; Cox et al. [79]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al.
3 Control of investment [72]; Liyanage and Villalba [49]; Dixon et al. [61]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; Meng et al. [64]; 23
Zhang(b) [15] Li et al. [73]; Qiao et al. [66]; Robert et al. [15]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67];
Jingfeng et al. [70]
Ahadzie et al. [74]; Chan and Chan [58]; Lim and Mohamed [75]; Al-Tmeemy et al. [77]; Baccarini [78]; Cox
et al. [79]; Lai and Lam [80]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage
4 Reasonable project cooperation period 22
and Villalba [49]; Bryde and Robinson [76]; Dixon et al. [61]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung
et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(b) [15] Li et al. [73]; Robert et al. [15]; Jingfeng et al. [70]
Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Zhang(a) [62];

108
5 Long-term market demand Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(b) [15] Li et al. [73]; Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; 16
Hongping and Sudong [69]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [71]; Xia et al. [81]
Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and Villalba [49]; Dixon
Long-term relationship with cooperation
6 et al. [61]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(b) [15] Li et al. [73]; 17
between government and private sector
Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Qian and Xinli [71]
Liu et al. [72]; Qiao et al. [66]; Zhang [65]; Robert et al. [15]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67];
7 Financial resources for private sector 9
Hongping and Sudong [69]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [71]
Chan and Chan [58]; Al-Tmeemy et al. [77]; Lai and Lam [80]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic
8 Reasonable income distribution et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and Villalba [49]; Dixon et al. [61]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; 15
Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(b) [15] Li et al. [73]; Xia et al. [81]
Qiao et al. [66]; Zhang [65]; Robert et al. [15]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and
9 Complete legal framework 9
Tong [68]; Hongping and Sudong [69]; Qian and Xinli [71]; Xia et al. [81]
Table 1. Cont.

No. Critical Success Factors Authers Sum

Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and
10 Reduced public and political protests Villalba [49]; Dixon et al. [61]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Li 13
et al. [73]; Robert et al. [15]
Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

11 Feasible operating model Villalba [49]; Zhang(a) [62]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Li et al. [73]; Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing 14
et al. [43] Osei-Kyei and Chan [15]; Ahmadabadi and Heravi [35]
Chan and Chan [58]; Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and
12 Local economic development Villalba [49]; Dixon et al. [61]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(a) [62]; Li 14
et al. [73]; Wang et al. [56]
Qiao et al. [66]; Zhang [65]; Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; Wang et al. [56]; Hofmeister and Borchert
[67]; Binquan and Tong [68]; Qian and Xinli [71]; House [37]; Jiang [38]; Muhammad and Johar [82];
13 Government commitment or guarantee 17
Ahmadabadi and Heravi [35]; Ameyaw and Chan [18]; Wang et al. [83]; Kwofie et al. [49]; Emmanuel [84];
Verhoest et al. [36]
Qiao et al. [66]; Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; Hongping and Sudong [69]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Xia
14 Financing power for private sector 6
et al. [81]
Fair competition for procurement
15 Robert et al. [15]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and Tong [68]; Jingfeng et al. [70] 4
process
16 Purchasing procedure Robert et al. [15]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and Tong [68]; Qian and Xinli [71] 4

109
Chan et al. [59]; Yuan et al. [60]; Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and Villalba [49]; Dixon et al.
17 Reductions in litigation and arguments 10
[61]; Lam and Javed [24]; Cheung et al. [63]; Meng et al. [64]; Zhang(b) [15] Li et al. [73]
18 Supervision mechanism Wang et al. [56]; Hongping and Sudong [69]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [71] 4
19 Government credit Robert et al. [15,69]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Qian and Xinli [71]; Xia et al. [81] 4
Ahadzie et al. [74]; Chan and Chan [58]; Baccarini [78]; Cox et al. [79]; Lai and Lam [80]; Chan et al. [59];
20 Project quality 9
Liyanage and Villalba [49]; Dixon et al. [61]; Jingfeng et al. [70]
Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and Tong [68]; Jingfeng et al.
21 Economic policy 7
[70]; Verhoest et al. [36]; Qian and Xinli [71]
Robert et al. [15]; Xueqing et al. [43]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and Tong [68]; Hongping and
22 Financial market 6
Sudong [69]; Qian and Xinli [71]
Zhen-Yu Zhao [69]; Robert et al. [15]; Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and Tong [68]; Jingfeng et al.
23 Feasibility study 6
[70]; Qian and Xinli [71]
Osei-Kyei and Chan [16]; Jingfeng et al. [70], Mladenovic et al. [25]; Liu et al. [72]; Liyanage and Villalba
24 Project performance assessment 6
[49]; Dixon et al. [61]
Table 1. Cont.

No. Critical Success Factors Authers Sum

25 Stability of project operation Chan and Chan [58]; Lim and Mohamed [75]; Cox et al. [79] 3
26 Flexible pricing mechanism Wang et al. [56]; Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [71]; Xia et al. [81] 4
27 Feasible implemention scheme Cheung et al. [63]; Binquan and Tong [69] 2
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

28 Public support Jingfeng et al. [70]; Qian and Xinli [72] 2

29 Cost-benefit assessment Hofmeister and Borchert [67]; Binquan and Tong [68] 2
30 Government approval process Hongping and Sudong [69]; Xia et al. [81] 2

110
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

2.2. A Case Study Analysis of Critical Success Factors

A Delphi survey was conducted on PPP projects that implemented in 2013–2018, and
analyze critical success factors and their processing modes for PPP projects in mainland
China.
Cases study and telephone interviews were conducted out to collect data from 40
successful and failed PPP projects in China (Table 2). As a result, 17 critical success factors
were identified based on the reasons for the success or failures of these cases. The analysis
showed that these critical success factors were mainly related to political influence. These
include the effectiveness of risk management and risk allocation, the technical capacity
of the private sector, long-term market demand, a long-term cooperative relationship,
financial resources for the private sector, reasonable revenue distribution, and a complete
legal framework (Table 3).

Table 2. Typical case studies of PPP projects in China.

No. Successful Case No. Failed Case

1 Beijing subway Line 4 1 National Sports Complex
2 Shenzhen subway Line 4 2 Taiwan North-South highway
Dali urban and rural garbage disposal
3 3 Wuhan Tangshunhu Sewage Treatment Plant
integrated system project
4 Shanghai Xinzhuang CCHP project 4 Changchun Huijin Sewage Treatment Plant
5 Gu’an industrial park new urbanization project 5 Jinzhou Sewage Treatment Plant
6 Chengdu No. 6 waterworks 6 Beijing No. 10 waterworks
7 Hefei Wangxiaoying Sewage Treatment Plant 7 Qingdao Veolia Sewage Treatment Plant
8 Guangxi Laibin B Power Plant 8 Shenzhen Wutongshan Tunnel
9 Jiangxi Xiajiang water conservancy project 9 Guangdong Lianjiang Sino-French Water Plant
10 Guangzhou–Shenzhen Expressway 10 Shanghai Dachang waterworks
Jiuquan city district cogeneration central
11 11 Jiangsu Wujiang waste incineration plant
heating project
12 Nanjing Yangtze river bridge 12 Shanghai Yan’an Road.(E) Tunnel
13 Shaanxi south gate water conservancy project 13 Yangpu Bridge
14 Chongqing Fuling-Fengdu expressway project 14 Fujian Quanzhou Citong Bridge
15 Shenzhen University games center project 15 Huangqiao power plant
16 Zhangjiajie Yangjiaxi Sewage Treatment Plant 16 Wuhan 3rd Yangtze River Bridge
Wuzhong-Jingmaiyuan waste-to-energy
17 17 Zunyi North Suburb water plant
incineration project
18 Weinan natural gas utilization project 18 Hangzhou Bay Bridge
19 Transfer Project of Tianjin NorthWater Co. Ltd. 19 Nanjing 3rd Yangtze River Bridge
20 Shenzhen Shajiao B power plant 20 Beijing five ring highway

Successful cases were selected from the typical cases of PPP projects in the national
development and reform commission website of China (https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/
ztzl/pppzl/dxal/pppdxal/, accessed on 30 December 2020). Failure cases were selected
from the typical cases in the related literature in the CNKI Database. Next, the imple-
mentation effect of all the cases listed in Table 2 were analyzed, and the study sorted and
determined which factors affect project success in the actual process, as shown in Table 3.
The goal was to facilitate the success of more PPP projects in the total project life cycle.

111
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Table 3. Critical success factors base on case analysis.

No. Critical Success Factor Successful Case Failed Case

1 Effectiveness of risk management and risk allocation 1,16
2 Technical capacity of the private sector 3,19
3 Long-term market demand 18,19,20
4 Long-term cooperative relationship 7,9
5 Financial resources for the private sector 13,10,17,20
6 Reasonable revenue distribution 1,2
7 Complete legal framework 3
8 Commitment and trust between the public and private sector 7,9 6,7,12
9 Financing capacity of the private sector 3,9,13,15,19
10 Fair competitive procurement procedures 7,9,13
11 Transparent procurement procedures 7,9,13
12 Effective monitoring mechanism 1,3,17
13 Good government credit 3,12,16
14 Stable economic policy 1,11,18 15,17
15 Project Feasibility Study completed and implemented 7 1,2,5
16 Flexible pricing mechanism 1,4,6,8,10 8,10,14
17 Effective exit mechanism 10,12,20 4

2.3. Key Success Factors for PPP Projects

Many factors could impact on the success of PPP projects’ success, and it is possible
to rank and classify the relative importance of these factors. Identifying the list of critical
success factors of PPP projects is done by reviewing existing literature research results and
experience summaries for typical domestic PPP projects. The effect of the factors on project
success can be represented as a pyramid relationship (see Figure 1), with connections
between the public sector, people, and private sector. This triangular pyramid clearly
shows two analytical perspectives: horizontal and vertical relationships. For the vertical
perspective, the public sector, private sector, and people have a common goal: project
success. This perspective mainly embodies three aspects: project governance ensured by
the public sector; project management promoted by the private sector, and satisfactory
feedback by people. For the horizontal perspective, the public sector and private sector
work together under a project contract, and include providers who can offer high-quality
public services.
Based on a literature review, case summaries, and the triangular pyramid relationship
in PPP projects, this study divided project success factors into three dimensions: relation-
ships between stakeholders, project management in a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), and
the external environment of a PPP project. First, the relationship between stakeholders
included each participant’s behavior, and the partnership and contractual relationship,
including the technical ability of the social sector, government credit, and other factors.
Second, the project management of a SPV is composed of technology and management
factors, impacting the project success in project life cycle management. Examples of this
include risk allocation in risk management, investment control, and other factors. Third,
the external environmental holds uncontrollable factors that affect the implementation
effect of PPP projects, such as a sound legal framework and credible economic policies.
Therefore, after collection, screening, and analysis processes, the literature research and
case analysis yielded a final list of 32 CSFs (named Ai , Bi, or Ci ) and grouped as A, B, and
C on Table 4.

112
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

333
SURMHFW
VXFFHVV

3ULYDWH
VHFWRU
3XEOLF
VHFWRU
VDWLVIDFWLRQ

SHRSOH

Figure 1. Triangular pyramid relationship in PPP projects.

Table 4. Critical Success Factors in a PPP project.

C: Project Management of a
Factor Group A: Stakeholder Relationships B: External Environmental
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
A1 : Technical capabilities of the C1 : Feasibility study and
social sector implementation plan
A2 : Government credit C2 : Competitive bidding
A3 : Examination and approval C3 : Transparency of bidding
B1 : Completeness of legal
procedure C4 : Effectiveness of risk
framework
A4 : Flexibility of pricing management
B2 : Public opposition and
mechanism C5 : Project investment and cost
political protest
A5 : Financial resources of private control
B3 : Economic policy change
sector C6 : Project quality
B4 : Local economic
Factors A6 : Private sector financing C7 : The feasibility of operation
development level
capacity mode
B5 : Available financial markets
A7 : Management capabilities of C8 : Terms of cooperation
B6 : Favorable public support
the private sector C9 : Revenue distribution
B7 : Long-term market demand
A8 : Effective of the regulatory C10 : Operational stability
B8 : Renegotiation and
mechanism C11 : Project Feasibility Study
arbitration
A9 : Government commitment or Report
guarantee C12 : Cost-benefit assessment
A10 : Long-term cooperative C13 : Performance Evaluation
relationship C14 : Exit mechanism

3. Methodology
Fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) is a branch of fuzzy set theory [85], it has been
developed and extensively applied in different disciplines to quantify multi-evaluations
and multi-attributes. These fields include including knowledge management [86], human
resource management [87], and construction megaprojects [88], and risk management
or risk assessment in PPP projects [16,18,89]. It is an analytical tool that objectifies the
subjective judgment inherent in human decision-making. Therefore, this study applies this
method to construct the project success index (PSI) equation to analyze the decision-making
strategies between the public sector and the private sector.

3.1. Questionnaire Survey

A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess the significance of the identified
project success factors; it was completed by scholars, experts and project managers for dif-
ferent types of infrastructure-focused PPP projects. This survey allows respondents to have
time to carefully ponder over their responses without any interference from researchers.

113
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

The questionnaire survey was sent by email and conducted over 6 months, with a recovery
rate of 72% (108 valid questionnaires from the 150 questionnaires distributed). Following
those questionnaires, the critical success factors (CSF) influencing the establishment of a
sustainable PPP were extracted.
Respondents represented the private sector, financial institutions, advisory institution
universities, research institutions, and the public sector. Table 5 shows the sectors and
experience levels in PPP projects. A total of 49.07% of respondents were from engineering
advisory institutions; 24.07% came from universities or research institutions; 18.52% came
from the private sector, 2.78% came from financial institutions, and 3.7% came from other
types of organizations. The distribution of respondents was consistent with PPP project
stakeholders, essentially representing all stakeholders across the PPP project life cycle.

Table 5. The Profile of companies, respondents, and projects.

Characteristics Category Number Percentage

Private sector 20 18.52
Financial institution 3 2.78
Advisory institution 53 49.07
Sector of respondents Universities or research
26 24.07
institutions
Public sector 2 1.85
Other 4 3.7
Total 108 100
2 years below 34 31.48
Years of working or 2–5 years 54 50
research experience 6 years and above 20 18.52
Total 108 100

The data about the respondents’ number of working years were as follows: 31.48%
had less than 2 years of work experience; 50% had 2–5 years of experience; and the others
had more than 5 years of experience. Among the 108 questionnaires managed by the
respondents, 68.52% had more than 5 years of working years, with rich work experience.
This screening information ensured quality, reduced the occurrence of potential risks, and
improved the accuracy of the research conclusions.
Since respondents may be engaged in multiple types of PPP projects, in order to avoid
the problem of overgeneralization, the author made multiple choice on the type of PPP
projects the respondent has been engaged in questionnaire. The results showed that most
of PPP projects engaged by respondents are distributed in the following Figure 2: such
as 63 transportations, 46 water conservancy, 55 ecological construction and environmen-
tal protection, 65 municipal engineering, 42 government infrastructure construction, 29
comprehensive pipeline development, etc. This data conforms to the current development
trend of PPP projects. Therefore, it is crucial to identify and analyze the key success factors
of PPP projects.
The project success questionnaire included two parts: (1) the background information
of respondents and their experience working on a PPP project, and (2) the Likert scale
structured questions about the importance of the identified project success factors. For
part one, the 108 questionnaires assessed experiences with different kinds of infrastructure
types, including subways, waterworks, highways, energy, transportation, and water and
waste treatment projects. This ensured the veracity and consistency of the research. For
part two, respondents were requested to rate their degree of agreement against each of
the identified CSFs, using a five-point Likert scale as follows: 1—Can be ignored or not
important; 2—Maybe important; 3—Important; 4—Very important; 5—Most important.
114
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Table 6 reports basic statistical parameters for the CSFs from the questionnaire, generated
using SPSS24.0 software.

ϳϬ ϲϱ ϲϯ
ϲϬ ϱϱ
ϱϬ ϰϲ
ϰϮ
ϰϬ
Ϯϵ
ϯϬ Ϯϱ
Ϯϭ ϭϵ
ϮϬ ϭϲ ϭϲ ϭϱ
ϭϮ ϭϭ ϵ
ϭϬ ϱ ϰ ϰ ϯ
Ϭ

Figure 2. Types of PPP projects from respondents.

Table 6. Statistic of critical success factors.

Standard
Factor Group Factor Mean Normalization Rank Weights
Deviation
A1 : Technical capabilities of the
4.2 0.733 0.5670 15 0.0989
social sector
A2 : Government credit 4.58 0.657 0.9588 2 0.1078
A3 : Examination and approval
4.03 0.803 0.3918 25 0.0949
procedure
A4 : Flexibility of pricing
3.97 0.703 0.3299 26 0.0935
mechanism
A5 : Financial resources of private
A:Stakeholders 4.2 0.694 0.5670 16 0.0989
sector
relationship
A6 : Private sector financing
4.62 0.575 1.0000 1 0.1088
capacity
A7 : Management capability of
4.25 0.672 0.6186 12 0.1
private sector
A8 : Effectiveness of regulatory
4.17 0.755 0.5361 18 0.0982
mechanism
A9 : Government commitment or
4.37 0.705 0.7423 5 0.1029
guarantee
A10 : Long-term cooperative
4.09 0.838 0.4536 22 0.0963
relationship

115
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Table 6. Cont.

Standard
Factor Group Factor Mean Normalization Rank Weights
Deviation
B1 : Completeness of legal
4.34 0.738 0.7113 6 0.1348
framework
B2 : Public opposition and political
3.9 0.853 0.2577 27 0.1211
protest
B3 : Economic policy change 4.07 0.732 0.4330 23 0.1264
B:External
environmental B4 : Local economic development
4.04 0.76 0.4021 24 0.1255
level
B5 : Available financial markets 4.31 0.703 0.6804 9 0.1339
B6 : Favorable public support 3.65 0.868 0.0000 32 0.1134
B7 : Long-term market demand 4.1 0.669 0.4639 21 0.1273
B8 : Renegotiation and arbitration 3.79 0.724 0.1443 30 0.1177
C1 : Feasibility study and
4.42 0.643 0.7938 3 0.0881
implementation plan
C2 : Competitive bidding 3.86 0.803 0.2165 29 0.0769
C3 : Transparency of bidding 3.9 0.917 0.2577 28 0.0777
C4 : Effectiveness of risk
4.42 0.685 0.7938 4 0.0881
management
C5 : Project investment and cost
4.33 0.684 0.7010 7 0.0863
control
C:Project
management of C6 : Project quality 4.25 0.712 0.6186 13 0.0847
Special Purpose C7 : The feasibility of operating
Vehicle (SPV) 4.31 0.636 0.6804 10 0.0859
mode
C8 : Terms of cooperation 3.79 0.737 0.1443 31 0.0755
C9 : Revenue distribution 4.32 0.609 0.6907 8 0.0861
C10 : Operational stability 4.19 0.699 0.5567 17 0.0835
C11 : Project Feasibility Study
4.12 0.758 0.4845 19 0.0821
Report
C12 : Cost-benefit assessment 4.28 0.681 0.6495 11 0.0853
C13 : Performance Evaluation 4.21 0.749 0.5773 14 0.0881
C14 : Exit mechanism 4.11 0.74 0.4742 20 0.0769

Table 6 shows that 25 critical success factors received a score at 4 or above; and 7
other factors scored between 3.65 and 4. This indicated there was some internal connection
between 32 factors and project success in PPP projects. The top four scores included the
financing capacity of the private sector, government credit, a feasibility study report and
implementation plan, and the effectiveness of risk management, at 4.62, 4.58, 4.42, and
4.42, respectively. This indicates that respondents believe these factors have the greatest
impact on PPP success projects. Therefore, PPP project participants should consider the
above factors as a core concern, introducing the vitality of social capital, increasing market
employment competition, improving infrastructure construction, and reducing financial
pressure.

3.2. Data Analysis

The proposed fuzzy synthetic evaluation model is a multi-criteria evaluation model [16,43,
90] for critical success factors, requiring six steps:

116
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Step 1: Establish the set of basic critical success factors as U = { f 1 , f 2 , · · · f n }, where n

is the number of critical success factors;
Step 2: Establish the grade alternatives as L = { L1 , L2 , · · · L5 }, with the set of grade
categories being the scale measurement. A 5-point Likert scale was used as the set of
grade alternatives: L1 is least important, L2 is fairly important, L3 is important, L4 is very
important, and L5 is extremely important.
Step 3: Establish the set of basic critical success factors weight as w = {w1 , w2 , · · · wn }.
The weighting (w) was determined from the survey using the following equation:
5
wi = Mi /(∑i=1 Mi ), 0 ≤ wi ≤ 1, 0 ≤ i ≤ 1,

In this expression, wi is weighting and ∑5i=1 wi = 1, and Mi is mean score of a

particular criterion or factor component.
In Step 3, the weights of each factors are calculated from the indexes obtained using
SPSS. An example includes the technical capabilities for social sector (A1 )

4.2
WA1 = = 0.0989
4.2 + 4.58 + 4.03 + 3.97 + 4.2 + 4.62 + 4.25 + 4.17 + 4.37 + 4.09
Based on Step 3, we determine following weights of success factors (See Table 6).
Step 4: Generate a CSF evaluation matrix: Ri = (rij )m×n , where rij denotes the degree
to which the alternative L j satisfies the criterion f i . Let:
⎛ ⎞
MFui1
⎜ MFu ⎟
Ri = ⎜ i2 ⎟
⎝ ... ⎠ (1)
MFuin
N N NL5

In this expression, MFui1 = N , N , · · · , N ; N = 108; MF is the membership
L1 L2

function; and NLi is the number of critical success factors f i from the questionnaires. For
example, when examining the first critical success factor about technical capacity in the
private sector, one person selected L1 as the least important; no one selected L2 as fairly
important; 14 people selected L3 as important; 54 people selected L4 as very important; and
39 people selected L5 as extremely important. This resulted in the following expression:

1 0 14 54 39
MFu11 = ( , , , , ) = (0.009, 0.000, 0.129, 0.500, 0.362)
108 108 108 108 108
Step 5: Calculate the data for the weights and evaluation results, shown in Table 7.
Step 6: Generate final fuzzy synthetic evaluation results for the evaluation by consid-
ering the weighting vector and the fuzzy evaluation matrix, using the following equation:
⎛ ⎞
r11 r12 ... r1m
⎜ r21 r22 ... r1m ⎟
⎜ ⎟
T = W × R = ( w1 , w2 , · · · , w n ) × ⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟ = ( t1 , t2 , · · · , t n ) (2)
⎝ . . . . ⎠
rn1 rn2 ... rnm

117
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Table 7. Fuzzy relational matrix data indicators for critical success factors.

Stakeholders Relationship Weight Evaluation Result

A1 : Technical capabilities
1 0.009 0 0.13 0.5 0.36 0.005 0.008 0.13 0.44 0.42
of the social sector
2 A2 : Government credit 0.009 0 0.037 0.31 0.65 —— —— —— —— ——
A3 : Examination and
3 0.009 0.019 0.194 0.49 0.29 —— —— —— —— ——
approval procedure
A4 : Flexibility of pricing
4 0.009 0.009 0.176 0.61 0.19 —— —— —— —— ——
mechanism
A5 : Financial resources of
5 0 0.009 0.13 0.51 0.35 —— —— —— —— ——
private sector
A6 : Private sector
6 0 0 0.046 0.29 0.67 —— —— —— —— ——
financing capacity
A7 : Management
7 capability of the private 0 0 0.13 0.49 0.38 —— —— —— —— ——
sector
A8 : Effectiveness of
8 0 0.019 0.157 0.46 0.36 —— —— —— —— ——
regulatory mechanism
A9 : Government
9 0 0.009 0.102 0.40 0.49 —— —— —— —— ——
commitment or guarantee
A10 : Long-term
10 0.009 0.019 0.194 0.43 0.35 —— —— —— —— ——
cooperative relationship
External Environmental Weight 0.003 0.021 0.21 0.47 0.30
B1 : Completeness of legal
11 0 0.009 0.13 0.37 0.49 —— —— —— —— ——
framework
B2 : Public opposition and
12 0.009 0.037 0.25 0.45 0.25 —— —— —— —— ——
political protest
B3 : Economic policy
13 0 0.019 0.176 0.52 0.29 —— —— —— —— ——
change
B4 : Local economic
14 0 0.019 0.213 0.48 0.29 —— —— —— —— ——
development level
B5 : Available financial
15 0 0.009 0.111 0.44 0.44 —— —— —— —— ——
markets
B6 : Favorable public
16 0.019 0.046 0.361 0.42 0.16 —— —— —— —— ——
support
B7 : Long-term market
17 0 0.009 0.148 0.57 0.27 —— —— —— —— ——
demand
B8 : Renegotiation and
18 0 0.028 0.306 0.52 0.15 —— —— —— —— ——
arbitration
Project Management of Special
Weight 0.003 0.01 0.15 0.47 0.37
Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
C1 : Feasibility study and
19 0 0 0.083 0.417 0.5 —— —— —— —— ——
implementation plan
20 C2 : Competitive bidding 0 0.019 0.343 0.4 0.24 —— —— —— —— ——
C3 : Transparency of
21 0.028 0.019 0.25 0.435 0.269 —— —— —— —— ——
bidding
C4 : Effectiveness of risk
22 0 0.009 0.083 0.389 0.519 —— —— —— —— ——
management

118
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Table 7. Cont.

Stakeholders Relationship Weight Evaluation Result

C5 : Project investment
23 0 0.009 0.093 0.453 0.444 —— —— —— —— ——
and cost control
24 C6 : Project quality 0 0.009 0.13 0.463 0.398 —— —— —— —— ——
C7 : The feasibility of
25 0 0 0.093 0.5 0.407 —— —— —— —— ——
operating mode
26 C8 : Terms of cooperation 0.009 0.019 0.29 0.546 0.139 —— —— —— —— ——
27 C9 : Revenue distribution 0 0 0.074 0.528 0.398 —— —— —— —— ——
28 C10 : Operational stability 0 0.009 0.139 0.509 0.43 —— —— —— —— ——
C11 : Project Feasibility
29 0 0.019 0.176 0.472 0.333 —— —— —— —— ——
Study Report
C12 : Cost-benefit
30 0 0.019 0.074 0.519 0.389 —— —— —— —— ——
assessment
C13 : Performance
31 0.009 0 0.139 0.472 0.38 —— —— —— —— ——
Evaluation
32 C14 : Exit mechanism 0 0.019 0.167 0.5 0.315 —— —— —— —— ——

In this expression. ti is the fuzzy set of the membership, and “·” is the fuzzy operator.
For example, we can calculate the membership of the external environment:
⎡ ⎤
0 0.009 0.13 0.370 0.491
⎢ 0.009 0.037 0.25 0.454 0.25 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0.019 0.18 0.519 0.287 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0.019 0.212 0.481 0.287 ⎥
TB = (0.135 0.121 0.127 0.125 0.134 0.113 0.127 0.118) × ⎢ ⎢
⎥
⎢ 0 0.009 0.111 0.444 0.435 ⎥ ⎥
⎢ 0.019 0.046 0.361 0.417 0.157 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0.009 0.148 0.574 0.269 ⎦
0 0.028 0.306 0.519 0.148
= (0.0032 0.02133 0.2073 0.4717 0.2965)
Step 7: Normalize the final FSE evaluation matrix and calculate a PSI for a particular
factor component using the following equation:

5
PSI = ∑T×L (3)
i =1

From (3), we have

⎛ ⎞
1
⎜ 2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
PSIB = (0.0032 0.02133 0.2073 0.4717 0.2965) × ⎜
⎜ 3 ⎟= 4.0368
⎟
⎝ 4 ⎠
5

Based on Step 6, we obtain the PSI of stakeholders’ relationship and project manage-
ment of Special Purpose Vehicle in Table 8.

119
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

Table 8. PSI index order.

No. Success Factor Group PSI Index Coefficients Rank

1 Stakeholder relationships 4.259 0.341 1
2 External environment 4.037 0.323 3
Project management of
3 the Special Purpose 4.188 0.336 2
Vehicle

The project success index for PPP projects in China is therefore expressed using the
following equation:

PSI = 0.341 × stakeholders relationship

+0.323 × external environmental (4)
+0.336 × project management o f SPV

4. Results
Equation (4) shows that stakeholder’s relationships yielded the highest coefficient
(0.341) in the evaluation model, followed by project management of a Special Purpose
Vehicle (0.336) and external environment (0.323). The sum of all these coefficients is one,
which fits within the unity threshold. This success index equation should significantly
enable practitioners in China to evaluate the success level of their PPP projects in a practical
and reliable manner. What is more, the evaluation model makes it possible for practitioners
to compare the success levels of two or more projects at the same level. The application of
this research should improve the implementation practices of PPP projects in China.
This section discusses the top nine critical success factors that has divide into three suc-
cess groupings in formulating sustainable PPP. The top three factors concerning stakeholder
relationships include private sector financing capacity, government credit, and government
commitment or guarantee. The top two factors related to the external environment include:
completeness of legal framework and available financial markets. The top four factors
related to the project management of the social purpose vehicle included: the feasibility
study report and implementation, effectiveness of risk management, project investment,
and cost control and revenue distribution. The high overall confirmed that the PSI was
necessary for PPP projects in China.

4.1. Stakeholder Relationships

The stakeholder relationship category had a PFI of 4.259 and a coefficient value of
0.341 in the critical success factors evaluation model. Previous studies have also noted
the stakeholder relationship category as critical criteria for most traditional construction
projects [91–94].
Among the 32 critical success factors, “private sector financing capacity” was ranked at
the top, mainly attributed to the reduction in the financial burden on the government. The
availability of flexible and attractive financial instruments is expected important to enable
the private sector to finance PPP projects; these instruments include debt, equity, supplier
and purchaser credit, and securities [64]. PPP projects are generally large infrastructure
construction projects, and face a paradox due to uncertainty and the fact that available
information is not aligned throughout the PPP projects’ life cycle [95]. Additionally, PPP
projects are funded by private financing; the public sector self-finances a certain proportion
of the expenses. Self-financing for the public sector and private financing require significant
synergies that can contribute to PPP project success.
Government credit was the second most important factor impacting PPP project
success. A failure by public agencies to fulfill their obligations in the concession contract
can directly or indirectly negatively affect the project. Government credit poses a critical
risk to PPP projects in different sectors [96]. A perfect credit system could improve the

120
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

efficiency of PPP implementation [97]. However, it has been reported that the probability
of local public agencies breaching contracts has been relatively high in China [98,99]. In
infrastructure PPP projects, good government credit is a critical factor impacting PPP
project success [100]. There some PPP projects were not successful, such as failed cases 14,
17, and 19 in Table 2.
Government commitment or guarantee was ranked as the fifth most significant fac-
tor, and was attributed to improvements in the investment motivation of the private
consortiums in PPP projects [101], and can influence the magnitude of political and reg-
ulatory risks [102]. Government guarantees include credit guarantees, material supply
and price guarantees, minimum income guarantees, and guarantees related to exchange
rates, interest rates, and inflation. PPP projects with government guarantees can maximize
social-economic net present value and simultaneously optimize welfare [38]. However,
a stable long-term plan for PPP projects requires enhanced certainty with respect to the
government commitment or guarantee. For example, Treasury (2012) [103] launched PF2
(the latest version of PFI), which devoted a full chapter titled “Strengthening the Pro-
curement Process.” This chapter stipulates the government’s commitment to ‘ensuring
that PF2 procurement is faster and cheaper than PFI procurement has been in the past,
without sacrificing quality and competitiveness’ (HM Treasury 2012 [103]). Meanwhile,
government guarantees tend to stimulate an express expansion of PPP projects (MoF-China
2014 [104]); to this end, China’s Ministry of Finance and the National Development and
Reform Commission has promulgated a series of PPP policies since 2014.

4.2. External Environmental

Completeness of the legal framework was ranked sixth in importance, because of the
immature legal systems in China [9]. The scholar and the practitioner have been aware of
the urgent need for the Chinese government to establish a sound legal and institutional
system to successfully apply PPP projects in China [105]. Meanwhile, an increasing number
of renegotiations [22,51], contract variations, adjustments and arbitration [34], and early
terminations [21,27,106] have already been reported by PPP project practices in China.
Inadequate legal systems have been named as a critical factor restrict the development of
PPP projects in China.
Available financial markets were ranked as the ninth most critical success factor for
PPP projects. Many researchers [16,17,39,48,73] have found that project financing is a
critical factor for private sector investment in PPP projects. The validity of an efficient and
mature financial market, with the benefits of low financing costs and a diversified range of
financial products would incentivize private sector pick-up of PPP projects. An unattractive
financial market can create an obstacle to the implementation of PPP projects [15].

4.3. Project Management of Special Purpose Vehicle

Feasibility study completion and implementation planning was ranked as the third
most important factor. The feasibility study provides project data and instruments that
facilitate a profound analysis and that assist the PPP project’s decision making process.
Generally, the feasibility study is an appropriate means to illustrate the PPP project’s
practicability and operability. The implementation plan and data are extracted from the
feasibility study for a PPP project [107]. In the life cycle of a PPP project, identifying an
uncertain factor could be quite difficult, unless detailed feasibility studies have been done
to assure the project’s viability and enforceability [44], and it can easily lead to project
failure.
Effective risk management was ranked as the fourth most important factor. PPP
project risk management practices are highly variable, intuitive, subjective, and unso-
phisticated [108]; this is likely to lead to project failure. Many studies [109–112] have
shown that risk management is a critical concern in PPP projects and the efficient al-
location of risk remains problematic [113–115]. Furthermore, previous studies on PPP
practices [44,89,116,117] have documented the prevalence of inefficiencies in risk allocation.

121
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

There is a clear understanding and recognition that the nature of PPP risk misallocation
must be quantitatively represented and verified when investing in a life-cycle PPP project.
In addition, it is necessary to balance and share the considerations needed for effective risk
distribution between the public and private sectors. However, parties that facilitate project
success are guided by the premise of the basic principles of sound risk management.
Project investment and cost control was ranked as the seventh most critical factor.
PPP project investments depend heavily upon private capital markets for financing and
depend on private firms for managerial expertise. Since 2013, when China’s economic
growth entered a transition, the risk of debt exposure emerged, and PPP projects became a
main approach for infrastructure construction. Since China’s promotion of PPP projects,
PPP project investments have gotten out of control, leading to an increase in government
expenditure responsibility. This directly affects earnings to public and private sector.
Revenue distribution was listed as the ninth most critical factor. When revenue
is distributed, the two parties compete for interests and strive to minimize their own
opportunity costs. Under market competition, public and private sector achieve a win–
win situation through cooperation and competition [118]. Nonetheless, unreasonable
revenue distribution can affect a project’s normal operation. There is the need for a
revenue distribution mechanism, where the government ensures extra revenues. Therefore,
identifying revenue as an attribution mechanism is indispensable as a suitable mitigation
strategy to mitigate traffic revenue risks in PPP transport infrastructure projects [112].

5. Conclusions
PPP projects have been implemented to support infrastructure development in both
developed and developing countries with diverse results, and many researchers claimed
that PPP can contribute to sustainability in China as it promotes long-term productive use
of resources [119,120]. These provide a mechanism for investing in public infrastructure,
while also effectively transferring the government function to the private sector. Meanwhile,
this generates significant problems as an increasing number of project failures appear. In
China, from 2013 to 2019 (years inclusive), CPPPC data (http://www.cpppc.org:8086
/pppcentral/map/toPPPMap.do, accessed on 30 December 2020) show that the market
capacity for PPP projects reached nearly 10,000 projects, with a total investment of more
than 13.7 trillion yuan BRI data (http://www.bridata.com/, accessed on 30 December 2020)
show that China’s PPP projects occupy a market share of 15.4 trillion yuan, with the number
of PPP projects reaching 10,226 projects. However, with the release of normative documents
from central government in China, thousands of PPP projects have been withdrawn from
the CPPPC library in the large PPP market. Those unreasonable exit phenomenon needs
are more detailed identification of critical success factors for PPP projects. Then, this
study defined and categorized the factors affecting project success and failure. From this
classification and definition, we applied a fuzzy synthetic method to prioritize these factors
and provide an evaluation criterion.
In fact, by using the fuzzy synthetic evaluation model for PPP projects, the most critical
success factors for different types of PPP projects could be identified and both precautionary
and remedial actions could be taken as soon as possible. Both the public sector and
private sector can adopt this model to assess the risk level of their PPP projects. And the
results can be used to compare the critical success factor levels with their counterparts for
benchmarking purposes. Such an extension would provide a deeper understanding of
managing different types of PPP projects. Since the critical success factor level may vary
at various stages of a project life cycle, it is worthwhile to develop a PPP fuzzy synthetic
evaluation model for measuring critical success factors across different stages of a project
life cycle in future.
First, due to the wide range of success factors and categories amassed by researchers [121],
this study reviewed recent literature and cases to define the success factors of PPP projects
during the period 2000 to 2019, highlighting the research contributions by various countries
with respect to their authors and institutions. Therefore, 32 success factors were sorted from

122
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

recent literature and cases. These were then divided into three dimensions: stakeholder
relationships, external environment, and the project management of a special purpose vehicle
(SPV).
Second, based on 32 defined factors, a questionnaire was designed and distributed
to experts, researchers, and PPP project managers. Survey data were then collected, and
mean score values of the response data were used to rank the relative importance of 32
critical success factors in the China PPP environment. Then, 10 factors emerged as being
most important in developing a successful China PPP: private sector financing capacity,
government credit, feasibility study, effective risk management, government commitment,
completeness of legal framework, project investment control, revenue distribution, avail-
able financial markets, and operational feasibility.
Finally, a fuzzy synthetic method was applied to prioritize the critical success factors.
Despite the model’s applications and the survey and case study results, this research did
have some constraints. Extending the sample frame to other type of PPP projects could
improve the validity of the research model. Examining a similar model with other projects
and other countries and comparing them could yield practical results
Different success factors were identified using a questionnaire survey, case studies,
literature review, fuzzy synthetic methods, and interviews and correspondence with world-
wide PPP experts and practitioners. Furthermore, this assessment provides results in terms
of the performance of dominant CSFs. This can be useful when prioritizing PPP project
tasks. These approaches are valid, could be used globally for other PPP projects, and may
also be evaluated with respect to CSFs in a PPP context.

Author Contributions: B.D., D.Z. and Y.Y., conceived the study; D.Z., J.Z. and X.L. conducted the
literature review, developed the model, designed the experiments and performed the experiments;
B.D., D.Z. and J.Z. analyzed the data and results; B.D., D.Z., J.Z. and X.L. edited the final version of
the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: 1. the National Natural Science Foundation of China: 71602144; 2. the Tianjin education
commission Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Universities:
2017JWZD15; 3. the Program for Innovation Research Team in Universities of Tianjin: TD13-5019.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
71602144), the Tianjin education commission Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and
Social Sciences at Universities (Grant No. 2017JWZD15), and the Program for Innovation Research
Team In Universities of Tianjin (TD13-5019).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’ contribu-
tions: all authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.

References
1. Yuan, J.F.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Li, Q. The driving factors of china’s public—Private partnership projects in Metropolitian transporta-
tion systems: Public sector’s viewpoint. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 5–18. [CrossRef]
2. Jin, X.H.; Zhang, G. Modelling optimal risk allocation in PPP projects using artificial neural networks. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29,
591–603. [CrossRef]
3. Zhu, L.; Zhao, X.; Chua, D.K.H. Agent-based debt terms’ bargaining model to improve negotiation inefficiency in PPP projects. J.
Comput. Civ. Eng. 2016, 30, 04016014. [CrossRef]
4. Yang, T.; Long, R.; Cui, X. Application of the public–private partnership model to urban sewage treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
142, 1065–1074. [CrossRef]
5. Lomoro, A.; Mossa, G.; Pellegrino, R. Optimizing Risk Allocation in Public-Private Partnership Projects by Project Finance
Contracts. The Case of Put-or-Pay Contract for Stranded Posidonia Disposal in the Municipality of Bari. Sustainability 2020, 12,
806. [CrossRef]

123
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

6. Martiniello, L.; Morea, D.; Paolone, F. Energy Performance Contracting and Public-Private Partnership: How to Share Risks and
Balance Benefits. Energies 2020, 13, 3625. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, L.; Sun, X.; Xue, H. Identifying critical risks in Sponge City PPP projects using DEMATEL method: A case study of China.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 949–958. [CrossRef]
8. Almarri, K.; Blackwell, P. Improving risk sharing and investment appraisal for PPP procurement success in large green projects.
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 119, 847–856. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, S.; Chan, A.P.C.; Feng, Y. Critical review on PPP Research–A search from the Chinese and International Journals. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 597–612. [CrossRef]
10. Grimsey, D.; Lewis, M.K. Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002,
20, 107–118. [CrossRef]
11. Morea, D.; Balzarini, M. Bankability of a public private partnership in agricultural sector: A project in Sub Saharan Africa. Agric.
Econ. (Agricecon) 2019, 65, 212–222. [CrossRef]
12. Morea, D.; Marino, B. Financial sustainability of a public-private partnership for an agricultural development project in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Agric. Econ. (Agricecon) 2018, 64, 389–398.
13. Visconti, R.M.; Martiniello, L.; Morea, D. Can Public-Private Partnerships Foster Investment Sustainability in Smart Hospitals?
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1704. [CrossRef]
14. Kurniawan, F.; Mudjanarko, S.W.; Ogunlana, S. Best practice for financial models of PPP projects. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 124–132.
[CrossRef]
15. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) projects from
1990 to 2013. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1335–1346. [CrossRef]
16. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis of operational management critical success
factors for public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Benchmarking: Int. J. 2017, 24, 2092–2112. [CrossRef]
17. Chou, J.S.; Pramudawardhani, D. Cross-country comparisons of key drivers, critical success factors and risk allocation for
public-private partnership projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1136–1150. [CrossRef]
18. Ameyaw, E.E.; Chan, A.P.C. Critical success factors for public-private partnership in water supply projects. Facilities 2016, 34,
124–160. [CrossRef]
19. Bing, L.; Akintoye, A.; Edwards, P.J.; Hardcast, C. The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2005, 23, 25–35. [CrossRef]
20. Pfnür, A.; Armonat, S. Modelling uncertain operational cash flows of real estate investments using simulations of stochastic
processes. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2013, 31, 481–501. [CrossRef]
21. Song, J.; Zhang, H.; Dong, W. A review of emerging trends in global PPP research: Analysis and visualization. Scientometrics 2016,
107, 1111–1147. [CrossRef]
22. Xiong, W.; Zhao, X.; Yuan, J.F.; Luo, S. Ex post risk management in public private partnerships infrastructure projects. Proj. Manag.
J. 2017, 48, 76–89. [CrossRef]
23. Guasch, J.L.; Benitez, D.; Portables, I.; Folr, L. The Renegotiation of PPP Contracts: An overview of its recent evolution in Latin America;
International Transport Forum Discussion Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014.
24. Lam, P.T.I.; Javed, A.A. Comparative study on the use of output specifications for Australian and UK PPP/PFI projects. J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 2013, 29, 04014061. [CrossRef]
25. Mladenovic, G.; Vajdic, N.; Wündsch, B.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A. Use of key performance indicators for PPP transport projects to
meet stakeholders’ performance objectives. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2013, 3, 228–249. [CrossRef]
26. Domingues, S.; Zlatkovic, D. Renegotiating PPP contracts: Reinforcing the ‘p’ in partnership. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 204–225.
[CrossRef]
27. Xiong, W.; Zhang, X. The real option value of renegotiation in public–private partnerships. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142,
04016021. [CrossRef]
28. Soecipto, R.M.; Verhoest, K. Contract stability in European road infrastructure PPPs: How does governmental PPP support
contribute to preventing contract renegotiation? Public Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 1145–1164. [CrossRef]
29. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Implementing public–private partnership (PPP) policy for public construction projects in Ghana:
Critical success factors and policy implications. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2017, 17, 113–123. [CrossRef]
30. Keers, B.B.M.; Fenema, P.C. Managing risks in public-private partnership formation projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 861–875.
[CrossRef]
31. Babatunde, S.O.; Perera, S.; Zhou, L. Methodology for developing capability maturity levels for PPP stakeholder organisations
using critical success factors. Constr. Innov. 2016, 16, 81–110. [CrossRef]
32. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Perceptions of stakeholders on the critical success factors for operational management of public-private
partnership projects. Facilities 2017, 35, 21–38. [CrossRef]
33. Singh, A.; Shrivastava, P.; Kambekar, A.R. Financial Risk Assessment of Public Private Partnership Project. Sustain. Infrastruct.
Dev. Manag. (Sidm) 2019, 20109, 10. [CrossRef]
34. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yu, Y.; Chen, C.; Dansoh, A. Root causes of conflict and conflict resolution mechanisms in public-
private partnerships: Comparative study between Ghana and China. Cities 2019, 87, 185–195. [CrossRef]

124
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

35. Ahmadabadi, A.A.; Heravi, G. The effect of critical success factors on project success in Public-Private Partnership projects: A
case study of highway projects in Iran. Transp. Policy 2019, 73, 152–161. [CrossRef]
36. Verhoest, K.; Petersen, O.H.; Scherrer, W.; Soecipto, R.M. Policy Commitment, Legal and Regulatory Framework, and Institutional
Support. for PPP in International Comparison: Indexing Countries’ Readiness for Taking Up PPP; Working Papers in Economics and
Finance; University of Salzburg: Salzburg, Austria, 2014.
37. House, S. Responsive regulation for water PPP: Balancing commitment and adaptability in the face of uncertainty. Policy Soc.
2016, 35, 179–191. [CrossRef]
38. Jiang, Y. Selection of PPP Projects in China Based on Government Guarantees and Fiscal Risk Control. Int. J. Financ. Res. 2017, 8,
99–111. [CrossRef]
39. Ahmadabadi, A.A.; Heravi, G. Risk assessment framework of PPP-megaprojects focusing on risk interaction and project success.
Transp. Res. Part. A Policy Pract. 2019, 124, 169–188. [CrossRef]
40. Rostiyanti, S.; Coffey, V.; Pangeran, M.H.; Tamin, R. A Critical Perspective of the Indonesian Institutional Framework for PPP Toll
Roads. Univ. Cent. Lancs. (Uclan) Preston 2013, 2013, 415.
41. Oyedele, L.O. Avoiding performance failure payment deductions in PFI/PPP projects: Model of critical success factors. J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 2012, 27, 283–294. [CrossRef]
42. Xu, Y.; Yeung, J.F.Y.; Chan, A.P.; Chan, D.W.; Wang, S.Q.; Ke, Y. Developing a risk assessment model for PPP projects in China-A
fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 929–943. [CrossRef]
43. Valipour, A.; Yahaya, N.; Md-Noor, N. A fuzzy analytic network process method for risk prioritization in freeway PPP projects:
An Iranian case study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 933–947. [CrossRef]
44. Ng, S.T.; Wong, Y.M.W.; Wong, J.M.W. Factors influencing the success of PPP at feasibility stage–a tripartite comparison study in
Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 423–432. [CrossRef]
45. Zou, W.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Chung, J.; Wong, J. Identifying the critical success factors for relationship management in PPP
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 265–274. [CrossRef]
46. Babatunde, S.O.; Perera, S.; Zhou, L.; Udeaja, C. Stakeholder perceptions on critical success factors for public-private partnership
projects in Nigeria. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 74–91. [CrossRef]
47. Li, B.; Akintoye, A.; Edwards, P.J.; Hardcastle, C. Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 459–471. [CrossRef]
48. Kwofie, T.E.; Afram, S.; Botchway, E. A critical success model for PPP public housing delivery in Ghana. Built Environ. Proj. Asset
Manag. 2016, 6, 58–73. [CrossRef]
49. Liyanage, C.; Villalba-Romero, F. Measuring success of PPP transport projects: A cross-case analysis of toll roads. Transp. Rev.
2015, 35, 140–161. [CrossRef]
50. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Evaluating the project success index of public-private partnership projects in Hong Kong: The case of
the Cross Harbour Tunnel. Constr. Innov. 2018, 18, 371–391. [CrossRef]
51. Liang, Y.; Jia, H. Key success indicators for PPP projects: Evidence from Hong Kong. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 9576496.
[CrossRef]
52. Olusola Babatunde, S.; Opawole, A.; Emmanuel Akinsiku, O. Critical success factors in public-private partnership (PPP) on
infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. J. Facil. Manag. 2012, 10, 212–225. [CrossRef]
53. Jefferies, M. Critical success factors of public private sector partnerships: A case study of the Sydney Superdome. Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manag. 2006, 13, 451–462. [CrossRef]
54. Duy-Nguyen, L.; Ogunlana, S.O.; Thi-Xuan-Lan, D. A study on project success factors in large construction projects in Vietnam.
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2004, 11, 404–413. [CrossRef]
55. Abdul-Aziz, A.R.; Kassim, P.S.J. Objectives, success and failure factors of housing public–private partnerships in Malaysia. Habitat
Int. 2011, 35, 150–157. [CrossRef]
56. Cheong-Yong, Y.; Emma-Mustaffa, N. Analysis of factors critical to construction project success in Malaysia. Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manag. 2012, 19, 543–556. [CrossRef]
57. Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Chan, D.W.M.; Cheung, E.; Ke, Y. Critical success factors for PPPs in infrastructure developments:
Chinese perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 484–494. [CrossRef]
58. Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, A.P.L. Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking Int. J. 2004, 11, 203–221.
[CrossRef]
59. Chan, A.P.C.; Scott, D.; Lam, E.W.M. Framework of success criteria for design/build projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2002, 18, 120–128.
[CrossRef]
60. Yuan, J.; Zeng, A.Y.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Li, Q. Selection of performance objectives and key performance indicators in public–private
partnership projects to achieve value for money. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 253–270. [CrossRef]
61. Dixon, T.; Pottinger, G.; Jordan, A. Lessons from the private finance initiative in the UK: Benefits, problems and critical success
factors. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2005, 23, 412–423. [CrossRef]
62. Zhang, X. Factor analysis of public clients’ best-value objective in public–privately partnered infrastructure projects. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 956–965. [CrossRef]
63. Cheung, S.O.; Tam, C.M.; Ndekugri, I.; Harris, F.C. Factors affecting clients’ project dispute resolution satisfaction in Hong Kong.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 281–294. [CrossRef]

125
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

64. Meng, X.; Zhao, Q.; Shen, Q. Critical success factors for transfer-operate-transfer urban water supply projects in China. J. Manag.
Eng. 2011, 27, 243–251. [CrossRef]
65. Zhang, X. Critical success factors for public–private partnerships in infrastructure development. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131,
3–14. [CrossRef]
66. Qiao, L.; Wang, S.Q.; Tiong, R.L.K. Framework for critical success factors of BOT projects in China. J. Proj. Financ. 2001, 7, 53–61.
[CrossRef]
67. Hofmeister, A.; Borchert, H. Public–private partnerships in Switzerland: Crossing the bridge with the aid of a new governance
approach. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2004, 70, 217–232. [CrossRef]
68. Binquan, C.; Tong, P. Critical Success Factors of Public-private Partnerships in Transport Infrastructure Project. Urban. Rapid Rall
Transit. 2010, 23, 17–22.
69. Hongping, Z.; Sudong, Y. Study on the Determinants and their Relationships of PPP Projects. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2016, 36,
203–207.
70. Yuan, J.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Deng, X.; Ji, C.; Li, Q. The Identification of Key Performance Indicators in Public Private Partnership
Projects based on Structural Equation Modeling. J. Chongqing Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 18, 56.
71. Qian, L.; Xinli, L. Identification of critical success factors of PPP projects based on process analysis. J. Railw. Sci. Eng. 2017, 14,
415–424.
72. Liu, J.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y. Risk analysis in ultra-deep scientific drilling project-A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2013, 31, 449–458. [CrossRef]
73. Li, B. Risk Management of Construction Public Private Partnership Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University,
Glasgow, UK, 2003.
74. Ahadzie, D.K.; Proverbs, D.G.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing countries.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 675–687. [CrossRef]
75. Lim, C.S.; Mohamed, M.Z. Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1999, 17, 243–248.
[CrossRef]
76. Bryde, D.J.; Robinson, L. Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 622–629.
[CrossRef]
77. Al-Tmeemy, S.M.H.M.; Abdul-Rahman, H.; Harun, Z. Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2011, 29, 337–348. [CrossRef]
78. Baccarini, D. The logical framework method for defining project success. Proj. Manag. J. 1999, 30, 25–32. [CrossRef]
79. Cox, R.F.; Issa, R.R.A.; Ahrens, D. Management’s perception of key performance indicators for construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2003, 129, 142–151. [CrossRef]
80. Lai, I.K.W.; Lam, F.K.S. Perception of various performance criteria by stakeholders in the construction sector in Hong Kong.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 377–391. [CrossRef]
81. Xia, Y.; Yongjian, K.; Shouqing, W. Analysis on Critical Risk Factors Causing the Failures of China’s PPP Project. J. China Soft Sci.
2009, 5, 107–113.
82. Muhammad, Z.; Johar, F. A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating the Success of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Projects. Adv.
Sci. Lett. 2017, 23, 9130–9134. [CrossRef]
83. Wang, K.; Ke, Y. Public-Private Partnerships in the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in China: An Illustrative Case Study.
Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 9061647. [CrossRef]
84. Emmanuel, O.O. Critical success factors (CSF) determining the implementation of public-private partnership projects. Covenant J.
Res. Built Environ. 2013, 1, 1–16.
85. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
86. Lyu, H.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, Z. Measuring knowledge management performance in organizations: An integrative framework of
balanced scorecard and fuzzy evaluation. Information 2016, 7, 29. [CrossRef]
87. Chou, Y.C.; Sun, C.C.; Yen, H.Y. Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an
integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012, 12, 64–71. [CrossRef]
88. Boateng, E.B.; Pillay, M.; Davis, P. Developing a Safety Culture Index for Construction Projects in Developing Countries: A
Proposed Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and
Ergonomics, Washington, DC, USA, 24–28 July 2019; Springer: Cham, Switherlands, 2019; pp. 167–179.
89. Wu, Y.; Song, Z.; Li, L.; Xu, R. Risk management of public-private partnership charging infrastructure projects in China based on
a three-dimension framework. J. Energy 2018, 165, 1089–1101. [CrossRef]
90. Mu, S.; Cheng, H.; Chohr, M.; Wei, P. Assessing risk management capability of contractors in subway projects in mainland China.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 452–460. [CrossRef]
91. Mazur, A.; Pisarski, A.; Chang, A.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Rating defence major project success: The role of personal attributes and
stakeholder relationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 944–957. [CrossRef]
92. Davis, K. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 189–201. [CrossRef]
93. Nguyen, T.H.D.; Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Wood, A. External stakeholder strategic actions in projects: A multi-case study.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 176–191. [CrossRef]

126
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551

94. Oliveira, G.F.; Rabechini, J.R. Stakeholder management influence on trust in a project: A quantitative study. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2019, 37, 131–144. [CrossRef]
95. Samset, K.; Volden, G.H. Front-end definition of projects: Ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and
project governance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 297–313. [CrossRef]
96. Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.C. Risk factors of public-private partnership projects in China: Comparison between the water, power, and
transportation sectors. J. Urban. Plan. Dev. 2011, 137, 409–415. [CrossRef]
97. Wang, Y. Evolution of public–private partnership models in American toll road development: Learning based on public
institutions’ risk management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 684–696. [CrossRef]
98. Li, S. The Legal Environment and Risks for Foreign Investment in China; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2007.
99. Li, Y.; Wang, X. Risk assessment for public–private partnership projects: Using a fuzzy analytic hierarchical process method and
expert opinion in China. J. Risk Res. 2018, 21, 952–973. [CrossRef]
100. Li, S.; Abraham, D.; Cai, H. Infrastructure financing with project bond and credit default swap under public-private partnerships.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 406–419. [CrossRef]
101. Valéro, V. Government opportunism in public—Private partnerships. J. Public Econ. Theory 2015, 17, 111–135. [CrossRef]
102. Hwang, B.G.; Zhao, X.; Gay, M.J.S. Public private partnership projects in Singapore: Factors, critical risks and preferred risk
allocation from the perspective of contractors. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 424–433. [CrossRef]
103. HM Treasury. A New Approach to Public Private Partnerships; HMSO: London, UK, 2012.
104. Ministry of Finance (MoF) China. Experience from Asian Development Bank in applying PPP model and Suggestions. China
State Financ. 2014, 9, 18–19. (In Chinese)
105. Peng, J.B. On Chin’s current status of BOT legislation, existing problems and possible solutions. J. Law Econ. 2011, 10, 60–63. (In
Chinese)
106. Liu, J.; Gao, R.; Cheah, C.Y.J. Pricing mechanism of early termination of PPP projects based on Real Option Theory. J. Manag. Eng.
2017, 33, 04017035. [CrossRef]
107. Xu, Y.; Sun, C.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Yeung, J.F.Y.; Hu, C. System Dynamics (SD)-based concession pricing model for PPP highway
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 240–251. [CrossRef]
108. Akintoye, A.; Beck-Hardcastle, C.; Chinyio, E.; Assenova, D. Framework for Risk Assessment and Management of Private Finance
Initiative Projects; Glasgow Caledonian University: Glasgow, UK, 2001.
109. Ke, Y.; Wang, S.Q.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I. Preferred risk allocation in China’s public–private partnership (PPP) projects. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 482–492. [CrossRef]
110. Ke, Y.; Wang, S.Q.; Chan, A.P.C.; Cheung, E. Understanding the risks in China’s PPP projects: Ranking of their probability and
consequence. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2011, 18, 481–496. [CrossRef]
111. Roumboutsos, A.; Pantelias, A. Allocating revenue risk in transport infrastructure public private partnership projects: How it
matters. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 183–203. [CrossRef]
112. Carbonara, N.; Management, M.E.; Costantino, N.; Gunnigan, L. Risk management in motorway PPP projects: Empirical-based
guidelines. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 162–182. [CrossRef]
113. Sastoque, L.M.; Arboleda, C.A.; Ponz, J.L. A proposal for risk allocation in social infrastructure projects applying PPP in Colombia.
Procedia Eng. 2016, 145, 1354–1361. [CrossRef]
114. Shrestha, A.; Chan, T.K.; Aibinu, A.A.; Chen, C.; Asce, A.M.; Martek, I. Risk allocation inefficiencies in Chinese PPP water projects.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018013. [CrossRef]
115. Xia, X.; Hui, A. Government-Led Rural Infrastructure PPP Project Risk Allocation. C. The First International Symposium on Management
and Social Sciences (ISMSS 2019); Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2019; Volume 309, pp. 1–6.
116. Babatunde, S.O.; Perera, S.; Zhou, L.; Udeaja, C. Barriers to public private partnership projects in developing countries: A case of
Nigeria. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2015, 22, 669–691. [CrossRef]
117. Chan, A.P.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Hu, Y.; Yun, L.E. A fuzzy model for assessing the risk exposure of procuring infrastructure mega-projects
through public-private partnership: The case of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Front. Eng. Manag. 2018, 5, 64–77. [CrossRef]
118. Du, Y.; Fang, J.; Hu, J. Research on the Equilibrium of a Revenue Sharing Contract in a Transfer-Operation-Transfer Project Based
on the Theory of Share Tenancy. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2019, 9, 1111–1135. [CrossRef]
119. Amovi, G.; Maksimovi, R.; Buni, S. Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in Transition
Conditions: An Empirical Study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7121. [CrossRef]
120. Shiying, S.; Heap-Yih, C.; Lihong, L.; Ye, X. Examining the Interrelationship among Critical Success Factors of Public Private
Partnership Infrastructure Projects. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1313.
121. Sepasgozar, S.M.E.; Bliemel, M.; Bemanian, M.R. Discussion of “Barriers of Implementing Modern Methods of Construction” by
M. Motiar Rahman. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 7015001. [CrossRef]

127
sustainability

Article
Cross-Organizational Learning Approach in the Sustainable
Use of Fly Ash for Geopolymer in the Philippine
Construction Industry
Jason Maximino C. Ongpeng 1, *, Ernesto J. Guades 2 and Michael Angelo B. Promentilla 3

1 Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila 0922, Philippines

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark;
[email protected]
3 Chemical Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila 0922, Philippines;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The construction industry faces a challenging situation in attaining sustainable develop-
ment goals. The carbon footprint of the production and use of construction materials such as the
use of ordinary Portland cement in concrete products is still on the rise despite of many alternatives
and technologies. In this paper, the local cross-organizational learning approach (COLA) and a
systematic review of academic and professional literatures were applied in analyzing the use of
fly ash as a geopolymer in the Philippine construction industry. Three primary stakeholders were
considered: academe, professional organizations, and industry. Documents from each stakeholder
Citation: Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Guades,
were collected, with keywords including sustainability, fly ash, and geopolymer. These documents
E.J.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Cross-
included published materials, newsletters, department orders, codes, and policies. Text analytics
Organizational Learning Approach in
throughout the documents were applied using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation model, which uses a
the Sustainable Use of Fly Ash for
hierarchal Bayesian-modelling process that groups set of items into topics to determine the maturity
Geopolymer in the Philippine
Construction Industry. Sustainability
level of the organizational learning. An adoption framework is proposed aligning COLA with the
2021, 13, 2454. https://doi.org/ awareness, interest, desire, and action (AIDA) funnel model. Results show that the organizational
10.3390/su13052454 maturity until optimization of academe is sufficient towards interest and desire, while industry is
highly encouraged to increase organizational maturity from managed to optimization towards desire
Academic Editors: Edmundas and action. Factors such as organizational intelligence (OI) and organizational stupidity (OS) are to
Kazimieras Zavadskas, be considered in balancing critical thinking across organizations. Further studies are recommended
Jurgita Antuchevičienė, by considering the use of COLA with ASEAN organizations in the development of sustainable
Reza Hosseini and Igor Martek construction materials.

Received: 28 December 2020

Keywords: organizational learning; fly ash; geopolymer; environment; sustainable; construction
Accepted: 17 February 2021
Published: 24 February 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- The construction industry consumes half of the non-renewable resources of the
iations. globe [1] and undoubtedly plays a major role in addressing construction material sus-
tainability. Sustainability can be broadly defined as using resources without depletion
and can be described in three spheres: social, economic, and environmental. In order to
monitor protection of the current and future state of our planet, adoption of 17 Sustainable
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets with 232 indicators can be considered [2]. Sus-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
tainable Development Goals are difficult to achieve because of several inherent constraints,
This article is an open access article
including research and development resources on a national level. Insufficient or absence
distributed under the terms and of effective techniques on data knowledge management towards organizational learning
conditions of the Creative Commons should be addressed. One of the solutions is through the use of digitalization to improve
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the untapped role of technological innovation and knowledge management [3].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Organizational learning (OL) is gaining interest in the construction industry [4] for
4.0/). its added benefits, as it can be integrated to develop effective techniques in developing

129

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052454 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

sustainable construction materials. It is a theory of action that constitutes a conscious and

repeatable entity-wide process of creating, acquiring, understanding, sharing, applying,
improving, and managing social, tacit, and explicit knowledge in support of the organiza-
tion’s purpose, strategies, and goals [5] and is recognized as essential for an organization’s
enhanced performance [6]. In addition, it is defined as the continuous increase in perfor-
mance level through systematic promotion of a learning culture in an organization that
includes all stakeholders of all levels as an individual and as a collective group [7]. There
are two major types of knowledge that can be used in OL: explicit, as codified knowledge
usually recorded in project documents; and tacit, as non-codified knowledge from personal
experience that may not be recorded in project documents.
In a controlled environment wherein OL is being practiced in the organization and
employee turnover rate is minimal, both explicit and tacit knowledge can be used for
practice knowledge management. Explicit knowledge includes documented reports in
the organization and can easily be transmitted from one person to another, while tacit
knowledge is difficult to write down and difficult to transmit within an organization. One
of the common tools in organizational learning in construction in extracting both types of
knowledge is through post project review, by passing on previous experience to enhance
organizational practices applied to future practices [8]. However, post project review is
difficult to achieve if there are no available data from the organizational process assets.
Tools for conducting OL, particularly aiming for good project governance, have already
been developed, including those of the cross-organizational learning approach (COLA)
proposed by [9]. The construction industry is highly fragmented and focused on bringing
value to the client; with COLA review process, stakeholders can benefit by realizing shared
objectives through sustainable business partnership [9].
The construction industry is broad, and the application of OL can be general or
specific to a particular scope. Some notable works with substantial numbers of citations
are on quality [10], contractor performance [11], productivity [12], building information
modeling [13], and safety. Sustainable construction, in a Scopus search from 1994 to 2018,
showed a rapid increase after the year 2010. One of the popular topics in this review
article is on the use of alternative materials as a solution to address sustainability in
construction [14]. For instance, fly ash or geopolymer material has been considered as
an alternative to cement-based construction material, since its production emits less CO2 .
Compared to cement, it has excellent bond strength to the concrete substrate [15] and greater
durability in severe environments [16]. Geopolymer has been widely used in building
materials, nuclear waste disposal, and aerospace materials [17] and is now perceived as
an alternative to conventional Portland cement. In the Philippines, the use of fly ash for
geopolymer has not been fully documented and its contribution as construction material
has not been clearly identified. To the knowledge of the authors, there is in particular a
scarcity of information related to its sustainable use in the construction industry.
This paper presents an overview on the extent of fly ash used for geopolymer as
sustainable material in the Philippine construction industry. The cross-organizational
learning approach [9] was adopted as tool for analyzing the state of the art regarding
various stakeholders to describe the sustainability of the considered construction materials.
Information obtained from the literature, project documents, reports, memos, and
other data available served as primary inputs. In addition, bibliometric analysis was
performed using MATLAB to obtain text analytics. This tool shows that topic modeling for
sustainability using construction demolition and waste can raise awareness in a circular
economy framework [18] and development of self-healing concrete [19]. It is expected that
the present paper will lead to a coherent adoption framework for the development of the
sustainable use of fly ash as a geopolymer in the Philippine construction industry.
In the Philippines, coal fly ash (CFA) is one of the main raw materials for geopolymer
precursors. Millions of metric tons of CFA are generated annually from the 28 coal-fired
power plants currently operating throughout the Philippines. Because of its pozzolanic
properties, this industrial by-product is most commonly used as a component in blended

130
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and marketed as eco-friendly cement products. However,
for an archipelago like the Philippines, the percentage utilization of fly ash is still low [20].
For example, power plants in the cities of Naga and Toledo and even a new plant in the
Visayas region have projected remaining landfill capacities in the community of less than a
decade given the huge amount of CFA generated. The annual coal ash generation in the
country is projected to increase to 13 million metric tons by 2035 [21].
The huge amount of CFA can be transformed into a resource for building materials
through geopolymer technology. The CFA in the Philippines can be classified as Class F or
Class C depending on the relative composition of the major oxides. The presence of major
oxides (SiO2 plus Al2 O3 plus Fe2 O3 ) of more than 70% suggest the pozzolanic properties
of the ash, which meets the chemical requirement of Class F fly ash typically derived from
bituminous coal. The fly ash also can be considered as having a moderate calcium content,
which is expected for coal ash obtained from sub-bituminous coal. Such fly ash is also
expected to exhibit some degree of cementitious properties typical of class C fly ash if the
presence of major oxides (SiO2 plus Al2 O3 plus Fe2 O3 ) is more than 50%.
Based on the reported diffractogram of XRD analyses of these CFA, the major compo-
nents are silicon (which appeared in quartz-SiO2 ), aluminum (which appeared in tricalcium
aluminate and melilite), calcium (which appeared in tricalcium aluminate, lime–CaO, and
melilite), and iron (which appeared in magnetite and melilite and sodium from melilite).
The diffractogram did not only provide the major crystalline phase but also suggests the
presence of amorphous alumina and silica. These reactive alumino–silica components are
important precursors for geopolymerization.
The built environment is a major contributor to loss of biodiversity, and it is thought
that raising awareness, including engaging with stakeholders, is beneficial [22]. In order to
arrive at effective sustainable project delivery, a framework integrating both organizational
learning and sustainability [23], and a cross-organization learning approach [9] is pursued.
The motivation of this paper is to measure the research university’s OL in relation to the
research and development of sustainable construction materials, specifically the use of fly
ash for geopolymers.

2. Methodology
Included in the COLA are the primary stakeholders from professional organizations,
academe, and industry, as seen in Figure 1. There are linkages between the stakeholders,
such as seminar events, which happen at least once a year with a given theme. Seminars
usually caters to large audiences and pull communication is practiced. Pull communica-
tion is a method wherein a receiver proactively retrieves the information wherein tacit
knowledge is limited and explicit knowledge is varying depending on the motivation of
the receiver to comprehend the references available.
For the academe, De la Salle University was chosen as the subject. There were two
identified research groups focusing on the development of sustainable materials using CFA,
namely the Geopolymers and Advance Materials Engineering Research and Sustainability
(GAMERS) and Materials for Sustainable Construction and Recyclables Applied to Projects
(M-SCRAP) from chemical and civil engineering departments, respectively. The focus of
the research groups is the use and sustainable consumption of CFA as supplementary
cementitious material (SCM) and development of specific materials such as geopolymers.
The applications range from managing coal fly ash to developing products for bricks,
mortars, and concrete. In addition, a seminar-workshop on waste utilization is practiced to
share results and is published with the National Library of the Philippines. This seminar-
workshop covers different fields and disciplines, from chemical and material sciences to
the civil engineering field, and from academe, including Japanese universities, to industry.
For the professional organizations, two associations were considered as being at the
forefront of the construction industry in the Philippines. These are the Philippine Institute
of Civil Engineers (PICE), composed of local and international chapters, and the Philippine
Constructors Association (PCA), with different chapters locally. Regular conferences and

131
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

seminars are conducted by the associations with guest experts and speakers known in their
field of specialization.

Figure 1. Cross-organizational learning approach shared across primary stakeholders.

Lastly, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was chosen as the in-
dustry, and could also be treated as the policy maker represented in the COLA. The DPWH
is mandated to undertake major infrastructure projects in the Philippines from planning to
design, construction, and maintenance of national roads, bridges, flood control structures,
water resources projects, and other public works. The stakeholder was chosen because of
its function in providing material standards for the construction industry through one of
its offices, the Bureau of Research and Standards (BRS). From the identified stakeholders,
the cross-organizational learning approach was achieved to better develop an adoption
framework for the research and development of the use of fly ash and geopolymers in the
Philippine construction industry.
After identifying the stakeholders, data text analytics was applied using the Latent
Dirichlet Allocation model that uses a hierarchical Bayesian modelling process, which
groups sets of items into topics [24]. An archiving of available project documents from
different stakeholders is displayed in Table 1. The documents are related to sustain-
able construction materials using fly ash, since this is the closest subject pertaining to
geopolymers that can be gathered for both industry and professional organizations. Re-
trieved documents included building codes, laws/regulations/department orders, newslet-
ters/circulars/reports, and a recent roadmap of the construction industry, 2020–2030. The
documents used from academe were published documents in the form of abstracts, con-
ferences, and journal papers with fly ash or geopolymer as the keyword. It is noted that
the dates of the project documents were dispersed due to the limited documents available
from each stakeholder that pertained to the keywords search used.
Additionally, a maturity level was adopted for each primary stakeholder. There
are five levels of organizational maturity including initial, repeatable, defined, managed,
and optimizing [25]. Three levels for measuring organizational maturity on the use of
sustainable construction material with fly ash were used for simplicity in this paper.
Organizational maturity was observed through text analytics, wherein frequent topics
appeared in most documents. It was classified in this paper as Level 1, from initial
to repeatable; Level 2, from initial to managed; and Level 3, from initial to optimizing.
Progressive analysis was considered, and maturity level was established during this period.

132
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Table 1. Primary stakeholders and documents.

Number of
Stakeholders Description Type of Documents Year
Documents
2013
Utilization of Waste
3 Book of abstracts 2018
Academe Seminar-Workshop
2019
Conference Papers
Engineering 45
Journal Papers
PD 1096 2004

Philippine Institute of Civil RA 544 2010

Professional 4
Engineers (PICE) Newsletter/Circulars 2020
Organizations
President’s Report 2019
Philippine Constructors
1 Roadmap 2020–2030 2019
Association (PCA)
Research Symposium 2019
DO 34 1991 1991
Department of Public Works and
Industry 5 SEM MO 2016 2016
Highways (DPWH)
SEM MO 2014 2014
Philippine Green Building Code 2015
Legend: RA—Republic Act; DO—Department Order; SEM—Social and Environmental Management Manual of Operation.

3. Results and Discussion

The documents were collected, processed, and analyzed through MATLAB text ana-
lytics. The outputs were word cloud, topic modelling, and topic mixtures. The word cloud
shows the highest frequency of words in a large font. The topic modelling and mixtures
show the word cloud with topics separated from a folder of documents, and the bar chart
shows the probability of the topic for each document. These were used to determine the
level of maturity of each stakeholder toward organizational learning using coal fly ash
for geopolymer.

3.1. Academe
As seen in Table 1, the academe was separated into two parts: three seminar-workshops,
and 45 published conference papers and journals. From the seminar-workshop with the
theme “utilization of waste”, a limited book of abstracts was available, and a word cloud
was not essential in the analysis. Shown in Figure 2 is the topic modelling from the three
seminar-workshops, where two topics were generated: material strength, and use of waste
in concrete. It shows that the seminar-workshop covered utilization of waste in general
with no specificity to the use of fly ash and or geopolymers. Shown in Figure 3 is the
topic mixtures, showing that almost equal contributions from all abstracts considered
both material strength and the use of waste in concrete. It is indicative from Figure 3
that waste was considered in the project documents but not much on the use of CFA
towards geopolymers.
Figure 4 shows the word cloud of published materials from 45 engineering publica-
tions wherein fly ash was the main focus. Figure 5 shows the four topics generated from
the documents. These were as follows: improving strength using fly ash, development of
geopolymers, utilization of fly ash as additive or replacement to cement, and utilization
and removal of waste. Results show that the direction of sustainable construction using
fly ash is broad, including utilization of fly ash waste from industrial plants for cement
replacement, development of geopolymers, and development of other materials such as
mortars and bricks for a wide variety of applications.

133
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Figure 2. Topic modelling for seminar-workshop from academe.

Figure 3. Topic mixtures for seminar-workshop from academe.

Figure 4. Word cloud from engineering publications from academe.

134
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Figure 5. Topic modelling from engineering publications from academe.

Figure 6 shows the topic mixture of the 45 documents considered. For some documents,
the development of geopolymers, which is topic 2 from the figure, was smaller compared
to topic 3, which is using fly ash as an SCM in concrete products. It shows that the use
of CFA towards geopolymers is evident. Detailed discussions on the 45 documents are
described in Table 2.
The summary of work from the published materials is seen in Table 2. It shows
that organizational maturity from academe was Level 3, from initial to optimizing from
2001 to present, which was the highest level. There were 16 out of 45 documents or 35.6%
that studied utilization of fly ash alone or using it as an SCM in concrete products. The
remaining documents, 29 out of 45 or 64.4%, explored the use of CFA for the development
of geopolymers. The documents covered the use of CFA from an economic perspective;
optimization of the use and design; CO2 reduction; development of different materials
including paste, mortar, bricks, soil, and concrete with ordinary Portland cement as binder;
or fly ash with sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate, and other alternatives as binder. Tests
differed from chemical and mechanical for the analysis of elements and compounds,
compressive strength, flexural tests, permeability, and corrosion, among others.

Figure 6. Topic mixtures from engineering publications from academe.

135
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Table 2. Materials and tests from academic publications.

Materials Test
Other Specific
Reference Used as Used as Geopolymer Remarks
Chemical Mechanical Tests
CFA SCM M S B C
[26] Leaching test Phosphate removal
[27] Corrosion test Mortar with CFA
[28] Impact assessment Coal ash
[29] Financial analysis Fly and bottom ash
CFA and rubber
[30]
crumbs
[31] Corrosion test Use of seawater
[32] Optimization model
Fly ash and water
[33]
glass solution
Varying sand-fly
[34]
ash ratio
[35] Shrinkage test Optimization model
Varying sand-fly
[20]
ash ratio
Coal fly and bottom
[36]
ash
CFA, RHA, and
[37]
sludge
CFA and ceramic
[38]
waste
CFA/Mangima
[39]
stone
Abaca fiber
[40]
reinforced GP
Water treatment
[41]
sludge
Different sizes of
[42]
aggregates
Multi-objective
[43]
optimization
Bottom and rice
[44]
hush ash
[45] Gold mine tailings
CFA and ceramic
[46]
waste
Consolidated drain
[47] Road embankment
test
[48] Soil stabilizer
[49] Soil stabilizer
[50] Leaching test Soil and fly ash
Water treatment
[51] Acid resistance test
sludge

136
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Table 2. Cont.

Materials Test
Other Specific
Reference Used as Used as Geopolymer Remarks
Chemical Mechanical Tests
CFA SCM M S B C
Unconfined Silty sand
[52]
compressive test embankment
[53] Permeability test Using soil mix
[54] Permeability test Using dredged soil
[55] Using dredged soil
[56] Using dredged soil
Pervious concrete
[57] Permeability test wit CFA and
sawdust
CO2 and cost Transportation of
[58]
evaluation CFA
[59] Autoclaved aerated
Self-healing using
[60]
bacteri
Organic/ inorganic
[61]
binders
[62] Corrosion test Use of seawater
[60] Corrosion test Use of seawater
GPC with
[63] Corrosion test
reinforcement
Compressed earth
[64]
blocks
[21] Degradation of dye
Applied for acid
[65]
treatment
Biomaterials for
[59]
self-healing
Nickel-laterite as
[66]
precursor
Legend: M—mortar; S—soil; B—brick/block; C—concrete; CFA—coal fly ash; SCM—supplementary cementitious material.

3.2. Professional Organizations

As seen in Table 1, a few documents were available from professional organizations.
These documents were codes, newsletters, reports, and the roadmap 2020–2030. Organi-
zational maturity was low at Level 1 from initial to repeatable. The stakeholder focused
on sustainability in general and served as an ambassador to the members and the public;
hence, there was not much specificity on the use of fly ash and development of geopolymers
observed from text analytics.

3.3. Industry
From the documents taken from the DPWH, which is considered as the primary stake-
holder for the industry, it showed that the word cloud in Figure 7 focused on environmental
consideration in construction projects, which leads to the promotion of sustainability. As
seen in Figure 8, the topic modelling from five documents were environmentally-friendly
concrete, environmentally-friendly projects, generation of reports, and environmental im-
pact of projects. Topic mixtures in Figure 9 were skewed differently for each topic. For
137
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

example, documents 1 to 3 considered specifically the use of environmentally-friendly

concrete as topic 1, while documents 4 to 5 considered in general environmentally-friendly
projects with reports and impacts on the environment, which covered topic 2–4. The
organizational maturity was Level 2, from initial to managed.

Figure 7. Word cloud from industry.

Figure 8. Topic modelling from industry.

Figure 9. Topic mixtures from industry.

138
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

3.4. Cross-Organizational Learning Approach from Stakeholders

Organizational learning from academe, industry, and professional organizations was
classified as Level 3, 2, and 1, respectively, based on the discussion in Sections 3.1–3.3.
Academe was rated at Level 3, since published documents were managed well with
room for optimization through continuous research and development. On the other hand,
industry was Level 2, since the stakeholder deals with the material standards adopted
by public works and highways nationwide, and professional organizations were Level
1, since while sustainability was emphasized, not much continuous development was
defined. It is worth noting that the primary stakeholder from industry issued DPWH DO
23 in 1987, creating a coordinating committee for studying the application of fly ash as an
admixture to concrete. After four years, another order was issued, DPWH DO 34 1991,
which approved the use of fly ash that meets the requirements of ASTM C618 with 20%
replacement of Portland cement in concrete mix. This shows that organizational learning
towards sustainable construction materials was practiced in the industry.
Using the documents retrieved, topic modelling was generated and analyzed to align
each stakeholder towards sustainability, the use of fly ash, and development of materials
from the use of fly ash, such as geopolymers. Integration of COLA and an existing model,
described in a later section, were considered in arriving at a proposed adoption framework.
Combining all 58 documents from Table 1 resulted in the word cloud shown in
Figure 10 with fly ash in concrete materials and geopolymer development. Topic modelling
is seen in Figure 11 and was categorized as follows: conducting environmentally friendly
projects, utilization of fly ash in geopolymer concrete products, developing geopolymer us-
ing waste materials, and providing solutions for the construction industry. Figure 12 shows
all the 58 document topic mixtures and shows varying skewness, with some documents
showing prioritization on one topic over the other. For example, document 58 showed
more of topic 1 (conducting environmentally friendly projects) over the use of fly ash
as to whether it will be for SCM or geopolymer products. This shows that each stake-
holder had different specific topics, and in general led to the development of sustainable
construction materials.
After text analytics on each and consolidated knowledge from each stakeholder, a
proposed adoption framework was considered. Many studies in each respective field
use knowledge, competence, wisdom, talent, and learning, which are used to describe
organization intelligence (OI) [67]. Opposite to OI is organizational stupidity (OS), which
is considered an illnesses for organizations [68], wherein smart people pretend to be
stupid [67,69] and is a concept contrary to critical thinking [70]. The OI and OS were not
placed on the two extremes of a single spectrum; rather, these concepts moved hand in
hand [71]. Generally, these are two counterparts, where increasing one of them leads to
increases in the other.

Figure 10. Word cloud from all primary stakeholders.

139
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Figure 11. Topic modelling from all primary stakeholders.

Figure 12. Topic mixtures from all primary stakeholders.

An existing model, called the awareness, interest, desire, and action (AIDA) purchase
funnel model, was adopted in this paper. Integration of this model with COLA and factors
such as OI and OS can lead to better understanding of an adoption framework in arriving
at an OL towards sustainable construction materials. The AIDA purchase funnel model
is a hierarchal diagram used for marketing wherein there is a wider opening at the top,
which represents awareness, followed by narrowing down to interest, desire, and, lastly,
action [72]. This model is used in marketing, where the customer journey is considered in
purchasing goods or services. Figure 13 shows the COLA from the primary stakeholders
and balancing its organizational maturity level, and the role that each primary stakeholder
plays in the development of proper OL, where OI and OS exists in the organizations. Profes-
sional organizations with maturity from initial to repeatable is observed in the awareness
and interest of using sustainable materials like fly ash and geopolymers. From the academe,
the position on the funnel on awareness, interest, and desire is highly correlated with
organizational maturity from initial to optimizing. On the other hand, development and
motivation for industry is highly recommended, since the current maturity is from initial
to managed with little or no action. This does not negate that there is no research and
development on the field of CFA and other materials in the industry; in fact, from 2016 to
140
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

present, numerous department orders from DPWH in relation to concrete were made, such
as inclusion of macro synthetic fiber for Portland cement concrete pavement, standard
specification of the use of roller-compacted concrete pavement, and use of one-day Portland
cement concrete pavement, which shows that the cross-organizational learning approach
is recommended to harmonize the learning process and attain sustainable development
goals in the Philippine construction industry. It is recommended that interventions from
new technology, market demand, legal requirements, and environmental considerations
be used as motivators to move awareness to action for all stakeholders in the continuous
learning process in the development of sustainable materials.

Figure 13. Primary stakeholders in the AIDA funnel model.

4. Conclusions
The construction industry has contributed substantially to CO2 emissions compared
to other sectors. The challenge of attaining sustainable development goals can be achieved
with a good adoption framework, wherein different stakeholders can apply a cross-
organizational learning approach (COLA). Results show that a local COLA and systematic
review from academic and professional literatures using text analytics to understand ex-
plicit knowledge from documents can be achieved. Alignment of COLA’s maturity level
and the AIDA (awareness, interest, desire, and action) purchase funnel model can lead to
an adoption framework.
It was found that the maturity of the sustainable use of fly ash for geopolymers accord-
ing to the perspective of professional organizations is from initial to repeatable, as observed
in the awareness and interest scale. Professional organizations can be the ambassadors
for sustainable development goals wherein awareness and interest can be imparted to
the members and the public. From the viewpoint of academe, the awareness of, interest
in, and desire for the use of these alternative construction materials are highly correlated
with organizational maturity, from initial to optimization. Academe can continue with
research and development with interest and desire, considering organizational maturity
until optimization. Lastly, industry, as one of the primary stakeholders, plays an important
role in developing organizational maturity until optimization with desire and action in
using fly ash and to develop more materials from it. It is recommended that interventions
can be made, such as motivation coming from new technology, market demand, and envi-
ronmental considerations. The movement from awareness to action for all stakeholders
is the ideal setting in order to have a continuous learning process in the development of
sustainable materials.
141
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

Further studies are recommended by considering COLA from wider organizations,

locally and internationally, in developing sustainable construction materials. Benchmarking
can bring about best practices on the adoption of new materials in the construction industry.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.M.C.O. and E.J.G.; methodology, J.M.C.O. and E.J.G.;
software, J.M.C.O.; validation, E.J.G. and M.A.B.P.; formal analysis, J.M.C.O.; investigation, J.M.C.O.
and E.J.G.; resources, J.M.C.O., E.J.G., and M.A.B.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.C.O.;
writing—review and editing, E.J.G., and M.A.B.P.; visualization, J.M.C.O.; supervision, J.M.C.O.;
project administration, J.M.C.O.; funding acquisition, J.M.C.O. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The is funded by the project Green Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites as an Inno-
vative Repair System for Earthquake-prone Historical Buildings with project account number: 40203.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lundholm, J.T. Green roofs and facades: A habitat template approach. Urban Habitats 2006, 4, 87–101.
2. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development United Nations. 2015. Avail-
able online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20
Development%20web.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2020).
3. Del Río Castro, G.; González Fernández, M.C.; Uruburu Colsa, Á. Unleashing the convergence amid digitalization and sus-
tainability towards pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A holistic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 122204.
[CrossRef]
4. Latham, M. Constructing the Team: Final Report of the Government/Industry. Review of Procurement and Contractual
Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry. 1994. Available online: https://constructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2014/10/Constructing-the-team-The-Latham-Report.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2020).
5. Strang, K. Achieving Organizational Learning Across Projects; Project Management Institute: Delaware, PA, USA, 2003.
6. Wong, P.S.P.; Cheung, S.O.; Yiu, R.L.Y.; Hardie, M. The unlearning dimension of organizational learning in construction projects.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 94–104. [CrossRef]
7. Eken, G.; Bilgin, G.; Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M.T. A lessons-learned Tool for Organizational Learning in Construction. Autom. Constr.
2020, 110, 102977. [CrossRef]
8. Cushman, M.; Venters, W.; Cornford, T.; Mitev, N. Understanding Sustainability as Knowledge Practice; British Academy of
Management Conference: London, UK, 2002.
9. Cushman, M.; Cornford, T. Infrastructures for Construction collaboration: The Cross Organizational Learning Approach. Int. J.
Arch. Eng. Constr. 2003, 1, 67–76.
10. Love, P.E.; Li, H.; Irani, Z.; Holt, G.D. Re-thinking TQM: Toward a framework for facilitating learning and change in construction
organizations. TQM Mag. 2000, 12, 107–117. [CrossRef]
11. Kululanga, G.; Price, A.; Mccaffer, R. Empirical Investigation of Construction contractors’ Organizational Learning. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2002, 128, 385–391. [CrossRef]
12. Love, P.E.; Josephson, P.E. Role of error-recovery process in projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2004, 20, 70–79. [CrossRef]
13. Chan, P.; Cooper, R.; Tzortzopoulos, P. Organizational learning: Conceptual challenges from a project perspective. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 2005, 23, 747–756. [CrossRef]
14. Detudomsap, A.; Hallinger, P. A Bibliometric Review of Research on Sustainable construction, 1994–2018. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
254, 120073. [CrossRef]
15. Hu, S.; Wang, H.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Q. Bonding and abrasion resistance of geopolymeric repair material made with steel slag. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2008, 30, 239–244. [CrossRef]
16. Ganesan, N.; Abraham, R.; Deepa Raj, S. Durability characteristics of steel fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015, 93, 471–476. [CrossRef]
17. Guo, X.; Pan, X. Mechanical properties and mechanisms of fiber reinforced fly ash-steel slag based geopolymer mortar. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 179, 633–641. [CrossRef]
18. Ginga, C.; Ongpeng, J. Materials Circular Economy on Construction and Demolition waste: A Literature Review on Material
Recovery and Production. Materials 2020, 13, 2970. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Griño, A.A.; Daly, M.; Klarissa, M.; Ongpeng, J.M.C. Bio-Influenced Self-Healing Mechanism in Concrete and Its Testing: A
Review. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5161. [CrossRef]

142
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

20. Kalaw, M.E.; Culaba, A.; Hinode, H.; Kurniawan, W.; Gallardo, S.; Promentilla, M.A. Optimizing and characterizing geopolymers
from ternary blend of Philippine coal fly ash, coal bottom ash and rice hull ash. Materials 2016, 9, 580. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Jamora, J.B.; Gudia, S.E.L.; Go, A.W.; Giduquio, M.B.; Loretero, M.E. Potential CO2 reduction and cost evaluation in use and
transport of coal ash as cement replacement: A case in the Philippines. Waste Manag. 2020, 103, 137–145. [CrossRef]
22. Opoku, A. Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2019, 141, 1–7. [CrossRef]
23. Opoku, A.; Fortune, C. Organisational Learning and Sustainability in the Construction Industry. Built Hum. Environ. Rev. 2011, 4,
98–107.
24. Roque, C.; Cardoso, J.; Connell, T.; Schermers, G.; Weber, R. Topic Analysis of Road Safety Inspections Using Latent Dirichlet
allocation: A Case Study of Roadside Safety in Irish Main Roads. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 131, 336–349. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Von Zedtwitz, M. Organizational learning through post–project reviews in R&D. RD Manag. 2002, 32, 255–268.
26. Yamada, K.; Haraguchi, K.; Gacho, C.C.; Salinas, L.S.; Silverio, C.M.; Wongsiri, B.P. Removal of PhosPhate from aqueous solutions
by crystallization using coal fly ash. In 2001 International Ash Utilization Symposium, Center for Applied Energy Research; Paper 7;
University of Kentucky: Lexington, KY, USA, 2001.
27. Madlangbayan, M.; Otsuki, N.; Nishida, T.; Baccay, M. Corrosion behavior of steel bar in chloride contaminated mortars with fly
ash. Philipp. Eng. J. 2005, 26, 13–24.
28. Gallardo, S.; Dungca, J.; Gallardo, R.; Kalaw, M. Sustainability Issues Due to Coal Ash from Coal Fired Power Plants Phase 1: Impact
Assessment of Coal Ash Dumping in a Typical Power Generating Facility; Interdisciplinary Research Final Report; University Research
Coordination Office (URCO), De la Salle University: Manila, Philippines, 2012.
29. Clark, E. Economic Implications of the Partial Substitution of Coal Fly Ash and Bottom Ash for Cement and Aggregate
Construction Materials. In Sustainable Issue due to Coal Ash from Coal Fired Power Plants in the Philippines: Phase 2–Sustainable
Solutions for an Industry Partner; University Research Coordination Office (URCO), De la Salle University: Manila, Philippines,
2013; pp. 87–146.
30. Bustamante, A.; Dablo, G.M.; Sia, R.; Arazo, R. Physical and mechanical properties of composite brick from cement mortar, fly
ash and rubber crumbs. Int. Res. Eng. Technol. 2015, 4, 1–5.
31. Lim, E.D.; Roxas, C.L.; Gallardo, R.; Nishida, T.; Otsuki, N. Strength and corrosion behavior of mortar mixed and/or cured with
seawater with various fly ash replacement ratios. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 16, 835–849.
32. Sumabat, A.K.R.; Mañalac, A.J.; Nguyen, N.T.; Kalaw, M.E.; Tan, R.R.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Optimizing geopolymer-based
material for industrial application with analytic hierarchy process and multi-response surface analysis. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015,
45, 1147–1152.
33. Kalaw, M.E.L.; Culaba, A.B.; Nguyen, H.T.; Nguyen, K.; Hinode, H.; Kurniawan, W.; Gallardo, S.M.; Promentilla, M.A.B.
Mechanical and thermal properties of geopolymers from mixtures of coal ash and rice hull ash using water glass solution as
activator. ASEAN J. Chem. Eng. 2015, 15, 51–61. [CrossRef]
34. Guades, E.J. Experimental investigation of the compressive and tensile strengths of geopolymer mortar: The effect of sand/fly
ash (S/FA) ratio. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 127, 484–493. [CrossRef]
35. Promentilla, M.A.B.; Thang, N.H.; Kien, P.T.; Hinode, H.; Bacani, F.T.; Gallardo, S.M. Optimizing ternary-blended geopolymers
with multi-response surface analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 2016, 7, 929–939. [CrossRef]
36. Nguyen, T.H.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Producing Geopolymer-based Concrete from Coal Fly Ash and Bottom Ash. In Proceedings of
the 23rd Regional Symposium on Chemical Engineering, AUN-SEED/NET, Vung Tau, Vietnam, 27–28 October 2016.
37. Opiso, E.M.; Sato, T.; Otake, T. Microstructural properties of hardened cement paste blended with coal fly ash, sugar mill lime
sludge and rice hull ash. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2017, 5, 289.
38. Gallardo, R.S.; Elevado, K.J.T. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Concrete Mixed with Waste Ceramic Tiles and Fly Ash. In Proceedings of
the 5th Seminar on Utilization of Waste Materials, De la Salle University, Manila, Philippines, 7–8 September 2017.
39. Cabahug, R.R.; Ape, J.L.; Curiba, A.M.G.; Egama, V.J.D.; Mabano, M.C.; Uy, R.M.A. Coal Fly Ash as Cement Replacement on
Mortar Mixed with Mangima Stone and Conventional Fine Aggregates. Mindanao J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 15, 137–150.
40. Malenab, R.A.J.; Ngo, J.P.S.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Chemical treatment of waste abaca for natural fiber-reinforced geopolymer
composite. Materials 2017, 10, 579. [CrossRef]
41. Promentilla, M.A.B.; Kalaw, M.E.; Nguyen, H.T.; Aviso, K.B.; Tan, R.R. A fuzzy programming approach to multi-objective
optimization for geopolymer product design. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2017, 40, 1015–1020.
42. Nguyen, H.T.; Pham, T.K.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Development of Geopolymer-Based Materials from Coal Bottom Ash and Rice
Husk Ash with Sodium Silicate Solutions. In Proceedings of the 4th Congrès International de Géotechnique–Ouvrages–Structures,
Singapore, 26–27 October 2017; pp. 402–410.
43. Aseniero, J.P.J.; Opiso, E.M.; Banda, M.H.T.; Tabelin, C.B. Potential utilization of artisanal gold-mine tailings as geopolymeric
source material: Preliminary investigation. SN Appl. Sci. 2018, 1, 35. [CrossRef]
44. Ho, V.; Orbecido, A.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Investigation on mixture design of one-part geopolymer from fly ash and water
treatment sludge. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 156, p. 05009. [CrossRef]
45. Elevado, K.; Galupino, J.G.; Gallardo, R.S. Compressive strength modelling of concrete mixed with fly ash and waste ceramics
using K-nearest neighbor algorithm. Int. J. Geomate 2018, 15, 169–174. [CrossRef]
46. Uy, E.E.S.; Dungca, J.R. Hyperbolic Model Parameters of Philippine Coal Ash. Int. J. 2018, 15, 95–102.

143
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2454

47. Ngo, J.P.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Development of abaca fiber-reinforced foamed fly ash geopolymer. In Proceedings of the 24th
Regional Symposium on Chemical Engineering, Semarang, Indonesia, 14 March 2018; pp. 15–16.
48. Tigue, A.A.S.; Dungca, J.R.; Hinode, H.; Kurniawan, W.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Synthesis of a one-part geopolymer system for soil
stabilizer using fly ash and volcanic ash. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 156, p. 05017.
49. Tigue, A.A.S.; Malenab, R.A.J.; Dungca, J.R.; Yu, D.E.C.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Chemical stability and leaching behavior of one-part
geopolymer from soil and coal fly ash mixtures. Minerals 2018, 8, 411. [CrossRef]
50. Orbecido, A.; Ho, V.; Hinode, H.; Kurniawan, W.; Nguyen, L.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Characterization and acid resistance test of
one-part geopolymer from fly ash and water treatment sludge. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Ulis, France, 2018;
Volume 156, p. 05003.
51. Dungca, J.R.; Codilla, E.E.T., II. Fly-ash-based geopolymer as stabilizer for silty sand embankment materials. Int. J. Geomate 2018,
14, 143–149. [CrossRef]
52. Dungca, J.R.; Ang, K.D.; Isaac, A.M.L.; Joven, J.J.R.; Sollano, M.B.T. USE OF DRY MIXING METHOD IN FLY ASH BASED
GEOPOLYMER AS A STABILIZER FOR DREDGED SOIL. Int. J. 2019, 16, 9–14.
53. Guades, E.J. Effect of coarse aggregate size on the compressive behaviour of geopolymer concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2019,
23, 693–709. [CrossRef]
54. Dungca, J.R.; Lao, W.D.T.; Lim, M.; Lu, M.D.; Redelicia, J.C.P. Vertical permeability of dredged soil stabilized with fly-ash based
geopolymer for road embankment. Int. J. Geomate 2019, 17, 8–14. [CrossRef]
55. Dungca, J.R.; Lao, W.D.T.; Lim, M.; Lu, W.D.; Redelicia, J.C.P. Radial flow permeameter: A proposed apparatus to measure
horizontal hydraulic gradient of fly-ash based geopolymer-soil mix. Int. J. Geomate 2019, 16, 218–223. [CrossRef]
56. Lira, B.C.S.; Dellosa, S.B.A.; Toh, C.I.L.; Al Patrick, A.Q.; Nidoy, A.L.S.; Cerna, K.D.; Yu, D.E.C.; Janairo, J.I.B.; Promentilla, M.A.B.
Coal Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Spheres Coated with Amoxicillin and Nanosilver for Potential Antibacterial Applications.
ASEAN J. Chem. Eng. 2019, 19, 25–37. [CrossRef]
57. Opiso, E.M.; Supremo, R.P.; Perodes, J.R. Effects of coal fly ash and fine sawdust on the performance of pervious concrete. Heliyon
2019, 5, 02783. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Balangao, J.K.B.; Ramos, M.S.K. Production of Autoclaved Aerated Concretes with Fly Ash from a Coal Power Plant in Misamis
Oriental, Philippines. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2019, 12, 14. [CrossRef]
59. Doctolero, J.Z.S.; Benedicto, M.Y.G.R.; Samson, M.L.C.; Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Self-Healing Potential of Fly
Ash-Based Geopolymers with Directly Added Bacterial Agents. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Concrete
and Structures for Next Generation, Kanazawa, Japan, 17–19 June 2019.
60. Ongpeng, J. Next Generation Materials and Testing in Concrete. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Concrete
and Structures for Next Generation, Kanazawa, Japan, 17–19 June 2019.
61. Roxas, C.; Lejano, B.; Ongpeng, J. Corrosion performance of seawater concrete with fly ash under impressed current. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Kingston upon
Thames, UK, 15–17 July 2019.
62. Temew, K.C.; Roxas, C.L.C.; Lejano, B.; Ongpeng, J. Evaluation of Macrocell Corrosion of Steel Segments in Fly Ash Concrete
Mixed with Seawater. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Concrete and Structures for Next Generation,
Kanazawa, Japan, 17–19 June 2019.
63. Ongpeng, J.; Gapuz, E.; Andres, J.J.S.; Prudencio, D.; Cuadlisan, J.; Tadina, M.; Zacarias, A.; Benauro, D.; Pabustan, A. Alkali-
activated binder as stabilizer in compressed earth blocks. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing:
Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 849, p. 012042.
64. Shimizu, E.; Promentilla, M.A.B.; Yu, D.E. Utilization of Coal Fly Ash and Rice Hull Ash as Geopolymer Matrix-cum-Metal
Dopant Applied to Visible-Light-Active Nanotitania Photocatalyst System for Degradation of Dye in Wastewater. Catalysts 2020,
10, 240. [CrossRef]
65. Tigue, A.A.S.; Malenab, R.A.J.; Promentilla, M.A.B. A Systematic Mapping and Scoping Review on Geopolymer and Permeable
Reactive Barrier for Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Research. Process. Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2020, 4, 15–35. [CrossRef]
66. Longos, A.; Tigue, A.A.; Malenab, R.A.; Dollente, I.J.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Mechanical and thermal activation of nickel-laterite
mine waste as a precursor for geopolymer synthesis. Results Eng. 2020, 7, 100148. [CrossRef]
67. Albrecht, K. The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action; Amacom Books: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
68. Forester, J. On fieldwork in a Habermasian way: Critical ethnography and the extra-ordinary character of ordinary professional
work. In Studying Management Critically; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2003; pp. 46–65.
69. Ten Bos, R. The vitality of stupidity. Soc. Epistemol. 2007, 21, 139–150. [CrossRef]
70. Paulsen, R. Slipping into functional stupidity: The bifocality of organizational compliance. Hum. Relat. 2017, 70, 185–210.
[CrossRef]
71. Karimi-Ghartemani, S.; Khani, N.; Esfahani, A.N. Stupidity for organizational developing a framework. J. High. Technol. Manag.
Res. 2020, 31, 100392. [CrossRef]
72. St. Elmo Lewis, E. Financial Advertising; Levey Bros. & Company: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 1908.

144
sustainability

Article
Sustainability Indicator Selection by a Novel Triangular
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach in Highway
Construction Projects
Hassan Hashemi 1 , Parviz Ghoddousi 1, * and Farnad Nasirzadeh 2

1 School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 16765-163, Narmak,
Tehran 1684613114, Iran; [email protected]
2 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +98-21-77240398

Abstract: The construction industry has been criticized as being a non-sustainable industry that
requires effective tools to monitor and improve its sustainability performance. The multiplicity of
indicators of the three pillars of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental—complicates
construction sustainability assessments for project managers. Therefore, prioritizing and selecting
appropriate sustainability indicators (SIs) is essential prior to conducting a construction sustainability
assessment. The main purpose of this research is to select the most appropriate set of SIs to address
all three pillars of highway sustainability by a new group decision-making approach. The proposed
approach accounts for risk attitudes of experts and entropy measures under a triangular intuitionistic
fuzzy (TIF) environment, to handle the inherent uncertainty and vagueness that is present throughout
the evaluation process. Furthermore, new separation measures and ranking scores are introduced to
distinguish the preference order of SIs. Eventually, the approach is implemented in a case study of
highway construction projects and the applicability of the approach is examined. To investigate the
stability and validity of computational results, a sensitivity analysis is carried out and a comparison
Citation: Hashemi, H.; Ghoddousi, is made between the obtained ranking outcomes and the traditional decision-making methods.
P.; Nasirzadeh, F. Sustainability Indi-
cator Selection by a Novel Triangular Keywords: sustainable highway construction; sustainability indicators; triangular intuitionistic
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making fuzzy; multi-criteria decision-making; entropy measure; risk attitudes
Approach in Highway Construction
Projects. Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031
477 1. Introduction
The preliminary concept of sustainable development was introduced in the 1980s [1].
Received: 1 October 2020
Accepted: 13 November 2020
According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report,
Published: 1 February 2021
sustainable development refers to development that can be useful for nature, not harmful
and aids in meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the needs of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- future generations. Sustainable development is generally balanced among three aspects
tral with regard to jurisdictional claims or pillars: economic, environmental and social sustainability and aims to meet all these
in published maps and institutional needs/objectives simultaneously [2].
affiliations. In recent decades, sustainable construction—as a fundamental contributor towards
sustainable development—has been the focus of a great deal of research. Recent research
efforts have largely concentrated on the performance measurement process and sustainabil-
ity assessment in building and construction projects, based on analytical and computational
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
evaluation approaches, sustainable construction tools, standards and rating systems, or a
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This
combination of these. Indeed, these studies have attempted—by various techniques—to aid
article is an open access article distributed
the construction industry in reaching sustainable development ideals and goals. As illus-
under the terms and conditions of the
trated below, some of these research studies have been reviewed. Yu et al. [3] provided the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
project management team with planning strategies using a sustainability-assessing system.
license (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
The proposed system was developed to monitor and evaluate the sustainability of whole

145

Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031477 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

activities throughout the construction projects’ life cycle. Goubran and Cucuzzella [4]
presented two analytical mapping tools for design teams of building projects to utilize
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a sustainability analyzing framework in the
design process. The first tool was constructed based on distinguishing between the ar-
chitectural, engineering and operational concerns, while the second tool was designed
based on the characteristics of the design approach (either product or human-focused)
and its inspiration (history vs. future driven). Karaca et al. [5] developed a rapid sus-
tainability assessment method using indicators and their relative weights attained from
stakeholders, and an assessment approach based on the responses of buildings’ occu-
pants to measure the sustainability performance of residential buildings in Nur-Sultan,
Kazakhstan. Li et al. [6] provided a comprehensive analysis of various stakeholder groups
associated with sustainable construction in China. In addition, the level of stakeholder
influence in decision/evaluations was measured using semi-structured interviews and
the Delphi technique. Omer and Noguchi [7] developed a conceptual framework for the
selection of appropriate building materials considering the implementation of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Indeed, they presented a knowledge-based decision
support system to assist policymakers, designers and construction stakeholders in making
appropriate decisions towards the achievement of SDGs. Xu et al. [8] evaluated the sustain-
ability of the construction industry by an assessment model based on the entropy method
in China. The level of sustainability in construction projects was determined by two indices
named the social, economic, and environmental benefits index and the ecological costs
index. Illankoon et al. [9] suggested a scoring model regarding the inter-links between the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits and SDGs to evaluate
buildings constructed in Australia. Their proposed model identified a Comprehensive
Contribution to Development Index (CCDI) to policymakers as a guideline for evaluating
building projects in order to achieve the United Nations (UN)’s SDGs. Olawumi et al. [10]
introduced a grading system of buildings in Nigeria, named the Building Sustainability
Assessment Method (BSAM) scheme. The scheme involves the identification of key sus-
tainability assessment criteria and assigns weighted-scores to the various criteria by the
multi-expert consultation method. Mansell et al. [11] used empirical evidence to identify
a golden thread between sustainability reporting frameworks at the project level and the
organizational level, and impacts of the UN’s SDGs. The frameworks benefit from the
Ceequal reporting methodology at the project level and the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) methodology at the organizational level. Accordingly, a database of indicators was
extracted that aligned with the specific SDG targets. Additionally, a robust investment
appraisal was provided for the design stage of infrastructure projects.
Since highway projects are one of the most important aspects for the development
of transportation infrastructure—necessary due to higher population concentrations and
greater transportation demands in urban areas [12,13]—they have been considered as
one of the most crucial components of sustainable development. Moreover, highway
construction projects use a vast quantity of energy and natural materials, generate waste,
and produce greenhouse gases that can greatly affect the sustainability of the construction
industry.
The sustainability indicators (SIs) are significant factors in the sustainability assess-
ment of highway projects. Various studies and tools have introduced numerous SIs for the
assessment of the sustainability of construction projects that has led to the complication
of the assessment process. Therefore, the prioritization of indicators and the adoption of
an optimal number of SIs are major issues. In addition, the evaluation of SIs is complex
for decision-makers, owing to inadequate evidence and uncertainty surrounding highway
construction projects [13–15]. Hence, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) techniques
under uncertainty are useful tools to cope with these problems [16–20]. While the construc-
tion industry plays an important role in global sustainable development, numerous research
efforts have studied different subjects regarding the sustainability of the construction indus-
try and the use of multi-criteria decision making to evaluate sustainability in this industry.

146
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Huang and Yeh [21] developed a framework to analyze the green highway projects apply-
ing the max-min fuzzy Delphi method to recognize the main classifications and related
items. Chen et al. [22] proposed a model called the construction method selection model
aimed at lending support to assess the prefabrication feasibility at the initial level utilizing
the simple multi-attribute rating technique and subsequently to adopt the best strategy
to employ prefabrication at the following level. Reza et al. [23] proposed a thorough as-
sessment technique using Triple Bottom Line (TBL) criteria to assess flooring systems with
respect to the combination of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA) techniques. Waris et al. [24] established criteria for selecting sustainable construc-
tion equipment based on qualitative and quantitative feedbacks of construction industry
experts and finally selected the top five criteria. Li et al. [25] proposed a comprehensive
methodology using entropy, which is suitable for calculating weights, and the Technique
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods at the same time
to evaluate the development of highway transportation. Kucukvar et al. [26] presented a
fuzzy MCDM method for prioritizing pavements and selecting the best one based on the
respective sustainability performance using the TOPSIS method. Medineckiene et al. [27]
proposed a novel MCDM technique to adopt criteria from which their sets and weights are
determined in accordance with the Swedish certification system Miljöbyggnad and used
AHP for building sustainability assessment. Kamali and Hewage [28] identified sustainabil-
ity performance indicators to evaluate life cycle sustainability. Subsequently, an organized
framework was developed based on designing and conducting a survey to choose the most
suitable sustainability performance indicators for modular and conventional construction
methods in North America. Pan et al. [29] developed a sustainability indicator framework
to reliably assess the performance of construction automation and robotics in the building
industry context. Indeed, the study proposed guidelines for sustainable automated and
robotic options for advanced construction technology. Zolfani et al. [30] presented a hybrid
MCDM methodology applying Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA)
and Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) for criteria weights and prioritizing
alternatives, respectively.
Liu and Qian [31] developed an integrated sustainability assessment methodology in
accordance with the life cycle sustainability assessment framework. In addition, a combi-
nation of AHP and ELimination Et Choice Translating REality (ELECTRE) was applied to
derive criteria weights and prioritize alternatives. Reddy et al. [32] introduced a decision-
making method to adopt a sustainable material without Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) infor-
mation requirements. In this method, criteria that highly influence material sustainability
were investigated and consequently applied to analyze the performance of materials in
different aspects of the material life cycle to develop a sustainable material performance
index utilizing AHP. Chen [33] used a new multi-criteria assessment approach integrating
the Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) and TOPSIS techniques, which operate according
to the intuitionistic fuzzy entropy method, for selection of the appropriate sustainable
supplier of construction materials. Roy et al. [34] developed a combinative distance-based
evaluation method utilizing Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers (IVIFNs) to
decide comprehensively and logically to deal with the problem of material adoption under
uncertainty. Tseng et al. [35] introduced various features and measures to build a model
and assess the construction projects in Ecuador, employing fuzzy decision-making trials
with Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) in addition to an
Analytic Network Process (ANP) to evaluate interdependence between the features of
a sustainable product–service system. Hendiani and Bagherpour [14] presented a novel
social sustainability performance assessment in construction projects using fuzzy num-
bers to evaluate the present social sustainability position associated with construction.
Furthermore, the barriers that reduce the value of the social sustainability index were rec-
ognized and addressed. Alawneh et al. [36] proposed a novel framework that identifies and
weighs SIs for sustainable non-residential buildings and contributes to achieving the SDGs
in Jordan. The framework applies the Delphi technique to identify and categorize SIs and

147
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

then integrates AHP and Relative Importance Index (RII) methods to weigh SIs. In addition,
a management tool (Gantt chart) integrates SIs into the project phases towards sustainable
construction management. Dabous et al. [37] proposed a multi-criteria decision-support
approach to handle decision-making in sustainable pavement adoption. The main sus-
tainable decision factors were recognized through a hierarchy structure in their approach.
In addition, the AHP technique in combination with multi-attribute utility theory was
used to rank the networks of pavement sections. For sustainable landfill site selection,
Rahimi et al. [38] introduced a Geographical Information System (GIS)-MCDM method-
ology considering the group fuzzy Best-Worst Method (BWM), fuzzy MULTIMOORA
method and GIS-based suitability maps. The methodology was employed in Mahallat city,
Iran, and it could provide suitable guidance for the waste management department of
municipalities. Navarro et al. [39] developed an assessment methodology to measure the
sustainability performance of the concrete bridge deck based on a neutrosophic group AHP
approach. In addition, the TOPSIS technique was utilized to aggregate the sustainability
criteria.
The aforementioned studies demonstrate that the previous research did not pay much
attention to the sustainability performance of highway construction projects. Furthermore,
there are no studies focusing on prioritizing and selecting the indicators of the three
sustainability pillars. For the recognized gaps, a new multi-criteria weighting and ranking
approach, according to group decision-making, is presented in the present study to analyze
and adopt SIs in highway construction projects. Initially, SIs and criteria are collected and
listed concerning experts’ views and the literature review. Thus, triangular intuitionistic
fuzzy (TIF) decision matrices are constructed based on experts’ views in terms of linguistic
variables. Subsequently, the weights of experts are gained according to the concept of
entropy. Afterward, primary weight vectors of criteria are specified by entropy measures
and experts’ views. Finally, SIs are ranked based on the positive and negative ideal
separation matrices via presenting a new ranking score. Moreover, a case study in highway
construction projects is addressed to demonstrate the efficiency of the presented approach.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a novel multi-criteria
group decision-making approach is proposed and applied in a case study of a highway
construction project. Section 3 presents the results of the approach implementation in
detail. The obtained results are compared with the prevalent decision-making methods
and other mentioned SIs in the cited literature, and the sensitivity analyses are conducted
in Section 4. To conclude the paper, Section 5 depicts the concluding remarks.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. TIF Group Decision-Making Approach
The proposed approach aims to assist project managers in selecting the most significant
SIs for sustainability assessment of highway construction projects based on a novel TIF
group decision-making approach. Figure 1 presents the proposed approach for the selection
of SIs.
The phases of the presented approach are as follows:
Step 1. Constitute a group of experts ( Ee ; e = 1, 2, . . . , t), whose views and judgments will
be employed to build and assess the problem.
Step 2. Gather a list of indicators that are possible to be applied for the sustainability
evaluation of highway construction projects (Ii ; i = 1, 2, . . . , m).
Step 3. Recognize a set of criteria for analyzing SIs through consensus of experts’ views
(Cj ; j = 1, 2, . . . , n).
Step 4. Assign the risk attitude to each expert and incorporate it into the related triangular
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs) (Definition A1).

148
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Figure 1. The proposed approach for the selection of sustainability indicators (SIs).

Each expert is assigned a risk attitude according to his or her character. The risk
attitudes are able to be specified by a higher management level and expressed by linguistic
variables, like absolutely optimistic (AO), optimistic (O), neutral (N), pessimistic (P),
and absolutely pessimistic (AP) [40,41], for 5-scale TIFNs (Table 1).

Table 1. Linguistic variables of the risk attitudes assigned to each expert for 5-scale triangular
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs).

TIFN Derived TIFN Derived

Linguistic Variables from 〈(a,b, c);μ, ν〉 for Benefit from 〈(a,b, c);μ, ν〉 for Cost
Criteria Criteria
Absolutely optimistic (AO) ( a, c, c) ; μ + π, ν ( a, a, c) ; μ, ν + π
Optimistic (O) ( a, (b + c)/2, c) ; μ + π/2, ν ( a, ( a + b)/2, c) ; μ, ν + π/2
Neutral (N) ( a, b, c) ; μ, ν ( a, b, c) ; μ, ν
Pessimistic (P) ( a, ( a + b)/2, c) ; μ, ν + π/2 ( a, (b + c)/2, c) ; μ + π/2, ν
Absolutely pessimistic (AP) ( a, a, c) ; μ, ν + π ( a, c, c) ; μ + π, ν

In Table 1, π indicates the hesitation degree of TIFN ( a, b, c) ; μ, ν and is equal to

1 − μ − ν.
Step 5. Construct the primary decision matrices based on the experts’ views.
The primary decision matrices are constructed from the performance rating of each
indicator versus each criterion based on the experts’ view in terms of linguistic terms
(Table 2) and converted into TIFNs.

e = xe
X = a xe , bxe , c xe ; μ xe , νxe (1)
ij
m×n ij ij ij ij ij m×n

149
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 2. Linguistic variables applied for the rating of SIs.

Linguistic Variables Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers

Extremely high (EH) (0.95, 1.00, 1.00) ; 0.95, 0.05
Very very high (VVH) (0.90, 1.00, 1.00) ; 0.90, 0.10
Very high (VH) (0.80, 0.90, 1.00) ; 0.80, 0.10
High (H) (0.70, 0.80, 0.90) ; 0.70, 0.20
Medium high (MH) (0.50, 0.60, 0.70) ; 0.60, 0.30
Medium (M) (0.30, 0.50, 0.70) ; 0.50, 0.40
Medium low (ML) (0.30, 0.40, 0.50) ; 0.40, 0.50
Low (L) (0.10, 0.20, 0.30) ; 0.25, 0.60
Very low (VL) (0.00, 0.10, 0.20) ; 0.10, 0.75
Very very low (VVL) (0.00, 0.00, 0.10) ; 0.10, 0.90

Step 6. Convert the primary decision matrices to the individual decision matrices based on
each expert’s risk attitude.
The primary decision matrices are converted to decision matrices taking into account
each expert’s risk attitude according to Table 1.

e =
R rije = are , bre , cre ; μre , νre (2)
m×n ij ij ij ij ij m×n

Step 7. Compute each expert’s entropy-weight according to the individual decision matrices.
The entropy measure Fije is calculated by [42]:

f ije ln f ije
Fije = − , (3)
ln(t)

where
are + bre + cre × 1 + μre − νre
f ije = ij ij ij
ij ij
. (4)
∑te=1 are + bre + cre × 1 + μre − νre
ij ij ij ij ij

Thus, each expert’s entropy-weight is determined as follows [42,43]:

∑te=1 Fije + 1 − 2 × Fije

αije = , (5)
∑te=1 ∑te=1 Fije + 1 − 2 × Fije

where 0 ≤ αije ≤ 1, and ∑te=1 αije = 1.

Step 8. Build the aggregated TIF decision matrix taking into account the entropy-weights
of experts.
According to the TIF weighted geometric aggregation (TIFWGA) operator [44], the ag-
gregated TIF decision matrix concerning the entropy-weights of experts is gained as
follows:
=
R rij m×n = arij , brij , crij ; μrij , νrij (6)
m×n
α1 α2 αt
ij ij ij
rij =
where rij1 ⊗ rij2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ rijt .

Step 9. Construct the primary weight vectors of criteria based on experts’ views.
The significance of criteria is provided based on the experts’ views in terms of linguistic
terms (Table 3).
e = ω
ω ej = aω e , bω e , cω e ; μω e , νω e , (7)
j j j j j

150
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 3. Linguistic variables applied for rating the significance of criteria.

Linguistic Variables Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers

Very important (VI) (0.80, 0.90, 1.00) ; 0.90, 0.10
Important (I) (0.60, 0.70, 0.80) ; 0.75, 0.20
Medium (M) (0.40, 0.50, 0.60) ; 0.50, 0.45
Unimportant (UI) (0.20, 0.30, 0.40) ; 0.35, 0.60
Very unimportant (VUI) (0.00, 0.10, 0.20) ; 0.10, 0.90

Step 10. Convert the primary weight vectors to the individual weight vectors based on
each expert’s risk attitude.
The primary weight vectors are converted to the individual weight vectors taking into
account each expert’s risk attitude according to Table 1.

we = w ej = awe , bwe , cwe ; μwe , νwe , (8)
j j j j j

Step 11. Compute each expert’s entropy-weight according to the weight vectors.
The entropy measure Gje is calculated by [42]:

gej ln gej
Gje =− , (9)
ln(t)

where
awe + bwe + cwe × 1 + μwe − νwe
gej = j j j
j j
. (10)
∑te=1 awe + bwe + cwe × 1 + μwe − νwe
j j j j j

Thus, each expert’s entropy-weight according to the expert-based weight vector is

determined as follows [42,43]:

∑te=1 Gje + 1 − 2 × Gje

βej = , (11)
∑te=1 ∑te=1 Gje + 1 − 2 × Gje

where 0 ≤ βej ≤ 1, and ∑te=1 βej = 1.

Step 12. Provide the TIF weight vector of the criteria.

The TIF weight vector W is built according to experts’ entropy-weight by using
Definition A2 as follows:

= W
W j = W 2, · · · , W
1, W n , (12)

where
β1 β2 βt
j =
W , bW
aW , cW
, νW
; μW = w
1j
j
⊗ w
2j
j
⊗···⊗ w
j
tj . (13)
j j j j j

Step 13. Compute the TIF positive-ideal solution (PIS) and the TIF negative-ideal solution
(NIS) vectors.
The TIF PIS r−
r ∗j and the TIF NIS j are, respectively, defined as follows:
⎧ " #$ % &'
⎪
⎪
⎨ max crij , max crij , max crij ; max μrij , min νrij f or j ∈ J1
r ∗j =
ar∗ , br∗ , cr∗ ; μr∗ , νr∗ = " #$ i i

i
%
i

i
&' (14)
j j j j j ⎪
⎪
⎩ min arij , min arij , min arij ; min μrij , max νrij f or j ∈ J2 ,
i i i i i

151
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

and
⎧ " #$ % &'
" #$ % &' ⎪
⎪
⎨ min crij , min crij , min crij ; min μrij , max νrij f or j ∈ J1
r−
= ar− , br− , cr− ; μr− , νr− = "#$ i

i

i
% i

i
& (15)
j j j j j j ⎪
⎪
⎩ max arij , max arij , max arij ; max μrij , min νrij } f or j ∈ J2 ,
i i i i i

where J1 and J2 are the benefit criteria and cost criteria, respectively.
Step 14. Determine the positive-ideal separation (PISE) and the negative-ideal separation
(NISE) matrices.
The PISE matrix (Δ∗ ) and the NISE matrix (Δ− ) are defined based on hamming
distance [45].
⎡ ( ∗ ) ⎤
Δ(r1 , r11 ) r2∗ ,
Δ( r12 ) · · · rn∗ ,
Δ( r1n )
⎢ Δ r1∗ , r21 r2∗ ,
Δ( r22 ) · · · ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Δ∗ = Δij∗ =⎢ .. .. . rn∗ ,
Δ( r2n ) ⎥, (16)
m×n ⎣ . . . . ⎦
( ∗ )
Δ r1 , rm1 r2∗ ,
Δ( rm2 ) · · · rn∗ ,
Δ( rmn )

and ⎡ ( − ) ( − ) ⎤
Δ(
r1 , r11 ) r2 ,
Δ( r12 ) · · · rn− ,
Δ( r1n )
⎢
⎢ r1− ,
Δ r21 Δ −
r2 , r22 ··· ⎥
⎥
Δ− = Δij− =⎢ .. .. .. rn− ,
Δ( r2n ) ⎥. (17)
m×n ⎣ . . . ⎦
( − ) ( − )
Δ
r1 , rm1 Δ
r2 , rm2 ··· rn− ,
Δ( rmn )

Step 15. Compute the Ai , Bi , Ai , and Bi values.

The Ai , Bi , Ai , and Bi values are computed according to the score function [46]
as follows:

Ai = ∑nj=1 Δij∗ · W
j
n n Δij∗ n Δ∗ (18)
= 1
4 ∑ Δij∗ · aW ∗
j + 2Δij · bW
∗
j + Δij · cW
j 1 − ∏ 1 − μW
j − ∏ ν ij
W
j =1 j =1 j =1 j

Bi = max dij∗ · W j
$ j
$ Δij∗ %% (19)
Δij∗
= max 1
4 Δij∗ · aW
+ 2Δij∗ · bW
+ Δ ∗
ij · c
W
1 − 1 − μ
W
− ν
j j j j j Wj

Ai = ∑nj=1 Δij− · W
j
n n Δ− n Δ− (20)
∑ Δij− · aW − − ij
= 1
4 j + 2Δij · bW
j + Δij · cW
j 1 − ∏ 1 − μW
j − ∏ ν ij
j =1 j =1 W j =1 j

Bi = max Δij− · W j
j
$ $ Δ− %% (21)
Δ−
Δij− · aW − − ij
= max 1
4 + 2Δij · bW
+ Δij · cW
1 − 1 − μW
− ν ij
j j j j j Wj

Step 16. Calculate the κi and ϑi values.

The values of indices κi and ϑi are calculated as follows:
$ % $ %
Ai − A ∗ Bi − B ∗
κi = χ + ( 1 − χ ) , (22)
A− − A∗ B− − B∗

and −
−

Ai − A Bi − B
ϑi = ψ + (1 − ψ ) , (23)
A ∗ − A − B ∗ − B −

152
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

⎧ ⎧ ⎧ ⎧
⎨ A∗ = minAi ⎨ B∗ = minBi ⎨ A ∗ = maxAi ⎨ B ∗ = maxBi
i i
where i , i , , , χ and
⎩ A− = maxAi ⎩ B− = maxBi ⎩ A − = minAi ⎩ B − = minBi
i i i i
ψ are regarded as the relative importance for the strategy of the majority attributes,
whereas 1 − χ and 1 − ψ are the relative importance of the individual regret.
Step 17. Compute the novel ranking score.
The ranking scores Ci are defined as follows:
$ % $ %
κ − κ∗ ϑ ∗ − ϑi κ − κ∗ ϑ ∗ − ϑi
ci = η −i ∗
+ ∗ −
+ (1 − η ) −i ∗
× ∗ −
, (24)
κ −κ ϑ −ϑ κ −κ ϑ −ϑ

ci − γ
Ci = (25)
λ−γ
⎧ ⎧
⎨ κ ∗ = minκi ⎨ ϑ∗ = maxϑi
where i , i , γ = minci , λ = maxci and 0 ≤ η ≤ 1.
⎩ κ − = maxκi ⎩ ϑ− = minϑi i i
i i

Step 18. Rank the SIs according to the ranking score (Ci values).
The SIs are sorted by the Ci values in decreasing order. The maximum value of the Ci
indicates the higher importance.

2.2. Case Study

The efficiency of the presented approach was examined through a case study of a
highway construction project. To that end, an Iranian construction firm was involved in
transportation infrastructures. The firm has numerous highway construction projects being
built in various areas of the country. To evaluate the projects according to sustainable
construction principles, the firm managers intended to recognize and prioritize SIs to adopt
the key evaluation indicators from a pool of numerous SIs in these projects.
According to step 1, five experts working on highway projects were adopted from
employees of the firm. The participants comprised construction project managers and
sustainable construction experts. They had enough experience and knowledge of nearly
all the sustainable aspects of construction projects. As such, a group of five experts (E1 ,
E2 , . . . , E5 ) was considered for analyzing potential SIs. After forming the committee,
the experts picked out a set of potential SIs in addition to a set of relevant criteria for
SIs assessment (Steps 2 and 3). To that end, a brainstorming session was held with the
experts and thirty sustainability indicators (SoI1 , SoI2 , . . . , SoI9 , EcI1 , EcI2 , . . . , EcI9 , EnI1 ,
EnI2 , . . . , EnI12 ), as well as seven criteria (C1 , C2 , . . . ,C7 ) were obtained from the various
investigations in the literature (e.g., [22,47–64]) and the consensus opinion of the group
members (Tables 4 and 5). Furthermore, the project manager utilizing Table 1 specifies
the experts’ risk attitude according to his or her recognition of them. The outcomes are
represented in Table 6 (Step 4).

153
Table 4. List of obtained sustainability indicators.

Sustainability Indicators Description

SoI1 : Health Highlighting on-site sanitation, and the provision of health care
SoI2 : Education Number and time of training course to different levels of employees
SoI3 : Culture and heritage Measure of negative impacts from construction operations on any cultural heritage
Number of accidents, the supply rate of on-site supervision and training course to employees to provide a safe and
SoI4 : Safety
reliable workplace
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

SoI5 : Stakeholder satisfaction Measure of stakeholder satisfaction by using stakeholder management models

Social
SoI6 : Job opportunities Providing direct and indirect jobs
SoI7 : Tourism Impacts on tourism development
SoI8 : Traffic Vehicle traffic congestion
SoI9 : Access to public
Extension of public transportation services and proximity to it
transportation
NPV = ∑nt=1 Rt t where Rt is the net cash inflow-outflows during a single period t, i is the discount rate of return that
EcI1 : Net present value (NPV) (1+ i )
could be earned in alternative investments and t is the number of time periods
EcI2 : Payback period Initial Investment/Net Cash Flow per Period
EcI3 : Investment planning Compliance with the investment plan
EcI4 : Benefit–cost ratio Relationship between the relative costs and benefits of a proposed project expressed in monetary or qualitative terms
EcI5 : Debt–asset ratio (Short-term Debt + Long-term Debt)/Total Assets
EcI6 : Project budget Compliance with budget
Ct

Economic
EcI7 : Internal rate of return NPV = ∑tT=1 t − C0 = 0 where Ct is the net cash inflow during the period t, C0 is the total initial investment cost
(1+ IRR)

154
(IRR) and t is the number of time periods

Sustainability aspects
EcI8 : Financial risk Possibility of losing money on the investment
EcI9 : Life-cycle cost Total cost for a construction project over its life
EnI1 : Material consumption Efficiency rate of using materials and resources
EnI2 : Air pollution Measure of mixture of solid particles and gases in the air
EnI3 : landscape respect Protection of landscape features during construction
EnI4 : Noise emissions Rate of noise pollution during the construction phase in the environment of the project
EnI5 : Erosion Rate of soil erosion during the construction phase in the environment of the project
EnI6 : Ecological impacts Measure of negative impacts from project to flora, fauna, and ecosystems
EnI7 : Habitat loss and damage Destructive effects on the living environment for both human being and animals
EnI8 : Soil contamination Measure of alteration in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil environment

Environmental
EnI9 : Aesthetical and visual
Aesthetic quality of the project during the construction phase
impacts
EnI10 : Water pollution Measure of alteration in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water environment
EnI11 : Water saving Rate of reduction water consumption during the construction phase
EnI12 : Hazardous waste Production rate of hazardous waste
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 5. List of obtained criteria.

Criteria Type
Criteria Description
Benefit Cost
C1 : Measurability Measurability in qualitative or quantitative terms
C2 : Applicability Practicality and straightforward use of sustainability indicator (SI) for evaluation
C3 : Data availability Relative simplicity to gather the necessary data for evaluation of SI
C4 : Acceptant Acceptance of SI by major stakeholders
C5 : Complexity Relative difficulty in meaningful interpretation of SI
C6 : Time consuming Required time for the evaluation of SI
C7 : Uncertainty Ambiguity in assigning the value to SI during evaluation

Table 6. Experts’ risk attitudes.

Experts E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Absolutely
Risk attitudes Neutral Pessimistic Optimistic Neutral
optimistic

3. Results
The primary decision matrices are constructed by experts employing linguistic terms
in Table 2. The matrices are shown in Table 7 (Step 5). Afterward, the primary decision
matrices are converted to decision matrices taking into account each expert’s risk attitude
according to Table 1 (Table 8) (Step 6). Owing to space limitations, only the outcomes
associated with three SIs (SoI6 , EcI4 and EnI10 ) are shown as a sample of each dimension of
sustainability in some of the following tables.
Then, each expert’s entropy-weight and aggregated TIF decision matrix is calculated.
The outcomes of these steps are represented in Tables 9 and 10, respectively (Steps 7 and 8).
In addition, the criteria weight vector is achieved according to experts’ preferences and is
illustrated in Table 11 (Step 9). According to steps 10 to 12, based on criteria weight vector,
expert’s risk attitude and expert’s entropy-weight, the TIF criteria weight vectors are built.
The results are presented in Table 12. Next, the TIF PIS and NIS vectors are specified as
given in Table 13 (Step 13). Then, as shown in Table 14, the PISE matrix (D∗ ) and NISE
matrix (D− ) are built (Step 14).

Table 7. Performance rating of each indicator versus each criterion based on experts’ views in terms
of linguistic terms.

Criteria
SIs Experts
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
E1 H VH ML VH L VL M
E2 H VH M VVH VL VL MH
SoI1 E3 VH H M VVH VL VVL M
E4 H VVH MH VH VVL L ML
E5 VH VVH M VVH VVL VL ML
E1 H ML MH H L L M
E2 M M M MH VL ML M
SoI2 E3 MH M H H L ML ML
E4 M ML M MH ML M M
E5 MH L MH MH L ML M

155
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 7. Cont.

Criteria
SIs Experts
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
E1 VL ML MH MH H MH VH
E2 L L H H MH H H
SoI3 E3 VVL L H VH VH H VH
E4 VL VL VH H H MH VH
E5 VL L VH VH MH MH H
E1 H MH H H ML L ML
E2 VH MH VH VH M VVL L
SoI4 E3 H M VVH VH ML VL ML
E4 H M VH H L VVL L
E5 VH MH VH VVH ML VL L
E1 L H ML VH VH H H
E2 VL VH L H H MH VVH
SoI5 E3 ML VH VL VVH H VH VH
E4 ML VVH VL VH VH H VH
E5 L VVH ML VH VVH VH H
E1 VH VH H MH L L L
E2 MH H H H VL ML L
SoI6 E3 H H MH MH VL L M
E4 H VH MH M L ML M
E5 VH VVH H H L L L
E1 VH MH M H L MH H
E2 VH H M MH VL MH VH
SoI7 E3 VVH H ML VH VL H H
E4 VH MH ML H VVL H MH
E5 VVH MH ML H VL VH MH
E1 H MH M MH L H VH
E2 MH H MH MH VL VH VVH
SoI8 E3 H H MH M VL H VH
E4 H VH MH M VVL VH VVH
E5 VH H M H L VH VH
E1 VH MH L ML VL M H
E2 H H ML MH VL ML M
SoI9 E3 VH MH ML ML VL L M
E4 H VH ML M VL L H
E5 H H M M VVL ML MH
E1 EH EH H ML VL VVL H
E2 EH VVH VVH M VVL VVL MH
EcI1 E3 EH EH VH MH VL VVL MH
E4 EH VH VH MH VVL VVL M
E5 EH EH VVH ML VVL VVL H
E1 VVH H H M L VL MH
E2 VH VH H ML VL L H
EcI2 E3 VH H H L L L VH
E4 VH H H L L VL H
E5 VVH H VH ML VL VL VH
E1 H MH MH L M ML H
E2 MH MH M VL M ML MH
EcI3 E3 H H M L MH M VH
E4 VH H ML VL MH M MH
E5 VH H M ML MH MH H

156
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 7. Cont.

Criteria
SIs Experts
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
E1 EH EH VH M L ML ML
E2 EH VVH VVH MH ML L M
EcI4 E3 EH VVH VVH M L L ML
E4 EH EH VVH MH L ML ML
E5 EH EH EH MH VL L L
E1 VH H H ML L ML H
E2 H H MH L L ML MH
EcI5 E3 VVH MH H L ML M MH
E4 H MH MH L L M H
E5 H H MH ML L M MH
E1 H VH H ML L M MH
E2 VH VH H M VL MH H
EcI6 E3 H H MH ML VVL M H
E4 VH VH VH ML VL MH MH
E5 VH VVH VH M VVL ML H
E1 VVH EH VH ML VL VL MH
E2 EH EH VH ML VVL VL H
EcI7 E3 EH EH VH M VVL VL MH
E4 EH EH H M VL VVL MH
E5 EH EH VVH MH VVL VVL ML
E1 ML VVH M ML H MH EH
E2 M H ML ML MH MH VVH
EcI8 E3 M H ML L MH H VH
E4 ML MH M L M H VVH
E5 M VVH M ML M MH VH
E1 MH H M MH M VH H
E2 MH VH ML H ML H VH
EcI9 E3 H VH ML H MH VH VH
E4 H H L VH ML VVH H
E5 H VVH ML H MH MH MH
E1 H MH H MH L L H
E2 H MH VH ML L VL MH
EnI1 E3 H MH H ML VL VL M
E4 H H VH MH L L H
E5 VH H VVH M VL VVL M
E1 VH VH ML MH M ML VH
E2 H H MH MH MH M H
EnI2 E3 H H MH H M ML VH
E4 VH VH ML H MH ML H
E5 H VVH MH H M L H
E1 ML L ML M MH H VH
E2 L L ML MH H H H
EnI3 E3 L ML ML M MH VH MH
E4 VL L ML M H H MH
E5 ML ML M MH MH H VH
E1 M M L M ML MH H
E2 MH ML VL MH M M H
EnI4 E3 ML ML L M ML ML MH
E4 ML M L ML ML M VH
E5 MH M ML MH L ML MH

157
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 7. Cont.

Criteria
SIs Experts
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
E1 MH ML L ML H H VH
E2 M L VL L MH VH H
EnI5 E3 ML VL VL L H VH VH
E4 ML L L VL VH H H
E5 MH L ML ML MH H MH
E1 MH H M M H H H
E2 M MH ML MH VH MH VH
EnI6 E3 M H M M H MH H
E4 MH H M ML VH H MH
E5 H VH MH MH VVH VH MH
E1 ML MH ML M ML MH H
E2 M ML L ML ML M MH
EnI7 E3 MH MH ML L M MH MH
E4 M MH M L M M H
E5 MH M M M ML M H
E1 H VH H MH ML MH H
E2 MH H MH MH ML M MH
EnI8 E3 H MH M H VL M H
E4 MH MH MH H ML MH VH
E5 VH VH H H L ML MH
E1 M MH ML MH MH M VH
E2 ML H L H H M H
EnI9 E3 ML MH VL H H MH H
E4 ML MH L VH MH H MH
E5 M H ML VH MH M MH
E1 H H MH H M M M
E2 VH H H H M MH MH
EnI10 E3 H MH M VH M M MH
E4 VH H M H ML MH M
E5 VVH VH MH VH ML M ML
E1 H H MH H VL M H
E2 H MH H MH VL ML VH
EnI11 E3 H MH MH H VL MH H
E4 H H M MH L ML H
E5 VH VH MH VH VL ML MH
E1 VH L MH MH VL ML VH
E2 H ML M H L L H
EnI12 E3 MH L H M VL ML VH
E4 MH ML MH MH VL ML H
E5 H L H H VVL L MH

158
Table 8. Experts’ view concerning the rating of sample indicators with respect to the criteria by taking into account each expert’s risk attitude.

SIs
CriteriaExperts
SoI6 EcI4 EnI10
E1 (0.800, 0.900, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.100 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.700, 0.800, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.200
E2 (0.500, 0.700, 0.700) ; 0.700, 0.300 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.800, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100
C1 E3 (0.700, 0.750, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.250 (0.950, 0.975, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.700, 0.750, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.250
E4 (0.700, 0.850, 0.900) ; 0.750, 0.200 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.800, 0.950, 1.000) ; 0.850, 0.100
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

E5 (0.800, 0.900, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.100 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100
E1 (0.800, 0.900, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.100 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.700, 0.800, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.200
E2 (0.700, 0.900, 0.900) ; 0.800, 0.200 (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100 (0.700, 0.900, 0.900) ; 0.800, 0.200
C2 E3 (0.700, 0.750, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.250 (0.900, 0.950, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100 (0.500, 0.550, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.350
E4 (0.800, 0.950, 1.000) ; 0.850, 0.100 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.700, 0.850, 0.900) ; 0.750, 0.200
E5 (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.800, 0.900, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.100
E1 (0.700, 0.800, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.200 (0.800, 0.900, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.100 (0.500, 0.600, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.300
E2 (0.700, 0.900, 0.900) ; 0.800, 0.200 (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100 (0.700, 0.900, 0.900) ; 0.800, 0.200
C3 E3 (0.500, 0.550, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.350 (0.900, 0.950, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.450
E4 (0.500, 0.650, 0.700) ; 0.650, 0.300 (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.900, 0.100 (0.300, 0.600, 0.700) ; 0.550, 0.400
E5 (0.700, 0.800, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.200 (0.950, 1.000, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.500, 0.600, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.300
E1 (0.500, 0.600, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.300 (0.300, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.400 (0.700, 0.800, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.200
E2 (0.700, 0.900, 0.900) ; 0.800, 0.200 (0.500, 0.700, 0.700) ; 0.700, 0.300 (0.700, 0.900, 0.900) ; 0.800, 0.200
C4 E3 (0.500, 0.550, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.350 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.450 (0.800, 0.850, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.150
E4 (0.300, 0.600, 0.700) ; 0.550, 0.400 (0.500, 0.650, 0.700) ; 0.650, 0.300 (0.700, 0.850, 0.900) ; 0.750, 0.200

159
E5 (0.700, 0.800, 0.900) ; 0.700, 0.200 (0.500, 0.600, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.300 (0.800, 0.900, 1.000) ; 0.800, 0.100
E1 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.300, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.400
E2 (0.000, 0.000, 0.200) ; 0.100, 0.900 (0.300, 0.300, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.600 (0.300, 0.300, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.500
C5 E3 (0.000, 0.100, 0.200) ; 0.175, 0.750 (0.100, 0.167, 0.300) ; 0.325, 0.600 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.550, 0.400
E4 (0.100, 0.150, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.675 (0.100, 0.150, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.675 (0.300, 0.350, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.550
E5 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.000, 0.100, 0.200) ; 0.100, 0.750 (0.300, 0.400, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.500
E1 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.300, 0.400, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.500 (0.300, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.400
E2 (0.300, 0.300, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.600 (0.100, 0.100, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.750 (0.500, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.400
C6 E3 (0.100, 0.167, 0.300) ; 0.325, 0.600 (0.100, 0.167, 0.300) ; 0.325, 0.600 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.550, 0.400
E4 (0.300, 0.350, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.550 (0.300, 0.350, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.550 (0.500, 0.550, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.350
E5 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.300, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.400
E1 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.300, 0.400, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.500 (0.300, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.400
E2 (0.100, 0.100, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.750 (0.300, 0.300, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.500 (0.500, 0.500, 0.700) ; 0.600, 0.400
C7 E3 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.550, 0.400 (0.300, 0.300, 0.500) ; 0.450, 0.500 (0.500, 0.433, 0.700) ; 0.650, 0.300
E4 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.450 (0.300, 0.350, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.550 (0.300, 0.400, 0.700) ; 0.500, 0.450
E5 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.100, 0.200, 0.300) ; 0.250, 0.600 (0.300, 0.400, 0.500) ; 0.400, 0.500
Table 9. Entropy-weight assigned to each expert.

Criteria
SIs Experts
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
E1 0.196 0.199 0.197 0.202 0.187 0.206 0.208
E2 0.207 0.202 0.195 0.193 0.228 0.191 0.217
SoI6 E3 0.202 0.205 0.207 0.204 0.208 0.205 0.184
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

E4 0.199 0.198 0.204 0.207 0.190 0.190 0.184

E5 0.196 0.197 0.197 0.194 0.187 0.206 0.208
E1 0.200 0.199 0.202 0.204 0.196 0.188 0.196
E2 0.200 0.201 0.200 0.195 0.187 0.214 0.193
EcI4 E3 0.200 0.201 0.200 0.207 0.195 0.204 0.197
E4 0.200 0.199 0.200 0.196 0.200 0.189 0.198
E5 0.200 0.199 0.198 0.197 0.222 0.205 0.217
E1 0.204 0.199 0.199 0.202 0.196 0.202 0.200
E2 0.197 0.197 0.191 0.200 0.200 0.198 0.196
EnI10 E3 0.205 0.210 0.208 0.199 0.196 0.202 0.195
E4 0.198 0.198 0.203 0.201 0.205 0.197 0.202
E5 0.197 0.195 0.199 0.198 0.203 0.202 0.208

Table 10. Aggregated triangular intuitionistic fuzzy (TIF) decision matrix ( R).

160
SIs
Criteria
SoI6 EcI4 EnI10
C1 (0.688, 0.814, 0.890) ; 0.748, 0.196 (0.950, 0.995, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.775, 0.892, 0.958) ; 0.803, 0.154
C2 (0.776, 0.895, 0.958) ; 0.806, 0.153 (0.930, 0.990, 1.000) ; 0.930, 0.070 (0.670, 0.784, 0.872) ; 0.724, 0.216
C3 (0.610, 0.726, 0.812) ; 0.685, 0.254 (0.888, 0.969, 1.000) ; 0.888, 0.090 (0.432, 0.596, 0.734) ; 0.600, 0.338
C4 (0.512, 0.674, 0.772) ; 0.642, 0.297 (0.405, 0.557, 0.700) ; 0.583, 0.355 (0.738, 0.859, 0.938) ; 0.769, 0.171
C5 (0.000, 0.000, 0.251) ; 0.188, 0.746 (0.000, 0.169, 0.302) ; 0.234, 0.654 (0.300, 0.384, 0.610) ; 0.465, 0.475
C6 (0.152, 0.232, 0.365) ; 0.316, 0.591 (0.151, 0.210, 0.364) ; 0.315, 0.614 (0.367, 0.487, 0.700) ; 0.548, 0.390
C7 (0.150, 0.222, 0.410) ; 0.328, 0.587 (0.236, 0.300, 0.478) ; 0.386, 0.533 (0.366, 0.444, 0.653) ; 0.521, 0.415
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 11. Criteria weight vector based on experts’ preferences.

Criteria
Experts
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
E1 I I I I M M I
E2 M VI I VI I UI I
E3 I I I I I M I
E4 M I VI I M M VI
E5 I VI I I I M VI

Table 12. TIF and crisp criteria weight vectors.

Weight Vectors
Criteria ~
W
C1 (0.509, 0.637, 0.712) ; 0.655, 0.317
C2 (0.672, 0.789, 0.874) ; 0.811, 0.167
C3 (0.635, 0.752, 0.836) ; 0.788, 0.186
C4 (0.635, 0.750, 0.836) ; 0.783, 0.186
C5 (0.509, 0.587, 0.712) ; 0.640, 0.328
C6 (0.346, 0.413, 0.552) ; 0.469, 0.504
C7 (0.672, 0.751, 0.874) ; 0.811, 0.173

Table 13. TIF positive-ideal solution (PIS) and TIF negative-ideal solution (NIS) vectors.

Ideal Solutions
Criteria
TIF PIS TIF NIS
C1 (0.950, 0.995, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.000, 0.248, 0.332) ; 0.302, 0.625
C2 (0.950, 0.995, 1.000) ; 0.950, 0.050 (0.151, 0.263, 0.363) ; 0.318, 0.584
C3 (0.888, 0.969, 1.000) ; 0.888, 0.090 (0.000, 0.190, 0.301) ; 0.243, 0.676
C4 (0.858, 0.959, 1.000) ; 0.869, 0.100 (0.000, 0.202, 0.278) ; 0.253, 0.672
C5 (0.123, 0.176, 0.330) ; 0.279, 0.637 (0.775, 0.788, 0.958) ; 0.786, 0.171
C6 (0.151, 0.210, 0.364) ; 0.315, 0.614 (0.758, 0.773, 0.958) ; 0.769, 0.171
C7 (0.151, 0.199, 0.363) ; 0.305, 0.623 (0.867, 0.865, 1.000) ; 0.878, 0.090

Table 14. Positive-ideal separation (PISE) and negative-ideal separation (NISE) matrices.

Criteria
Ideal Separation SIs
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
SoI6 0.313 0.208 0.344 0.392 0.049 0.006 0.016
PISE EcI4 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.490 0.022 0.000 0.063
EnI10 0.211 0.348 0.486 0.156 0.146 0.215 0.188
SoI6 0.554 0.629 0.466 0.392 0.660 0.572 0.718
NISE EcI4 0.867 0.810 0.810 0.294 0.633 0.578 0.670
EnI10 0.656 0.490 0.324 0.628 0.465 0.363 0.545

Ultimately, the Ai , Bi , Ai , Bi , κi and ϑi values are calculated (χ and ψ are considered

0.5). Then, the novel ranking score is calculated (η considered 0.5), and SIs are prioritized
according to ranking score (Ci values). The gathered results are presented in Table 15
(Step 15 to 18).

161
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 15. Computational results of the proposed approach and final ranking of SIs.

SIs Ai Bi Ai Bi κi ϑi ঝܑ Final Ranking
SoI1 0.627 0.093 2.766 0.250 0.208 0.814 0.786 5
SoI2 1.620 0.273 1.799 0.116 0.601 0.475 0.363 16
SoI3 2.415 0.384 1.041 0.084 0.873 0.306 0.154 28
SoI4 0.553 0.128 2.752 0.240 0.239 0.798 0.756 6
SoI5 2.304 0.276 1.026 0.200 0.717 0.458 0.295 21
SoI6 0.684 −0.002 2.639 0.227 0.095 0.761 0.822 4
SoI7 1.502 0.134 1.937 0.066 0.405 0.432 0.438 14
SoI8 1.960 0.213 1.466 0.055 0.580 0.339 0.302 20
SoI9 1.595 0.181 1.848 0.023 0.479 0.360 0.361 17
EcI1 0.548 0.075 2.850 0.308 0.171 0.903 0.870 3
EcI2 1.276 0.183 2.199 0.104 0.429 0.526 0.480 13
EcI3 2.003 0.250 1.336 0.011 0.635 0.259 0.238 23
EcI4 0.106 0.032 3.121 0.320 0.044 0.965 1.000 1
EcI5 1.527 0.205 1.837 0.009 0.498 0.340 0.341 18
EcI6 1.171 0.113 2.244 0.189 0.322 0.645 0.610 9
EcI7 0.480 0.088 2.902 0.347 0.176 0.963 0.907 2
EcI8 2.489 0.240 0.777 0.100 0.702 0.283 0.220 24
EcI9 1.742 0.177 1.621 0.160 0.499 0.504 0.430 15
EnI1 1.180 0.077 2.276 0.164 0.278 0.618 0.618 8
EnI2 1.444 0.090 1.917 0.160 0.338 0.553 0.544 10
EnI3 2.818 0.338 0.396 0.000 0.881 0.088 0.062 29
EnI4 2.346 0.267 0.933 −0.008 0.713 0.167 0.161 27
EnI5 3.135 0.390 0.119 −0.004 1.000 0.036 0.000 30
EnI6 2.265 0.092 1.061 0.058 0.476 0.275 0.315 19
EnI7 2.318 0.174 0.972 −0.031 0.590 0.142 0.197 26
EnI8 1.364 0.007 2.008 0.040 0.220 0.408 0.515 11
EnI9 2.152 0.266 1.182 0.082 0.680 0.326 0.251 22
EnI10 1.004 0.031 2.309 0.125 0.191 0.572 0.637 7
EnI11 1.354 0.037 2.073 0.035 0.256 0.413 0.500 12
EnI12 1.857 0.347 1.572 0.008 0.733 0.294 0.211 25

4. Discussion
The results achieved from the presented approach are examined comprehensively,
and the accuracy, precision, and sensitivity of the answers are investigated in this section.
A thorough sensitivity analysis is performed on ten SIs with a higher priority for vari-
ous values of approach variables. Furthermore, the comparisons are made between the
outcomes of the presented approach and other cited literature.

4.1. Sensitivity Analysis

A comprehensive sensitivity analysis is conducted in this subsection. First, the sensi-
tivity of ranking score (C values) and ranking orders are investigated for values of χ, ψ
and η ranging from 0 to 1 (Figures 2 and 3).
In Figure 2a,b, the C values and ranking orders are represented for various values of
χ and ψ ranging from 0 to 1, respectively. As represented in Figure 2a, the graph of the C
values for various SIs versus χ and ψ values ranging from 0 to 1 has three states of almost
constant, ascending or descending. However, in most cases, the graphs of indicators are
parallel, and only a few intersections are represented for χ and ψ values above 0.7.
As can be seen in Figure 2b, changing the graph for χ and ψ values above 0.7 leads to
few changes in the ranking order of SIs. In addition, for variations of χ and ψ between 0.2
and 0.7, the rank of all SIs remains unchanged, and also a set of the top ten SIs remains in a
range from 1 to 10. Hence, the conclusion can be drawn that the top ten SIs have the lowest
sensitivity to the values of χ and ψ between 0.2 and 0.7, and the assumed value of 0.5 for
this variable in the case study is suitable.

162
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) Sensitivity analysis on the C values and (b) preference ranking order of top ten SIs related to majority attributes
(χ and ψ).

(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Sensitivity analysis on the C values and (b) preference ranking order of top ten SIs related to η coefficient.

In Figure 3a,b, C values and ranking orders versus η values ranging from 0 to 1 are
represented, respectively. Figure 3a represents that the graph of C values for all SIs is
ascending by increasing the η value from 0 to 1. However, according to the figure, the gap
between the values of C increases by decreasing η. Thus, for smaller values of η, the gap
between the C values of different SIs is larger, allowing an accurate distinction for decision-
makers. In addition, according to Figure 3b, it can be concluded that the ranking order of
all top SIs is constant for η values other than EnI2 for the value of η = 0.2.
With these in mind, this conclusion can be drawn that C values and ranking orders
have no sensitivity to η. Hence, choosing 0.5 as a median number of the interval for η in
the case study is a suitable choice.

4.2. Comparison between the Proposed Approach and Other Cited Literature
To validate the presented approach outcomes, a comparison is made between the
achieved results by the proposed approach and the traditional fuzzy MCDM methods.
Table 16 shows the outcomes of this comparison. The comparison results for the top ten SIs
are also represented in Figure 4.

163
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

Table 16. Comparative outcomes of the presented approach and other traditional fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) methods.

Fuzzy MCDM Methods

Proposed Approach
Fuzzy VIKOR [65] Fuzzy SAW [66] Fuzzy TOPSIS [67]
SIs
Preference Preference Preference Preference
Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
Order Order Order Order
Score Score Score Score
Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
SoI1 0.786 5 0.178 5 0.866 5 0.648 5
SoI2 0.363 16 0.486 15 0.756 16 0.483 16
SoI3 0.154 28 0.721 25 0.678 24 0.391 23
SoI4 0.756 6 0.160 4 0.876 3 0.680 2
SoI5 0.295 21 0.755 26 0.685 23 0.401 21
SoI6 0.822 4 0.241 6 0.851 6 0.628 6
SoI7 0.438 14 0.490 16 0.757 15 0.490 15
SoI8 0.302 20 0.707 23 0.701 21 0.389 24
SoI9 0.361 17 0.491 17 0.755 17 0.465 17
EcI1 0.870 3 0.150 3 0.875 4 0.667 4
EcI2 0.480 13 0.380 10 0.796 10 0.537 10
EcI3 0.238 23 0.607 20 0.712 20 0.405 20
EcI4 1.000 1 0.000 1 0.937 1 0.735 1
EcI5 0.341 18 0.459 14 0.766 14 0.492 14
EcI6 0.610 9 0.367 9 0.798 9 0.560 9
EcI7 0.907 2 0.125 2 0.885 2 0.674 3
EcI8 0.220 24 0.839 28 0.646 28 0.306 28
EcI9 0.430 15 0.586 19 0.731 18 0.457 18
EnI1 0.618 8 0.353 8 0.802 8 0.564 8
EnI2 0.544 10 0.450 13 0.770 13 0.503 13
EnI3 0.062 29 0.916 29 0.612 29 0.250 29
EnI4 0.161 27 0.704 22 0.677 25 0.370 25
EnI5 0.000 30 1.000 30 0.588 30 0.195 30
EnI6 0.315 19 0.802 27 0.662 27 0.310 27
EnI7 0.197 26 0.712 24 0.674 26 0.364 26
EnI8 0.515 11 0.426 12 0.775 12 0.529 11
EnI9 0.251 22 0.661 21 0.692 22 0.396 22
EnI10 0.637 7 0.304 7 0.820 7 0.603 7
EnI11 0.500 12 0.420 11 0.778 11 0.527 12
EnI12 0.211 25 0.557 18 0.730 19 0.441 19

Figure 4. Preference order ranking of top ten SIs prioritized by the proposed approach and other fuzzy MCDM methods.

164
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

As presented in Table 16 and Figure 4, the priority of SIs derived from the presented
approach is not very different from other methods in most cases (in most cases, the number
of ranks is changed by up to three or four rank shifts in SIs priority). Besides, EcI4 has the
first priority in all methods, and EnI5 has the last priority in the presented approach and
all methods. For the ten first priorities that are key indicators, despite some changes of
ranks (at most four ranks) in some methods, the priorities of indicators remain within the
ten first priorities except EnI2 . Furthermore, as can be observed in the figure, most key
indicators have the same ranks in the proposed approach and all traditional methods.
However, SoI4 had relatively more changes, which can be considered as the most sensitive
key indicator.
From the above, the conclusion can be drawn that the proposed approach is reliable
and its results benefit from the merits of taking into account risk attitudes of experts,
concepts of entropy in determining weights of experts, and a new TIFS-ranking approach
concurrently.
As another aspect, the results of the approach for ten SIs with a higher priority
are compared with the indicators provided by seven cited literature studies and tools.
The comparison results are indicated in Table 17.

Table 17. Comparison of ten SIs with higher priority and other literature studies and tools.

Social Economic Environmental

Related Literature
SoI1 SoI4 SoI6 EcI1 EcI4 EcI6 EcI7 EnI1 EnI2 EnI10
Awasthi et al. [47] S ** * –* – – – – –
Shen et al. [56] S – –
Shen et al. [57] S – – –
Yao et al. [59] S –
CEEQUAL [62] T ** – – –
Invest [63] T – – – –
Envision [64] T – –
* Note: The symbol indicates that the study/tool includes the SI, whereas—indicates that it does not. ** S: Study; T: Tool.

As presented in Table 17, most of the ten first priorities have been utilized as SIs’
assessment in the cited literature. Much higher adaptation is related to Yao et al. [59] and
Envision [64] and less adaptation is related to Awasthi et al. [47]. Three SIs of ten key
indicators, SoI1 , SoI4 and EnI2 , exist in all cited literature. In addition, EnI10 is introduced
in all the literature except Awasthi et al. [47]. In addition, it can be observed that the social
and environmental indicators have been incorporated in all cited tools (except SoI6 in
Invest) but economic indicators have not been considered in the cited tools (except EcI4 ).
These comparisons demonstrate that the outcomes of the approach are reliable and can be
employed in a sustainable assessment of highway construction projects.

5. Concluding Remarks
Analyzing sustainability indicators (SIs) in construction projects between different
potential indicators and considering various assessment criteria concurrently can be con-
sidered as a complicated group decision problem. A new triangular intuitionistic fuzzy
set (TIFS) group decision approach for the multi-criteria evaluation is presented in this
study to deal with this problem under uncertainty. A novel multi-criteria group decision-
making approach considers experts’ risk attitudes and views and entropy concepts were
developed in the TIFS environment. Furthermore, new ranking scores were proposed
through similarity to ideal solutions by the concept of closeness coefficient to prioritize and
choose the sustainable indicators. A case study regarding highway construction projects
was presented to analyze the sustainable indicators under uncertainty. The considered case
study was solved using the introduced group-decision approach.

165
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

The primary aim of this paper is to present a sound approach for the assessment and
adoption of SIs in highway construction projects. The principal novelties of this study are
as follows:
• To cope with uncertainty in highway construction projects, triangular intuitionistic
fuzzy sets (TIFSs) are used. The TIFSs make the process of decision-making more
flexible regarding degrees of agreement, disagreement, and hesitancy utilizing a
triangular function.
• Risk attitudes of experts are considered within the assessment and process of group
decision-making because they can have various perspectives, such as optimistic or
pessimistic, in their views owing to their various backgrounds and characteristics.
• A novel methodology is proposed to specify experts’ weights within the process of
group decision-making based on the concepts of entropy.
• A new compromise ranking score is proposed to evaluate and choose sustainability
indicators in highway construction projects.
Ultimately, some sensitivity analyses were performed on the preference order ranking
of the top ten SIs in a case study according to the change of approach coefficients and
different risk attitudes of experts. The drawn conclusion of the sensitivity analyses was
that approach coefficients selected in the case study were suitable choices. Moreover,
the presented approach was compared with the traditional fuzzy MCDM techniques,
including fuzzy SAW and fuzzy VIKOR. The computational results represented that there
was no major difference between the proposed approach and other fuzzy MCDM tech-
niques regarding the priority of SIs in most cases. In addition, both the first and last
priorities derived from this approach were the same in all the aforementioned methods.
The introduced comprehensive approach has proposed an efficient decision-making
method for highway construction regarding sustainable development principles. In fact,
it presented a dependable model in which the results benefited from the merits of taking
into account the risk attitudes of experts and the new TIFS-ranking method. Furthermore,
the applied fundamental concepts were intelligible to the committee of experts and project
managers, and the required calculations were straightforward. Hence, by introducing
evaluated sustainable indicators, this paper helps project managers improve highway
projects’ sustainability and make the most sustainable decisions. As future research,
a holistic framework can be developed that utilizes the mentioned criteria and considers
environmental and social impacts as criteria in the evaluation of sustainability indicators.
In addition, the ranked SIs with higher priority can be used as key indicators in the
sustainability assessment of highway construction projects.

Author Contributions: H.H. presented the research methodology, performed the development and
experiments of this study; P.G. and F.N. provided extensive advice throughout the study. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

= ( a, b, c) ; μ, ν is defined as follows:
Definition A1. [68] The membership function of TIFN A
⎧ x−a
⎪
⎪ b− a μ if a ≤ x < b
⎨
μ if x = b
μ A ( x ) = c− x (A1)
⎪
⎪ c−b μ if b < x ≤ c
⎩
0 otherwise

166
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

and non-membership function is defined as follows:

⎧ b− x +( x − a)ν
⎪
⎪ if a ≤ x < b
⎪
⎨ b− a
ν if x = b
νA ( x ) = x −b+(c− x )ν (A2)
⎪
⎪ if b < x ≤ c
⎪
⎩ c−b
0 otherwise

where a, b and c are real numbers, 0 ≤ μ ≤ 1, 0 ≤ ν ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ μ + ν ≤ 1.

Definition A2. [44] Let A = ( a, b, c) ; μ, ν and B

= ( a , b , c ) ; μ , ν be two TIFNs, then the
arithmetic operations are defined as follows:
*( )
⊕B
A = a + a , b + b , c + c ; μ + μ − μ.μ , ν.ν , (A3)
*( )
⊗B
A = a.a , b.b , c.c ; μ.μ , ν + ν − ν.ν , (A4)

λA = (λa, λb, λc) ; 1 − (1 − μ)λ , νλ (λ ≥ 0), (A5)

λ =
A a λ , b λ , c λ ; μ λ , 1 − (1 − ν ) λ ( λ ≥ 0). (A6)

References
1. WCED. Our Common Future-Brundtland Report; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
2. Shen, L.Y.; Li Hao, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yao, H. A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. 2007, 13, 273–281. [CrossRef]
3. Yu, W.D.; Cheng, S.T.; Ho, W.C.; Chang, Y.H. Measuring the sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle:
A Taiwan lesson. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1523. [CrossRef]
4. Goubran, S.; Cucuzzella, C. Integrating the sustainable development goals in building projects. J. Sustain. Res. 2019, 1, e190010.
[CrossRef]
5. Karaca, F.; Guney, M.; Kumisbek, A.; Kaskina, D.; Tokbolat, S. A new stakeholder opinion-based rapid sustainability assessment
method (RSAM) for existing residential buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102155. [CrossRef]
6. Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M. Quantifying stakeholder influence in decision/evaluations relating to sustainable
construction in China—A Delphi approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 160–170. [CrossRef]
7. Omer, M.A.; Noguchi, T. A conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of building materials in the achievement of
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101869. [CrossRef]
8. Xu, X.; Wang, Y.; Tao, L. Comprehensive evaluation of sustainable development of regional construction industry in China.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1078–1087. [CrossRef]
9. Illankoon, I.C.S.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N. United Nation’s sustainable development goals: Establishing baseline for Australian
building sector. Intell. Build. Int. 2020. [CrossRef]
10. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W.; Chan, A.P.; Wong, J.K. Development of a building sustainability assessment method (BSAM) for
developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121514. [CrossRef]
11. Mansell, P.; Philbin, S.P.; Broyd, T.; Nicholson, I. Assessing the impact of infrastructure projects on global sustainable development
goals. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2020, 173, 196–212. [CrossRef]
12. Mousavi, S.M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Azaron, A.; Mojtahedi, S.M.H.; Hashemi, H. Risk assessment for highway projects
using jackknife technique. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 5514–5524. [CrossRef]
13. Ghoddousi, P.; Nasirzadeh, F.; Hashemi, H. Evaluating Highway Construction Projects’ Sustainability Using a Multicriteria
Group Decision-Making Model Based on Bootstrap Simulation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018092. [CrossRef]
14. Hendiani, S.; Bagherpour, M. Developing an integrated index to assess social sustainability in construction industry using fuzzy
logic. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 647–662. [CrossRef]
15. Rostamnezhad, M.; Nasirzadeh, F.; Khanzadi, M.; Jarban, M.J.; Ghayoumian, M. Modeling social sustainability in construc-
tion projects by integrating system dynamics and fuzzy-DEMATEL method: A case study of highway project. Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1595–1618. [CrossRef]
16. Hashemi, H.; Mousavi, S.M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Chalekaee, A.; Turskis, Z. A new group decision model based on grey-intuitionistic
fuzzy-ELECTRE and VIKOR for contractor assessment problem. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1635. [CrossRef]
17. Mousavi, S.M.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Vahdani, B.; Hashemi, H. A new decision model for cross-docking center
location in logistics networks under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy uncertainty. Transport 2019, 34, 30–40. [CrossRef]

167
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

18. Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering:
A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 2019, 11, 350. [CrossRef]
19. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kar, S. Multi-Objective and Multi-Attribute Optimization for Sustainable Development
Decision Aiding. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3069. [CrossRef]
20. Hashemi, H.; Bazargan, J.; Mousavi, S.M.; Vahdani, B. An extended compromise ratio model with an application to reservoir flood
control operation under an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 3495–3511. [CrossRef]
21. Huang, R.Y.; Yeh, C.H. Development of an assessment framework for green highway construction. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2008, 31,
573–585. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, Y.; Okudan, G.E.; Riley, D.R. Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings.
Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 235–244. [CrossRef]
23. Reza, B.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle
analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2053–2066. [CrossRef]
24. Waris, M.; Liew, M.S.; Khamidi, M.F.; Idrus, A. Criteria for the selection of sustainable onsite construction equipment. Int. J.
Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 96–110. [CrossRef]
25. Li, Y.; Zhao, L.; Suo, J. Comprehensive assessment on sustainable development of highway transportation capacity based on
entropy weight and TOPSIS. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4685–4693. [CrossRef]
26. Kucukvar, M.; Gumus, S.; Egilmez, G.; Tatari, O. Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy
decision making method. Autom. Constr. 2014, 40, 33–43. [CrossRef]
27. Medineckiene, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Björk, F.; Turskis, Z. Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assess-
ment/certification. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2015, 15, 11–18. [CrossRef]
28. Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional
construction methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3592–3606. [CrossRef]
29. Pan, M.; Linner, T.; Pan, W.; Cheng, H.; Bock, T. A framework of indicators for assessing construction automation and robotics in
the sustainability context. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 82–95. [CrossRef]
30. Zolfani, S.H.; Pourhossein, M.; Yazdani, M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental
sustainability with MCDM framework. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 357–365. [CrossRef]
31. Liu, S.; Qian, S. Towards sustainability-oriented decision making: Model development and its validation via a comparative case
study on building construction methods. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 860–872. [CrossRef]
32. Reddy, A.S.; Kumar, P.R.; Raj, P.A. Preference based multi-criteria framework for developing a Sustainable Material Performance
Index (SMPI). Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2019, 12, 390–403. [CrossRef]
33. Chen, C.H. A new multi-criteria assessment model combining GRA techniques with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy-based TOPSIS
method for sustainable building materials supplier selection. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2265. [CrossRef]
34. Roy, J.; Das, S.; Kar, S.; Pamučar, D.; Roy, J.; Das, S.; Kar, S.; Pamučar, D. An extension of the CODAS approach using interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy set for sustainable material selection in construction projects with incomplete weight information.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 393. [CrossRef]
35. Tseng, M.L.; Lin, S.; Chen, C.C.; Sarmiento, L.S.C.; Tan, C.L. A causal sustainable product-service system using hierarchical
structure with linguistic preferences in the Ecuadorian construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 477–487. [CrossRef]
36. Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.; Ali, H.; Sadullah, A.F. A novel framework for integrating United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals into sustainable non-residential building assessment and management in Jordan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 49, 101612.
[CrossRef]
37. Dabous, S.A.; Zeiada, W.; Zayed, T.; Al-Ruzouq, R. Sustainability-informed multi-criteria decision support framework for ranking
and prioritization of pavement sections. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118755. [CrossRef]
38. Rahimi, S.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Monavari, S.M.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Rahimi, R. Sustainable landfill site selection for municipal solid
waste based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Fuzzy group BWM-MULTIMOORA-GIS. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119186.
[CrossRef]
39. Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V.; Martí, J.V. Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge deck designs in coastal environments using
neutrosophic criteria weights. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 949–967. [CrossRef]
40. Ebrahimnejad, S.; Mousavi, S.M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Hashemi, H.; Vahdani, B. A novel two-phase group decision making
approach for construction project selection in a fuzzy environment. Appl. Math. Model. 2012, 36, 4197–4217. [CrossRef]
41. Fenton, N.; Wang, W. Risk and confidence analysis for fuzzy multicriteria decision making. Knowl. Based Syst. 2006, 19, 430–437.
[CrossRef]
42. Zhang, X.; Jin, F.; Liu, P. A grey relational projection method for multi-attribute decision making based on intuitionistic trapezoidal
fuzzy number. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 3467–3477. [CrossRef]
43. Zhou, H.C.; Zhang, G.H.; Wang, G.L. Multi-objective decision making approach based on entropy weights for reservoir flood
control operation. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2007, 38, 100–106.
44. Chen, Y.; Li, B. Dynamic multi-attribute decision making model based on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Sci. Iran. 2011,
18, 268–274. [CrossRef]
45. Wan, S.P.; Wang, F.; Lin, L.L.; Dong, J.Y. Some new generalized aggregation operators for triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers
and application to multi-attribute group decision making. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 93, 286–301. [CrossRef]

168
Sustainability 2020, 13, 1477

46. Wang, J.Q.; Nie, R.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chen, X.H. New operators on triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and their applications in
system fault analysis. Inf. Sci. 2013, 251, 79–95. [CrossRef]
47. Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Omrani, H. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12270–12280. [CrossRef]
48. Diabat, A.; Kannan, D.; Mathiyazhagan, K. Analysis of enablers for implementation of sustainable supply chain management—
A textile case. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 391–403. [CrossRef]
49. Govindan, K.; Shankar, K.M.; Kannan, D. Sustainable material selection for construction industry—A hybrid multi criteria
decision making approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1274–1288. [CrossRef]
50. Kandziora, M.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—
A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28, 54–78. [CrossRef]
51. Michael, F.L.; Noor, Z.Z.; Figueroa, M.J. Review of urban sustainability indicators assessment—Case study between Asian
countries. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 491–500. [CrossRef]
52. Nasirzadeh, F.; Ghayoumian, M.; Khanzadi, M.; Rostamnezhad Cherati, M. Modelling the social dimension of sustainable
development using fuzzy cognitive maps. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 223–236. [CrossRef]
53. Niemeijer, D.; de Groot, R.S. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 14–25.
[CrossRef]
54. Oltean-Dumbrava, C.; Watts, G.; Miah, A. Transport infrastructure: Making more sustainable decisions for noise reduction.
J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 42, 58–68. [CrossRef]
55. Roy, R.; Chan, N.W. An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: Review and synthesis. Environmentalist
2012, 32, 99–110. [CrossRef]
56. Shen, L.Y.; Tam, V.W.; Tam, L.; Ji, Y.B. Project feasibility study: The key to successful implementation of sustainable and socially
responsible construction management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 254–259. [CrossRef]
57. Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of infrastructure projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010,
137, 441–451. [CrossRef]
58. Ugwu, O.O.; Haupt, T.C. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—A South African
construction industry perspective. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 665–680. [CrossRef]
59. Yao, H.; Shen, L.; Tan, Y.; Hao, J. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure
projects. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1060–1069. [CrossRef]
60. Yuan, H. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management in construction projects. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 476–484.
[CrossRef]
61. Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhao, X.J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises.
J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 277–289. [CrossRef]
62. CEEQUAL Version 6: Technical Manual—International Projects. Watford, UK. Available online: https://www.ceequal.com/
version-6/ (accessed on 30 September 2019).
63. Reid, L.; Bevan, T.; Davis, A.; Neuman, T.; Penney, K.; Seskin, S.; VanZerr, M.; Anderson, J.; Muench, S.; Weiland, C.; et al.
Invest v1.3: Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool. Available online: https://www.sustainablehighways.org/files/4735.pdf
(accessed on 12 February 2019).
64. Envision v3: Sustainable Infrastructure Framework Manual. Available online: https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision-
version-3/ (accessed on 18 February 2019).
65. Opricovic, S. Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12983–12990. [CrossRef]
66. Chou, S.Y.; Chang, Y.H.; Shen, C.Y. A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location
selection with objective/subjective attributes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 189, 132–145. [CrossRef]
67. Chu, T.C. Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based 2002,
10, 687–701. [CrossRef]
68. Li, D.F. A ratio ranking method of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to MADM problems. Comput. Math. Appl.
2010, 60, 1557–1570. [CrossRef]

169
sustainability

Article
A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of
Insulation Materials in Buildings
Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene, Dalia Streimikiene *, Tomas Balezentis and Virgilijus Skulskis

Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, A. Vivulskio g. 4A-13,
LT-03220 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] (I.S.-B.); [email protected] (T.B.);
[email protected] (V.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The European Commission has recently adopted the Renovation Wave Strategy, aiming
at the improvement of the energy performance of buildings. The strategy aims to at least double
renovation rates in the next ten years and make sure that renovations lead to higher energy and
resource efficiency. The choice of appropriate thermal insulation materials is one of the simplest and,
at the same time, the most popular strategies that effectively reduce the energy demand of buildings.
Today, the spectrum of insulation materials is quite wide, and each material has its own specific
characteristics. It is recognized that the selection of materials is one of the most challenging and
difficult steps of a building project. This paper aims to give an in-depth view of existing multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) applications for the selection of insulation materials and to provide major
insights in order to simplify the process of methods and criteria selection for future research. A
systematic literature review is performed based on the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis
(SALSA) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Citation: Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I.;
(PRISMA) statement. In order to determine which MCDM method is the most appropriate for
Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T.; different questions, the main advantages and disadvantages of different methods are provided.
Skulskis, V. A Systematic Literature
Review of Multi-Criteria Keywords: thermal insulation; multi criteria analysis; MCDM; SALSA; buildings; Renovation Wave
Decision-Making Methods for
Sustainable Selection of Insulation
Materials in Buildings. Sustainability
2021, 13, 737. https://doi.org/ 1. Introduction
10.3390/su13020737
The issue of sustainable energy development is one of the most important in various
political documents. The construction sector, which consumes about 40% of the total pri-
Received: 18 December 2020
mary energy [1,2] and emits 10% of CO2 emissions [3], plays a significant role in addressing
Accepted: 12 January 2021
these issues. Renovation of buildings is a priority of the EU Renovation Wave Strategy
Published: 14 January 2021
adopted in 2020 [4]. The Renovation Wave Strategy aims to at least double renovation
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
rates in the next ten years and ensure that energy renovations of buildings will provide
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
higher energy efficiency and significant GHG emission reduction. Therefore, optimization
ms in published maps and institutio- of energy needs in buildings is an important aspect in the fight against climate change [5].
nal affiliations. Most of the energy in buildings is used to meet the needs of heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning [6]. Significant energy savings in buildings can be achieved by choosing
appropriate building design solutions. Heat consumption is effectively reduced by im-
proving the insulation properties of buildings; therefore, increasing the energy efficiency
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- of buildings has become an important aspect of national energy strategies in many coun-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. tries [7]. A lot of initiatives focus on the construction sector and there are many objectives
This article is an open access article
aimed at promoting technological innovation, improving energy efficiency [8], reducing
distributed under the terms and con-
environmental impact [9], and improving life quality criteria [10]. Although extensive
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
attention in the construction of new buildings has been paid to energy efficiency issues,
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
new buildings account for only about 1% of the housing market annually [3]. Therefore,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
in order to reduce energy consumption, old buildings must be renovated with a strong
4.0/).

171

Sustainability 2021, 13, 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020737 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

focus on energy efficiency issues. In the European Union, the new Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive (EPBD) 2018/844 highlights the issue of energy efficiency in buildings
and sets out certain requirements and objectives to be pursued [11]. The aim is that both
new and renovated buildings become zero-energy buildings, which have high energy
efficiency, and in which renewable energy sources meet the greatest energy demand.
Building insulation materials play a particularly significant role in achieving the goals
of energy efficiency in buildings. The choice of appropriate thermal insulation materials is
one of the simplest and at the same time the most popular strategies that effectively reduce
the energy demand of buildings [12,13]. The choice of insulation materials depends not
only on the thermal efficiency of the building. The choice of materials can also determine
the aspects related to the quality of life and the impact on the environment [14]. Today,
the spectrum of insulation materials is quite wide, and each material has its own specific
characteristics. Some materials are environmentally friendly, while others are more eco-
nomically acceptable, and the rest have better thermal insulation properties [14–18]. The
choice of materials in the case of a particular project and individual country depends on dif-
ferent factors, such as price, material availability factors, transportation costs, construction
rules in the country, climatic conditions, and type of heating of the building. For example,
in Europe, more than 60% of the consumed thermal insulation materials are glass wool,
stone wool, and inorganic fibrous materials, while the use of polystyrene, organic foamy
materials, expanded and extruded polystyrene constitutes less than 30% of the total [12].
It is recognized that the selection of materials is one of the most challenging and
difficult steps of a building project [19]. At both the practical and scientific level, studies
can be found in the literature focusing on finding the materials which are most suitable for
a particular project. The Sustainable Development Goals have been pursued in different
areas of economic activity; therefore, when choosing materials for the construction of
buildings, not only are their physical and technical characteristics as well as economic
factors taken into account, but also their social and environmental impacts [20]. A multi-
criteria evaluation has become one of the most important tools in energy development
studies in the last decade, allowing the comparison of different alternatives [21]. In this type
of evaluation, the choice of methodology and its logical justification play a very important
role. A correct choice of the evaluation method and the criteria on which the evaluation
will be based can solve complex issues relating to the chosen alternatives.
This paper aims to give an in-depth view of existing multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) applications for the selection of insulation materials and to provide major insights
in order to simplify the process of method selection for future research. A systematic litera-
ture review is performed based on the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA)
framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) statement [22]. In order to determine which MCDM method is the most appropri-
ate for different insulation problems, the main advantages and disadvantages of different
methods are provided. In order to achieve this purpose, Section 2 provides the method-
ology. Section 3 presents an analysis of the selected articles for review: the techniques
used in the studies in order to select criteria for evaluation and determining their weights
are provided; the criteria used are overviewed and arranged around four dimensions.
Section 4 focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of different MCDM methods.

2. Methodology
A systematic literature search and analysis was carried out in accordance with the
SALSA framework. The methodology of SALSA allows one to minimize the possible
factor of subjectivity and is indicated as one of the most suitable tools for identifying,
evaluating, and systematizing literature [23], and guarantees the methodological precision
and completeness [24]. The accuracy and completeness of the research are also ensured by
the PRISMA statement [22]. The framework for the systematic literature search and review
in this research is provided in Table 1.

172
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Table 1. The framework for systematic literature search and review.

Stage Description
Key actions: keywords identification; search database.
Search
Research scope: MCDM methods for solving questions of sustainable insulation.
Appraisal Key actions: papers selection through the PRISMA statement.
Synthesis Key actions: data extraction and categorization.
Analysis Key actions: analysis of the data, result comparison and conclusions.

Before starting the search through databases, it is important to define the scope of
the research and to identify the appropriate keywords that will be used during the search
process. The literature search was carried out in the Web of Science (WoS) database based
on a combination of topics: “insulation” + “multi criteria”. In order to carry out the widest
analysis of the literature as possible and to include as many as possible research papers
corresponding to the topic in the search, the search for papers was carried out in all WoS
database categories.
The papers obtained during the search were evaluated and the PRISMA statement
recommendations for selection of papers were followed. The inclusion criteria of the articles
are as follows: keywords are in the title, the keywords section or the abstract of the paper,
and the paper is published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Accordingly, exclusion
criteria are as follows: review articles, conference proceedings; editorial letters; non English
papers, and papers which were not primary research. These papers were excluded from the
further analysis. Thus, 34 conference proceedings papers and 3 non-English papers were
excluded from the content analysis. One hundred and nineteen articles were found by the
search combination “insulation” and “multi criteria”, 82 of which met the inclusion criteria.
Articles that were included in the content analysis were mostly published in Energy and
Buildings (10), Building and Environment (6) and Sustainability (5).
Content analysis was performed for the 82 articles found in the search. A snowballing
method was also applied. Therefore, content analysis was performed for other articles
that were not found during the search. Seven additional papers were found. A total of
18 relevant scientific studies were found where different MCDM methods for insulation
materials were applied. A flow of information is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flow of information (according to PRISMA).

The data of the selected articles were extracted and categorized according to the
categories. Overall details of the reviewed studies are presented in Table 2. The next section
provides detailed data on the analyzed articles.

173
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Table 2. Overall data on the reviewed studies.

Years of
Application Areas Methods Used Groups of Indicators Locations
Publications

• The Technique for Order of

Preference by Similarity to the
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [25]
• Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) [26]
• Weighted Sum Method
(WSM) [27]
• VIKOR (an acronym in Serbian
for multi-criteria optimization
and compromise solution) [28]
• Preference Ranking Organization
Method for Enriching Evaluation • Vilnius, Lithuania • 2008 (2)
V (PROMETHEE V) [29] • Economic
• Montreal, Canada • 2012 (1)
• Sustainability • TODIM (an acronym in • Social
• Poznan, Poland • 2013 (1)
assessment Portuguese for Interactive and • Technological
• Turkey • 2014 (3)
• Guidelines for Multi-criteria • Environmental
• Sarajevo, Serbia • 2016 (1)
professionals decision-making) [30] • Performance
• Central Italy • 2017 (1)
• Suitability • Multi-Objective Optimisation by • Energetic
• Spain • 2018 (2)
assessment Ratio analysis (MOORA) [31,32] • Architectural
• Oran, Algeria • 2019 (2)
• Full Multiplicative Form of • Not specified
• Riga, Latvia • 2020 (5)
Multi-Objective Optimization by
Ratio analysis
(MULTIMOORA) [33]
• Elimination and Choice
Transcribing Reality
(ELECTRE) [34,35]
• Step-Wise Weight Assessment
Ratio Analysis (SWARA) [36]
• Simple Additive Weighting
(SAW) [37]
• Complex Proportional
Assessment (COPRAS) [38]

3. Literature Review
In order to carry out detailed literature analysis and systematically provide insights
about the methods, evaluation criteria, and evaluation procedures used in practice, the
publications discussed below are first categorized by application area. The following
sub-section provides detailed analysis of the criteria and characteristics of the evaluation
process (involvement of experts, motives for the selection of the criteria, methods for
determining weights).

3.1. Assessment of Insulation Materials

According to the aim of the research, the papers could be grouped in three categories:
sustainability assessment, suitability assessment and methods selection. Although sus-
tainability assessment articles account only for 20% of all selected articles, the studies
in this group are new, and this therefore shows the relevance of the topic. Sustainability
assessment articles are summarized in Table 3.

174
Table 3. Sustainability assessment category.

MCDM Evaluation Case Study

Source Aim of the Study Materials Assessed Main Contribution of the Study:
Method Level Location
An original framework for the
assessment is presented. The overall
Hard fiberboard, mineralized sustainability of insulating materials
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

wood, polystyrene foam slab, was evaluated, applying energy and

To evaluate the impact of
cork slab, rock wool, glass comfort optimization, life cycle
sustainable insulations on the ELECTRE A farmhouse in
[39] Local wool, kenaf fibers, hemp assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing
environment and their TRI-rC central Italy
fibers, expanded perlite, (LCC) analysis for criteria selection and
economic suitability.
polyurethane, expanded multi-criteria approach for ranking the
vermiculite, cellulose alternatives. The most desirable
materials are polystyrene foam slabs,
kenaf fibers, hemp fibers, and cellulose.
The sustainability of four flat roof types
To assess sustainability of flat Three weather
Four representative flat roof was evaluated, based on indicators
roof types according of scenarios in Spain
types (self-protected roof, reflecting the Sustainable Development
[40] indicators aligned to the TOPSIS, AHP National (Mediterranean,
gravel finishing roof, floating Goals of the United Nations. A green
Sustainable Development Oceanic,
flooring roof and green roof). roof is the most sustainable alternative
Goals of the United Nations. Continental)
for all the scenarios evaluated.
To identify the factors that The most significant criteria are related
influence the selection of to performance criteria group.

175
[41] building roof system and to AHP Global - Traditional roof, green roof According to criteria outline by experts,
evaluate traditional and a green roof is selected as a better option
green roof systems. than a traditional roof.
To introduce a framework for
the evaluation of Rock wool, expanded
A framework is presented and
sustainability of buildings polystyrene, extruded
sustainable insulations are evaluated.
insulation materials and to polystyrene, kenaf, sheep
[42] interval TOPSIS Global - Recycled glass and sheep wool are the
assess organic and inorganic wool, recycled cotton,
best options for building insulation
building insulation materials recycled glass, recycled PET,
materials in the context of sustainability.
in the context recycled textile
of sustainability.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

An original framework for the assessment of sustainability of insulating materials was

presented by Rocchi et al. [39]. The case study of a farmhouse in central Italy considers the
sustainability of twelve solutions for roof insulation according to seven criteria. The criteria
for the assessment included combining energy and thermal comfort optimization with the
environmental and economic LLA and LCC analysis. The ELECTRE TRI-rC method is
used for ranking the selected organic and inorganic building insulation alternatives. The
results show that the most favorable materials are polystyrene foam slabs, kenaf fibers,
hemp fibers, and cellulose.
Guzman-Sanchez et al. [40] prepared a set of seventeen indicators for the assessment of
the sustainability of different flat roof types, based on indicators reflecting the Sustainable
Development Goals of the United Nations. The authors combined two MCDM techniques—
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). In order to determine the relative importance of
indicators, the AHP method was used for weighting. The TOPSIS technique was used for
ranking the alternatives. The assessment was carried out under different weather scenarios.
The results show that green roofs are the most sustainable choice for all the scenarios
analyzed, by virtue of their insulation, possibility to recycle, life cycle cost, embodied
energy, water purification and ecosystem-related aspects.
Rosasco and Perini [41] identified factors influencing the selection of building roof
systems and applied the AHP technique to evaluate traditional and green roof systems.
Experts identified the criteria and their weights for the assessment, and the most significant
criteria are related to the performance criteria group. According to the criteria selected,
evaluation demonstrates that a green roof is a better option than a traditional roof.
Streimikiene et al. [42] applied the interval TOPSIS method for sustainability eval-
uation and ranking of organic and inorganic building insulation materials. The authors
carried out the sensitivity analysis by applying four different scenarios (equal, balanced,
technological and environmental) with different weights for the selected criteria. The as-
sessment shows that the best alternative according to the three scenarios (equal, balanced
and technological) is recycled glass. According to the assessment, sheep wool is the best
option in the environmental scenario.
Suitability assessment articles account for 40% of all selected articles and are summa-
rized in Table 4.
Civic and Vucijak [43] applied the VIKOR technique for the evaluation of eight in-
sulation materials. The authors selected seven criteria, which represent technical and
environmental aspects. In this study, both the selection of criteria and their weighting
are based on the selection of authors. The results show that the most preferred option is
styrofoam, second place was taken by glass wool, and the third best is wood wool.
Zagorskas et al. [44] applied the TOPSIS Grey method for ranking five modern insu-
lation materials (eco wool, flax/hemp fiber, thermo wool, aerogel, and a vacuum panel)
for retrofitting historical buildings. Eco-wool was ranked as the best insulation solution.
However, the results of the other alternatives are quite similar.
Ruzgys et al. [45] analyzed design solutions of modernized buildings in Lithuania.
The authors ranked six external wall insulation alternatives for building modernization
(polystyrene foam and thin plaster; mineral wool and fiber cement panels), applying the
integrated SWARA-TODIM method. It was found that the best alternative for residen-
tial building modernization is a ventilated system with 130 mm thickness mineral wool
insulation and fibrocement panels.

176
Table 4. Suitability assessment category.

MCDM Evaluation Case Study

Source Aim of the Study Materials Assessed Main Contribution of the Study:
Method Level Location
To emphasize the importance Styrofoam, mineral wool
The best alternative, according the
of energy management in (stone wool and glass wool),
criteria selected, is styrofoam, second
[43] buildings and to evaluate VIKOR National Sarajevo, Serbia pluto panels, polyester,
place is taken by glass wool and third
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

selected insulation materials polyurethane, perlite, wood

place is occupied by wood wool.
on criteria selected. wool
To rank five modern
Eco wool, flax/hemp fiber, Eco-wool was ranked as the best
insulation materials for
[44] TOPSIS National Riga, Latvia thermo wool, aerogel, insulation solution for retrofitting the
retrofitting historical
vacuum panel historical buildings.
buildings.
The best alternative for residential
Polystyrene foam and thin
To analyze design solutions building modernization is a ventilated
[45] TODIM Project Vilnius, Lithuania plaster, mineral wool and
of modernized buildings. system with 130 mm thickness mineral
fiber cement panels
wool insulation and fibrocement panels.
The box window took first place, second
To assess double-skin façade
The four types of double-skin place was taken by the corridor, the
systems reflecting the
[46] AHP National Turkey façades (multistorey, corridor, multi-storey double-skin façade was
experience of experts who
shaft-box, box window) third, and the shaft-box took last place
have applied them.
in the assessment.

177
New polymer-based composite
materials were presented and
To introduce and characterize
Different formulations of rice characterized according to thermal
[47] new polymer-based AHP - -
husk and cork granules conductivity and stability, vapour
composite materials.
resistance, heat capacity, and acoustic
characteristics.
The best ranked solution is the variant
To analyze building thermo- External polystyrene, mineral of additional thermal insulation of
[48] WSM Local Poznan, Poland
modernization solutions. wool, extruded polystyrene extruded polystyrene with an additional
thickness of 30 cm and wood windows.
To assess double-skin façade
The box window took first place, second
systems reflecting the
The four types of double-skin place was taken by the corridor, the
experience of experts who
[49] Fuzzy AHP National Turkey façades (multistorey, corridor, multi-storey double-skin façade was
have applied them and to
shaft-box, box window) third, and the shaft-box took last place
compare the results with a
in the assessment.
previous study.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Marques et al. [47] introduced innovative composite materials that incorporate rice
husk and cork granules. The materials presented comprise a sustainable building solution.
The AHP method was applied for different formulations with different ratios of materials.
The results of the experiment show that a higher portion of rice husk in the composite
formulations can provide better acoustic performance. Expanded cork granules reduce the
thermal conductivity.
The four types of double-skin façade (multistorey, corridor, shaft-box, box window)
were evaluated by Bostancioglu [49] The alternatives were ranked according to fuzzy AHP.
The box window the first place, second place was taken by the corridor, the multi-storey
double-skin façade was third, and the shaft-box took last place in the assessment.. It was
found that a box window is the best alternative according to three criteria (noise and
thermal insulation, fire protection). The results of the study were compared with previous
research, where double-skin façades were evaluated with the AHP method [46]. The
ranking of alternatives was unchanged.
Basinska et al. [48] analyzed building thermo-modernization solutions. The authors
used the WSM method to find the best solution in regard to economic, energy-related, and
environmental criteria. A total more than 400 possible solutions were analyzed. It was
determined that the best solution is the variant of additional thermal insulation of extruded
polystyrene with additional thickness of 30 cm and wood windows. The results show that
the use of insulation with a thickness above 36 cm does not provide a significant energy or
economic effect.
Methods selection articles account for 40% of all selected articles and are summarized
in Table 5.

178
Table 5. Methods selection category.

Evaluation Case Study

Source Aim of the Study MCDM Method Materials Assessed Main Contribution of the Study
Level Location
To present an approach for the
assessment of wall insulation SAW, TOPSIS, Wall insulation (not The method for ranking alternatives
[50] Project Vilnius, Lithuania
alternatives and to find the best VIKOR, COPRAS specified) was proposed and applied.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

wall insulation solution.

To present a methodology that
allows one to rank different COPRAS, Four external wall
design solutions of a building’s COPRAS-G alternatives with insulation The method for ranking alternatives
[51] - -
external walls, evaluating (COPRAS with of rock wool or expanded was proposed and applied.
qualitative and quantitative Grey relations) polystyrene
attributes.
To find an optimal alternative MOORA and Walls, roofs, ceilings, The method for ranking alternatives
[52] National Vilnius, Lithuania
for building renovation. MULTIMOORA windows (not specified) was proposed and applied.
To present an approach for the ELECTRE IV,
assessment and ranking of MULTIMOORA, Six alternatives (mineral The method for ranking alternatives
[53] National Vilnius, Lithuania
technologies in the TOPSIS, ELECTRE wool, polystyrene foam) was proposed and applied.
construction sector. III, VIKOR
Exterior insulation of the The tool for ranking renovation
facade or roof with expanded solutions is presented and fifteen

179
To introduce a tool for ranking
polystyrene, cellular concrete, different insulation alternatives are
different renovation solutions
[54] PROMETHEE V Local Oran, Algeria wood fiber, lime hemp evaluated. The results of the
and exemplify it by evaluating a
plaster; double glazing assessment show that the best solution
real-life case building.
window; double windows; is the exterior insulation of the roof
secondary glazing with expanded polystyrene.
MULTIMOORA-
SVNS
(Multiobjective
Houses with different
To create an assessment tool for Optimisation by
thermal insulation The method was proposed and
[55] the residential house Ratio Analysis Plus National Lithuania
alternatives (walls, roofs, applied.
construction materials selection. Full Multiplicative
ceilings, windows)
Form—Single-
Valued
Neutrosophic Set)
The guidelines for each design phase
To provide guidelines in Four facade alternatives
are provided. An approach for
[56] achieving a high-performance AHP Local Montreal, Canada (combinations of 2 wall and 2
decision making relating to the design
facade system. window systems)
of building facades is introduced.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Zavadskas et al. [51] presented a methodology that allows one to rank different design
solutions of a building’s external walls. The methodology involves qualitative and quan-
titative attributes and is based on the COPRAS technique. Ginevicius et al. [50] applied
several MCDM methods (SAW, TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS) for ranking five external wall
insulation solutions and to select the most economically effective alternative for the renova-
tion of a building. The study evaluates offers from subcontractors. Zavadskas et al. [53]
presented an approach for the assessment and ranking of technologies in the construc-
tion sector. The authors evaluated six alternatives to mineral wool and polystyrene foam
for thermal insulation of external walls. The assessment was based on ELECTRE IV,
MULTIMOORA and hybrid SWARA-TOPSIS, SWARA-ELECTRE III and SWARA-VIKOR
approaches. Another study by Zavadskas et al. [55] introduced a tool for the residential
house construction materials selection based on MULTIMOORA and Neutrosophic sets.
The proposed new extension of MULTIMOORA was named MULTIMOORA-SVNS. The
study by Brauers et al. [52] evaluated twenty alternatives for external walls, roofs, ceilings,
and windows in order to find the best alternative for the renovation of masonry build-
ings in Lithuania. The multi-criteria evaluation was carried out based on MOORA and
MULTIMOORA.
Seddiki et al. [54] introduced a tool for ranking different renovation solutions. The tool
is based on the MCDM PROMETHEE technique and combines Delphi method for criteria
selection and Swing method for the determination of the weights of the criteria selected.
A case study of a building in Algeria is provided and fifteen insulation alternatives are
evaluated. It was determined that the best solution is the exterior insulation of the roof
with expanded polystyrene.
Moghtadernejad et al. [56] presented an approach for the decision making of the
design of a building façade. The approach integrated the MCDM tool AHP and Choquet
integrals. The guidelines for each design phase are presented in the paper. The assessment
also includes the assessment of building insulation materials as one of the components of
the building façade. The criteria for evaluation are selected according to the objectives of
the project and are not necessarily focused on the goals of sustainability.

3.2. Criteria for Assessment in MCDM Models

The majority of studies (67%) relied on experts (from 3 to 50) for evaluation. Most
often, experts from the construction sector are involved. Some authors also relied on
scientists and employees of state authorities who work in the field of construction or
cultural heritage. Expert assistance can be used both in the selection of criteria and in
determining the weights of the selected criteria. All studies that involved experts in the
evaluation process used expert assistance in determining the weights of the criteria, but
not all used experts to select the criteria. For the determination of the weight of criteria,
an expert survey is usually used, in which the importance of the criteria is measured by
pairwise comparison (scale 1–9, from 1 as “equally important” up to 9 as “extremely more
important”) (33% of studies), or by ranking from the most important to the least important
(22% of studies). Some authors used their own estimation and expert surveys to determine
weights [45,50], while others used Simon Roy Figueira’s procedure [39], or the Swing
method [54]. Evaluations which were made without the help of experts were based on
the choice of the authors of the study by assigning weights to the criteria. In some studies
(22%), experts participated in the selection of criteria [41,50,53,54]. Surveys, the Delphi
method and cross-group discussion (brainstorming technique) were used for this purpose.
Articles in the methods selection category also use the concordance coefficient by
Kendal calculation [50,51] and the determination of criteria weights by the SWARA
method [45,53,55] to reasonably and logically determine criteria weights. The techniques
used in the studies in order to select criteria for evaluation and to determine their weights
are given in Table 6.

180
Table 6. Selection of criteria and determination of their weights in assessing insulation materials.

Number
MCDM Criteria Selection
Source Supporting Methods Way of Weighting Experts Type of Stakeholders of Criteria
Method Process
Experts
Experts in construction
Own estimation and (from the Certification
SAW, TOPSIS, Not
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Concordance coefficient expert survey (rating Centre of Construction

[50] VIKOR, Yes 16 Experts survey specified
by Kendal from the most important Products, construction
COPRAS criteria
to the least important) and reconstruction
enterprises, researchers)
Experts survey (rating Not
COPRAS, Concordance coefficient
[51] from the most important Yes Experts (not specified) 39 Own selection specified
COPRAS-G by Kendal
to the least important) criteria
Not
MOORA,
[52] - N/A No - - Own selection specified
MULTIMOORA
criteria
ELECTRE IV,
MULTI- Experts in civil engineers
Determination of criteria Experts survey (rating Not
MOORA, and in heating, Experts
[53] weights by SWARA from the most important Yes 25 specified
TOPSIS, ventilation, and air (Delphi method)
method to the least important) criteria
ELECTRE III, conditioning

181
VIKOR
Experts in the cultural Not
Experts
[44] TOPSIS - Yes heritage, climate change 5 Own selection specified
(pairwise comparison)
and energy sectors criteria
Own estimation and
Determination of criteria Not
expert survey (rating
[45] TODIM weights by SWARA Yes N/A 25 Own selection specified
from the most important
method criteria
to the least important)
Not
[43] VIKOR - Own estimation No - Own selection specified
criteria
Economic,
energetic
Experts in the building Experts
[54] PROMETHEE V Sensitivity analysis Swing method Yes 4 and
and energy sector (Delphi method)
architectural
criteria
Determination of criteria
weights by SWARA Experts in house design Not
MULTIMOORA- Experts
[55] method; sensitivity Yes (architects, engineers, 10 Own selection specified
SVNS (pairwise comparison)
analysis; Neutrosophic and designers) criteria
sets
Table 6. Cont.

Number
MCDM Criteria Selection
Source Supporting Methods Way of Weighting Experts Type of Stakeholders of Criteria
Method Process
Experts
Energy and comfort Derived from the Economic
ELECTRE optimization, LCA, LCC Experts (Simon Roy hybrid method and environ-
[39] Yes Experts (not specified) 3
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

TRI-rC analysis, sensitivity Figueira procedure) developed (LCC mental

analysis analysis and LCA) criteria
Literature—the
Not
Sensitivity analysis Experts in the United Nations
[40] TOPSIS, AHP Experts (Questionnaire) Yes 50 specified
(different weighting scenarios) building sector Sustainable
criteria
Development Goals
Economic,
Experts in the building Experts (cross-group social, envi-
Experts sector (architects, discussion— ronmental
[41] AHP - Yes 30
(pairwise comparison) engineers, brainstorming and perfor-
and researchers) technique); Literature mance
criteria
Not
Experts Experts in the
[46] AHP - Yes 21 Literature specified
(pairwise comparison) building sector
criteria

182
Not
Experts Experts in the
[49] Fuzzy AHP - Yes 21 Literature specified
(pairwise comparison) building sector
criteria
Technological
Sensitivity analysis Own estimation Own selection; and Environ-
[42] interval TOPSIS No - -
(different weighting scenarios)(different weighting scenarios) Literature mental crite-
ria
Not
Experts Own selection;
[56] AHP The Choquet integral No - - specified
(pairwise comparison) Literature
criteria
Not
Own estimation
[47] AHP Different weighting scenarios No - - Own selection specified
(different weighting scenarios)
criteria
Not
LCA, different The method presented Own selection;
[48] WSM No - - specified
weighting scenarios by Mroz [57] Literature
criteria
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

It should be noted that the criteria selected for evaluation are not categorized in most
studies (almost 80%). Only four researchers divided the criteria into groups representing
different evaluation dimensions. Seddiki et al. [54] divided the criteria into economic,
energetic and architectural criteria to assess different alternatives for the renovation of
the facade of the building. Rocchi et al. [39] singled out economic and environmental
criteria groups to evaluate the impact of sustainable insulations on the environment and
economic suitability. Rosasco and Perini [41] identified economic, social, environmental
and performance criteria to identify factors that have the greatest influence when choosing
building roof systems. Streimikiene et al. [42], in assessing the sustainability of organic
and inorganic building insulation materials, identified the groups of technological and
environmental criteria.
As previously mentioned, sustainability issues became particularly relevant in the
construction sector. Although authors did not divide the criteria into groups in their
assessments, this can be done in order to determine the popularity of the applied criteria
and representation for different sustainability dimensions. Table 7 provides information on
the criteria used in the evaluations, which are divided into four categories representing the
essence of sustainable development. The popularity of the applied criteria is also estimated.

Table 7. Overview of criteria (arranged around four dimensions).

Dimension Criteria Popularity, % Source

Investment cost, price 72 [41,43–46,49–56]
Energy losses, heat losses, energy consumption
28 [39,41,45,52,54]
decrease, energy saving
Payback period 17 [45,52,53]
Maintenance and disposal cost, operations and
11 [41,56]
maintenance costs, decommissioning costs;
Economic
Annual energy consumption, primary energy index 11 [48,56]
Total amount saved per year 6 [52]
Life cycle cost 6 [40]
Comfort performance 6 [39]
Net present value 6 [39]
Tax incentives 6 [41]
Real estate benefit 6 [41]
Global cost 6 [48]
Aesthetic 39 [40,41,46,49,54–56]
Social Health, respiratory inorganics 17 [39,41,42]
Air quality and heat island reduction 6 [41]
Thermal transmittance, thermal resistance, thermal
conductivity, heat transfer, thermal insulation, heat 78 [40–44,46,47,49–53,55,56]
capacity, insulation properties
Water absorption coefficient, water vapour diffusion,
44 [42–45,47,50,53,56]
Moisture properties
Duration of works, construction process, complexity
44 [44–46,49–51,53,56]
of the installation
Durability, risk of the fabric 33 [41,50,51,54–56]
Fire protection, fire classification 33 [42,46,49,56]
Technological Acoustic noise reduction, noise control, noise
33 [40,41,46,47,49,56]
insulation, sound transmission class
Weight, dead load 33 [40,41,50,51,55,56]
Loss of space, total thickness 11 [44,56]
Density 11 [42,43]
Specific heat 11 [42,43]
Wind pressure resistance 11 [46,49]
Daylight 11 [46,49]
Adhesive joint strength 6 [50]
Extraction force of a pin fixing thermal insulating
6 [50]
board to solid materials
Warranty period 6 [50]

183
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Table 7. Cont.

Dimension Criteria Popularity, % Source

Wall load-bearing capacity 6 [55]
Protection 6 [40]
CO2 emissions 22 [41–43,48]
Environmental friendliness of materials, resource
22 [40,41,55,56]
sustainability, recycled materials
Solar power, window solar performance 11 [40,56]
Biodiversity 11 [40,41]
Non-renewable energy 6 [39]
Ozone layer depletion 6 [39]
Environmental Global warming 6 [39]
Albedo coefficient 6 [40]
Carbon sequestration 6 [40]
Embodied carbon 6 [40]
Embodied energy 6 [40]
Runoff attenuation 6 [40]
Water purification 6 [40]
Reduction in runoff temperature 6 [40]
Agricultural productivity 6 [40]

All studies used indicators of insulation materials reflecting technological aspects.

Overall, 78% of studies included thermal insulation characteristics in the evaluation. The
use of the water absorption coefficient (44%) and duration of works (44%) took second
place in terms of popularity. In addition, one third of studies included durability (33%),
fire classification (33%), noise insulation (33%) and weight (33%). Economic indicators
were included in 89% of the studies. The economic dimension is most often reflected by
the investment cost or price criteria used by different authors. Overall, 72% of studies
included this criterion in the assessment of insulation materials. The second criterion in
terms of popularity is energy losses or energy saving (28%), while the third is payback
period (17%). The criteria for social dimension were evaluated in 45% of studies. The
following two criteria were also used: aesthetic (39%) and health (17%). Indicators rep-
resenting the environmental dimension were also included in 45% of studies. The most
commonly applied indicators were CO2 emissions (22%) and environmental friendliness of
insulation materials (22%).

4. Comparison of MCDM Models

The literature review revealed twelve different MCDM methods that were used in
order to choose the most suitable insulation materials for buildings based on different
criteria. These methods have different characteristics and different possibilities to include
data in the estimations. Table 8 provides pros and cons of the MCDM techniques that were
used for assessment of insulation materials.
The most popular AHP technique, developed by Saaty [26], helps to solve multi-
criteria tasks using a pairwise comparison scale. The calculation technique of this method
is quite simple and calculation results are obtained relatively quickly compared to other
methods; the method is easily applied in various fields (tasks of construction, energy
and other sectors) [58], and is logical and based on a hierarchical structure, and therefore
focuses on all selected criteria. However, it should be noted that experience data of decision-
makers plays a very important role here to determine the weights of the criteria. This can
complicate the evaluation process if there is more than one decision-maker. In addition,
additional analysis is required to verify the results of the evaluation [59–62].

184
Table 8. Comparative evaluation of MCDM methods.

MCDM Models AHP TOPSIS MULTIMOORA VIKOR ELECTRE COPRAS MOORA PROMETHEE WSM SWARA SAW TODIM
Popularity for Selection of
Insulation Materials in Buildings, 33 28 17 11 11 11 6 6 6 6 6 6
%
Easy to calculate x x x x x x x
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

Non-compensatory x x x x
Pros Comprehensible logic
x x x x
of calculations
Robust to outliers x x
For verification
additional analysis x x x x
Cons is required
Requires subjective
x x x x x
assumptions

185
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

The TOPSIS method is the second most popular method used when choosing insula-
tion materials. The technique presented by Hwang and Yoon [25] is based on measuring
the distance to the ideal solution [63]. As seen in the previously discussed technique,
the TOPSIS is distinguished for fairly simple calculations and quickly obtains evaluation
results, and the logic of calculation is rational and understandable, expressed in a fairly
simple mathematical form. Therefore, it is easy for the decision-maker to interpret the
results obtained and to understand the significance of the evaluation criteria for the final
result. However, the TOPSIS is based on the Euclidean distance; therefore, positive and
negative values of criteria are not reflected in the calculations. It is important to mention
the fact that a significant deviation from the ideal solution in one evaluation criterion has a
significant impact on the final results of the evaluation [64,65], and therefore the method is
not suitable for evaluation when the indicators differ significantly among themselves.
MOORA was presented by Brauers in 2004 [31] and is identified as an objective tool
to select alternatives. This approach is based on the ratio system and the reference point
techniques. The method uses desirable and undesirable criteria simultaneously for ranking.
Due to its objectivity, comprehensible logic of calculations, and simplicity, the method
is widely used and is more robust than other MCDM techniques. The full multiplicative
form was added to the MOORA by Brauers and Zavadskas [33], and the new method was
named MULTIMOORA. Consequently, MULTIMOORA consists of three approaches: the
ratio system and the reference point techniques, and the full multiplicative form [66]. Like
its basis, MOORA, the method developed on its basis is widely used to solve problems in
different areas.
The multi-criteria assessment technique VIKOR was presented by Opricovic [28] in
1998; this method is widely used in various fields of decision making. In addition, it
is popular to integrate VIKOR with other MCDM techniques [67]. The method is based
on seeking to determine the positive and the negative ideal solution (closeness to the
ideal). Unlike the TOPSIS method, the VIKOR technique takes into account the relative
importance of the distances from the positive and the negative ideal solution [68]. It is
recognized that the VIKOR technique is understandable and the computation process is
quite simple, compared with other methods. Despite that, the results could be affected by
the normalization procedure and weight strategy.
The ELECTRE method was introduced by Roy in 1968 [34]. ELECTRE requires the
determination of the concordance and discordance indices, which involves lengthy com-
putations. The method needs to be subjected to human intervention, because the deci-
sion maker has to select threshold values for the calculation of concordance and discor-
dance indices [69]. It is also recognized that for verification of the results, additional
analysis is required.
COPRAS was introduced by Zavadskas et al. in 1994 [38]. It is one of the compromise
methods, because COPRAS determines the ratio to the best ideal solution and the ratio to
the worst ideal solution. The MCDM technique uses a stepwise ranking and evaluation
procedure in terms of significance and utility degree. In addition, it is worth mentioning
that qualitative and quantitative information can be used in calculations.
The methods of the PROMETHEE group are recognized as one of the most accurate
methods. Currently, several versions of it are being developed. The first version was created
in 1986. It was proposed by Brans et al. [70]. Calculations allow the use of qualitative
and quantitative information as well as the use of uncertain information. In addition,
alternatives that are highly interchangeable can be compared [71–73]. It is recognized that
it is an accurate and effective multi-criteria evaluation technique; however, it has complex
mathematical expressions [62,74], requires specific abilities, and results are not obtained
as quickly as, for example, in the case of the TOPSIS or AHP. In principle, the method is
intended for professionals engaged in this type of calculation.
The WSM method introduced by Zadeh [27] became popular due to its simple form
and easy calculation [75]. This method is quite primitive and is designed to solve single-
dimensional issues [76,77]. The WSM can be used as a separate method or as a component

186
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

of other methods [78]. However, the issue of insulation material does not cover a single
dimension that should be evaluated; therefore, it is basically more suitable for use as a
component of other methods.
The SWARA is a relatively new method introduced by Kersuliene et al. [36]. The
method is based on the logical calculation of weights and relative importance of the
criteria selected. The greatest attention in the calculations is focused on the involvement of
experts and the justification for participation in determining the weights of the evaluation
criteria [79]. It can be said that experts have a key role in decision making. Although
the method is new, it is widely used when solving different multi-criteria tasks [74]. The
method is useful for collecting and coordinating information from experts [80].
One of the oldest, simplest, most commonly used and widely known MCDM technique
is SAW [37]. This method is based on the weighted average, where the overall score of an
alternative is determined by the weighted sum of selected criteria values. The calculation
algorithm is very easy and do not requires specific knowledge. One of the advantages of
this method is the proportional linear transformation of the raw data. Despite this, the
result of the assessment may not be logical, when the values of one or several criteria differ
from others. Additional analysis is required for verification of the results.
The TODIM technique was presented by Gomes and Lima in 1991 [30] and is based
on a pairwise comparison. Although the method was introduced 30 years ago, it is not
very popular in solving multi-criteria problems. The extended technique has the possibility
to incorporate uncertain information [81–83]. TODIM is also distinguished by a long and
complex calculation process [84] and less experience in the field of decision-making.
Depending on the available data, the experience of the decision-maker, the accu-
racy of the desired result and of the possible cost of time, the highlighted characteris-
tics of the MCDM methods provide alternatives that allow faster evaluation process in
future research.

5. Conclusions
A content analysis of articles has revealed that one third of studies used the AHP
method for evaluation. The AHP method is used in half of all evaluations in the categories
of sustainability assessment and suitability assessment. Meanwhile, articles in the method
selection category offer more diverse, complex methods, requiring specific knowledge and
skills. The second most popular MCDM method is TOPSIS, which is applied in 28% of
all studies. Both methods are quite simple and easy to apply in practice. They do not
require complex calculations, high costs in terms of time, or specific knowledge of the
person seeking the solution. Although articles of the method selection category offer more
complex calculation algorithms, they are much more methodologically accurate and logical
when there is a need to select criteria for evaluation and determining criteria weights.
The majority of studies relied on experts for evaluation. All studies that involved
experts in the evaluation process used expert assistance in determining the weights of the
criteria, but not all used experts in the criteria selection process. For the determination of
the weight of criteria, an expert survey is usually used, in which the importance of the
criteria is measured by pairwise comparison or by ranking from the most important to
the least important. For criteria selection, surveys, the Delphi method, and cross-group
discussion (brainstorming technique) were used. Involvement of experts in the evaluation
process reduces the subjectivity of the research and allows one to look at the problem being
solved from different perspectives. The use of experts is recommended not only for the
determination of weights, but also for criteria selection. In order to justify the involvement
of experts in the evaluation process, scientific methods both for calculating the coincidence
of expert opinion and for conducting the survey of experts should be used.
It should be noted that the criteria selected for evaluation are not categorized in most
studies. All studies used indicators of insulation materials reflecting technological aspects,
where thermal insulation characteristics were the most popular criteria. The economic
dimension was evaluated in 89% of studies and mostly was reflected by the investment

187
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

cost or price. The criteria for social and environmental dimensions were evaluated in
45% of studies. In order to carry out a comprehensive assessment of insulation materials,
criteria representing different dimensions of sustainability should be used. The review of
the evaluation criteria and their grouping by representing different dimensions makes it
easier to select criteria for this type of assessment and ensures conformity of the evaluation
with the current sustainability issues, which include the achievement of economic goals,
energy efficiency, technological characteristics, and the impact on the environment and
human health.
The conducted study provides an important input in guiding future studies on de-
cision making for sustainable selection of insulation materials in buildings, which is the
major issue in the Renovation Wave Strategy, aiming to improve the energy performance
of buildings and at least doubling the renovation rates in the next ten years. As this strat-
egy seeks to enhance the quality of life for people living in and using the buildings, the
sustainability of materials needs to be properly addressed.

Author Contributions: The contribution of all authors is equal. I.S.-B. made formal analysis and
prepared original draft, D.S. designed and supervised research, T.B. reviewed the paper, and V.S.
reviewed the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Authors are thankful for the reviewers’ comments and valuable suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Moran, P.; Goggins, J.; Hajdukiewicz, M. Super-insulate or use renewable technology? Life cycle cost, energy and global warming
potential analysis of nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB) in a temperate oceanic climate. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 590–607.
[CrossRef]
2. Grygierek, K.; Ferdyn-Grygierek, J. Multi-Objective Optimization of the Envelope of Building with Natural Ventilation. Energies
2018, 11, 1383. [CrossRef]
3. Serghides, D.K.; Dimitriou, S.; Katafygiotou, M.C.; Michaelidou, M. Energy efficient refurbishment towards nearly zero energy
houses, for the Mediterranean region. Energy Procedia 2015, 83, 533–543. [CrossRef]
4. European Commission. A Renovation Wave for Europe—Greening our Buildings, Creating Jobs, Improving Lives; COM (2020) 662 Final;
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Region: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
5. Santamouris, M. Innovating to zero the building sector in Europe: Minimising the energy consumption, eradication of the energy
poverty and mitigating the local climate change. Sol. Energy 2016, 128, 61–94. [CrossRef]
6. Manzano-Agugliaro, F.; Montoya, F.G.; Sabio-Ortega, A.; García-Cruz, A. Review of bioclimatic architecture strategies for
achieving thermal comfort. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 736–755. [CrossRef]
7. Cao, X.; Dai, X.; Liu, J. Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy
buildings during the past decade. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 198–213. [CrossRef]
8. Noailly, J. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation. Energy
Econ. 2012, 34, 795–806. [CrossRef]
9. Goulden, S.; Erell, E.; Garb, Y.; Pearlmutter, D. Green building standards as socio-technical actors in municipal environmental
policy. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 45, 414–425. [CrossRef]
10. Bonamente, E.; Brunelli, C.; Castellani, F.; Garinei, A.; Biondi, L.; Marconi, M.; Piccioni, E. A life-cycle approach for multi-objective
optimisation in building design: Methodology and application to a case study. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2018, 35, 158–179.
[CrossRef]
11. EU Commission and Parliament. Directive 2018/844 of the European Parliament and the Council of the 30 May 2018 Amending
Directive 2010/31/EU on the Energy Performance of Buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency. Off. J. Eur. Union
2018, 156, 75–91.
12. Amani, N.; Kiaee, E. Developing a two-criteria framework to rank thermal insulation materials in nearly zero energy buildings
using multi-objective optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 122592. [CrossRef]

188
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

13. Bisegna, F.; Mattoni, B.; Gori, P.; Asdrubali, F.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Sambuco, S.; Bianchi, F. Influence of Insulating
Materials on Green Building Rating System Results. Energies 2016, 9, 712. [CrossRef]
14. Aditya, L.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Rismanchi, B.; Ng, H.M.; Hasan, M.H.; Metselaar, H.S.C.; Muraza, O.; Aditiya, H.B. A review on
insulation materials for energy conservation in buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 1352–1365. [CrossRef]
15. Al-Homoud, M.S. Performance characteristics and practical applications of common building thermal insulation materials. Build.
Environ. 2005, 40, 353–366. [CrossRef]
16. Patnaik, A.; Mvubu, M.; Muniyasamy, S.; Botha, A.; Anandjiwala, R.D. Thermal and sound insulation materials from waste wool
and recycled polyester fibers and their biodegradation studies. Energy Build. 2015, 92, 161–169. [CrossRef]
17. Asdrubali, F.; D’Alessandro, F.; Schiavoni, S. A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustain. Mater.
Technol. 2015, 4, 1–17. [CrossRef]
18. Gullbrekken, L.; Grynning, S.; Gaarder, J.E. Thermal Performance of Insulated Constructions—Experimental Studies. Buildings
2019, 9, 49. [CrossRef]
19. Saghafi, M.D.; Teshnizi, Z.S.H. Recycling value of building materials in building assessment systems. Energy Build. 2011, 43,
3181–3188. [CrossRef]
20. Samani, P.; Mendes, A.; Leal, V.; Guedes, J.M.; Correia, N. A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing
solutions. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 182–191. [CrossRef]
21. Siksnelyte, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Streimikiene, D.; Sharma, D. An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing
with Sustainable Energy Development Issues. Energies 2018, 11, 2754. [CrossRef]
22. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Amo, I.F.; Erkoyuncu, J.A.; Roy, R.; Palmarini, R.; Onoufriou, D. A systematic review of Augmented Reality content-related
techniques for knowledge transfer in maintenance applications. Comput. Ind. 2018, 103, 47–71.
24. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J.
2009, 26, 91–108. [CrossRef]
25. Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981;
pp. 22–51.
26. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 11–29.
27. Zadeh, L.A. Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance criteria. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1963, 8, 59–60. [CrossRef]
28. Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade,
Serbia, 1998; 302p.
29. Mareschal, B.; Brans, J.P. PROMETHEE V: MCDM Problems with Segmentation Constrains; Universite Libre de Brusells: Brussels,
Belgium, 1992; pp. 13–30.
30. Gomes, L.F.A.M.; Lima, M.M.P.P. TODIM: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts.
Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 1991, 16, 113–127.
31. Brauers, W.K. Optimization Methods for a Stakeholder Society. In A Revolution in Economic Thinking by Multiobjective Optimization;
Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2004; 352p.
32. Brauers, W.K.M.; Zavadskas, E.K. The MOORA method and its application to privatization in transition economy. Control Cybern.
2006, 35, 443–468.
33. Brauers, W.K.M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Project Management by MULTIMOORA as an Instrument for Transition Economies. Technol.
Econ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 16, 5–24. [CrossRef]
34. Roy, B. La methode ELECTRE. Rev. D‘Inform. Et. De Rech. Oper. (Riro) 1968, 8, 57–75.
35. Vallée, D.; Zielniewicz, P. ELECTRE III-IV, Version 3.x, Aspects Méthodologiques (Tome 1), Guide D’utilisation (Tome 2); Document du
LAMSADE 85 et 85 bis; Université Paris Dauphine: Paris, France, 1994.
36. Kersuliene, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight
assessment ratio analysis (Swara). J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010, 11, 243–258. [CrossRef]
37. MacCrimon, K.R. Decision Marking among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach; RAND Memorandum,
RM-4823-ARPA; The Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1968; 63p.
38. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Sarka, V. The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol.
Econ. Dev. Econ. 1994, 1, 131–139.
39. Rocchi, L.; Kadzinski, M.; Menconi, M.E.; Grohmann, D.; Miebs, G.; Paolotti, L.; Boggia, A. Sustainability evaluation of retrofitting
solutions for rural buildings through life cycle approach and multi-criteria analysis. Energy Build. 2018, 173, 281–290. [CrossRef]
40. Guzman-Sanchez, S.; Jato-Espino, D.; Lombillo, I.; Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M. Assessment of the contributions of different flat roof
types to achieving sustainable development. Build. Environ. 2018, 141, 182–192. [CrossRef]
41. Rosasco, P.; Perini, K. Selection of (Green) Roof Systems: A Sustainability-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis. Buildings 2019, 9, 134.
[CrossRef]
42. Streimikiene, D.; Skulskis, V.; Balezentis, T.; Agnusdei, G.P. Uncertain multi-criteria sustainability assessment of green building
insulation materials. Energy Build. 2020, 219, 110021. [CrossRef]
43. Civic, A.; Vucijak, B. Multi-criteria Optimization of Insulation Options for Warmth of Buildings to Increase Energy Efficiency.
Procedia Eng. 2014, 69, 911–920. [CrossRef]

189
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

44. Zagorskas, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Burinskiene, M.; Blumberga, A.; Blumberga, D. Thermal insulation alternatives of
historic brick buildingsin Baltic Sea Region. Energy Build. 2014, 78, 35–42. [CrossRef]
45. Ruzgys, A.; Volvaciovas, R.; Ignatavicius, C.; Turskis, Z. Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation in residential buildings
using SWARA-TODIM MCDM method. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 103–110. [CrossRef]
46. Bostancioglu, E.; Onder, N.P. Applying analytic hierarchy process to the evaluation of double skin façades. Archit. Eng. Des.
Manag. 2019, 15, 66–82. [CrossRef]
47. Marques, B.; Tadeu, A.; Antonio, J.; Almeida, J.; de Brito, J. Mechanical, thermal and acoustic behaviour of polymer-based
composite materials produced with rice husk and expanded cork by-products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 239, 117851. [CrossRef]
48. Basinska, M.; Kaczorek, D.; Koczyk, H. Building Thermo-Modernisation Solution Based on the Multi-Objective Optimisation
Method. Energies 2020, 13, 1433. [CrossRef]
49. Bostancioglu, E. Double skin facade assessment by fuzzy AHP and comparison with AHP. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2020.
[CrossRef]
50. Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Raslanas, S. Evaluating the Alternative Solutions of Wall Insulation by Multicriteria Methods. J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. 2008, 14, 217–226. [CrossRef]
51. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamosaitiene, J. Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes
values determined at intervals. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2008, 14, 85–93. [CrossRef]
52. Brauers, W.K.M.; Kracka, M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Lithuanian Case Study of Masonry Buildings from the Soviet Period. J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 2012, 18, 444–456. [CrossRef]
53. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Volvaciovas, R.; Kildiene, S. Multi-criteria Assessment Model of Technologies. Stud. Inform. Control
2013, 22, 249–258. [CrossRef]
54. Seddiki, M.; Anouche, K.; Bennadji, A.; Boateng, P. A multi-criteria group decision-making method for the thermal renovation of
masonry buildings: The case of Algeria. Energy Build. 2016, 129, 471–483. [CrossRef]
55. Zavadskas, E.K.; Bausys, R.; Juodagalviene, B.; Garnyte-Sapranaviciene, I. Model for residential house element and material
selection by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2017, 64, 315–324. [CrossRef]
56. Moghtadernejad, S.; Chouinard, L.E.; Mirza, M.S. Design strategies using multi-criteria decision-making tools to enhance the
performance of building facades. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101274. [CrossRef]
57. Mroz, T.M. Energy Management in Built Environment: Tools and Evaluation Procedures; Poznan University of Technology: Poznan,
Poland, 2013; p. 138, ISBN 8377752387.
58. Kaya, I.; Çolak, M.; Terzi, F. Use of MCDM techniques for energy policy and decision-making problems: A review. Int. J. Energy
Res. 2018, 42, 2344–2372. [CrossRef]
59. Saaty, T.L. Decision making-the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2004, 13, 1–35.
[CrossRef]
60. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. Or Insight 2009, 22, 201–220.
[CrossRef]
61. Shahroodi, K.; Keramatpanah, A.; Amini, S.; Sayyad Haghighi, K. Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) technique to
evaluate and selecting suppliers in an effective supply chain. Kuwait Chapter Arab. J. Bus. Manag. Rev. 2012, 1, 119–132.
62. Kumar, A.; Sah, B.; Singh, A.R.; Deng, Y.; He, X.; Kumar, P.; Bansal, R.C. A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM)
towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 596–609. [CrossRef]
63. Jato-Espino, D.; Castillo-Lopez, E.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Canteras-Jordana, J.C. A review of application of multi-criteria
decision making methods in construction. Autom. Constr. 2014, 45, 151–162. [CrossRef]
64. Shih, H.S.; Shyur, H.J.; Lee, E.S. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 45, 801–813.
[CrossRef]
65. Boran, F.E.; Genc, S.; Kurt, M.; Akay, D. A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with
TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 11363–11368. [CrossRef]
66. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Hashemi, S.S. The Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy MULTIMOORA
Method for Group Decision Making in Engineering. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 560690. [CrossRef]
67. Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Govindan, K.; Senin, A.A.; Jusoh, A. VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the
Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Sustainability 2016, 8, 37. [CrossRef]
68. Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 178, 514–529.
[CrossRef]
69. Karande, P.; Chakraborty, S. Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for
materials selection. Mater. Des. 2012, 37, 317–324. [CrossRef]
70. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P.; Mareshal, B. How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1986, 24,
228–238. [CrossRef]
71. Wang, M.; Lin, S.J.; Lo, Y.C. The comparison between MAUT and PROMETHEE. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, China, 7–10 December 2010; pp. 753–757.
72. Amaral, T.M.; Costa, A.P. Improving decision-making and management of hospital resources: An application of the PROMETHEE
II method in an Emergency Department. Oper. Res. Health Care 2014, 3, 1–6. [CrossRef]

190
Sustainability 2021, 13, 737

73. Brans, J.P.; De Smet, Y. PROMETHEE Methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J., Eds.;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 233, pp. 187–219.
74. Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM); International Series in
Operations Research & Management Science 227; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; 203p.
75. Marler, R.T.; Arora, J.S. The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: New insights. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
2010, 41, 853–862. [CrossRef]
76. Misra, S.K.; Ray, A. Comparative study on different multi-criteria decision making tools in software project selection scenario. Int.
J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 2012, 3, 172–178.
77. Wimmler, C.; Hejazi, G.; de Oliveira Fernandes, E.; Moreira, C.; Connors, S. Multi-Criteria decision support methods for renewable
energy systems on Islands. J. Clean Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 185–195. [CrossRef]
78. Wang, R.; Zhou, Z.; Ishibuchi, H. Localized Weighted Sum Method for Many-Objective Optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
2018, 22, 3–18. [CrossRef]
79. Mishra, A.R.; Rani, P.; Pandey, K.; Mardani, A.; Streimikis, J.; Streimikiene, D.; Alrasheedi, M. Novel Multi-Criteria Intuitionistic
Fuzzy SWARA-COPRAS Approach for Sustainability Evaluation of the Bioenergy Production Process. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4155.
[CrossRef]
80. Zolfani, S.H.; Saparauskas, J. New Application of SWARA Method in Prioritizing Sustainability Assessment Indicators of Energy
System. Inz. Ekon. Eng. Econ. 2013, 24, 408–414. [CrossRef]
81. Zhang, X.; Xu, Z. The TODIM analysis approach based on novel measured functions under hesitant fuzzy environment. Knowl.
Based Syst. 2014, 61, 48–58. [CrossRef]
82. Qin, J.; Liu, X.; Pedrycz, W. An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in
interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 258, 626–638. [CrossRef]
83. Yu, S.M.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.Q. An extended TODIM approach with intuitionistic linguistic numbers. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2018,
25, 781805. [CrossRef]
84. Llamazares, B. An analysis of the generalized TODIM method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 269, 1041–1049. [CrossRef]

191
sustainability

Article
ACS: Construction Data Auto-Correction System—Taiwan
Public Construction Data Example
Meng-Lin Yu and Meng-Han Tsai *

Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei 106, Taiwan; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +8862-2737-6356

Abstract: This study aims to develop an automatic data correction system for correcting the public
construction data. The unstructured nature of the construction data presents challenges for its
management. The different user habits, time-consuming system operation, and long pretraining time
all make the data management system full of data in an inconsistent format or even incorrect data.
Processing the construction data into a machine-readable format is not only time-consuming but also
labor-intensive. Therefore, this study used Taiwan’s public construction data as an example case to
develop a natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning-based text classification system,
coined as automatic correction system (ACS). The developed system is designed to automatically
correct the public construction data, meanwhile improving the efficiency of manual data correction.
The ACS has two main features: data correction that converts unstructured data into structured
data; a recommendation function that provides users with a recommendation list for manual data
correction. For implementation, the developed system was used to correct the data in the public
construction cost estimation system (PCCES) in Taiwan. We expect that the ACS can improve the
accuracy of the data in the public construction database to increase the efficiency of the practitioners
in executing projects. The results show that the system can correct 18,511 data points with an accuracy
of 76%. Additionally, the system was also validated to reduce the system operation time by 51.69%.

Keywords: natural language processing; construction data management; machine learning

Citation: Yu, M.-L.; Tsai, M.-H. ACS:
Construction Data Auto-Correction
System—Taiwan Public Construction
Data Example. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1. Introduction
362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su130 1.1. Construction Data Management
10362 Data management has been considered as one of the most vital tasks in the construc-
tion industry [1]. The unstructured nature (e.g., plain text) of the construction data presents
Received: 21 November 2020
challenges for its management. Processing the construction data into a machine-readable
Accepted: 18 December 2020
format is time-consuming and labor-intensive, as it requires lots of paperwork to struc-
Published: 3 January 2021
turalize data from various sources. Nowadays, many popular tools and standards have
been developed by experts to help people manage construction data. Management tools,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
such as Microsoft Project and Primavera, are prevalent. The MasterFormat and UniFor-
tral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional
mat standards are common in the U.S. and Canada. However, engineers still need to
affiliations.
follow the rules and form formats provided by standards and tools to manually transform
unstructured data into structured data.
Even though many tools and standards are ready to follow, the quality of processed
data is not sufficient due to the various backgrounds of the related personnel. Engi-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- neers from different fields may have their own interpretations of the standards, thus causing
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This inconsistency of the data format or even incorrect data. For instance, Taiwan government
article is an open access article distributed provides a tool to its employees and contractors to manage public construction projects us-
under the terms and conditions of the ing a coding system similar to MasterFormat. However, due to the different interpretations
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
of the coding standard, the average data accuracy of 7592 public construction projects is
license (https://creativecommons.org/
only 48%.
licenses/by/4.0/).

193

Sustainability 2021, 13, 362. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010362 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

With the advancement of information technology, the improvement of computer per-

formance, as well as large data storage, technologies such as artificial intelligence and
deep learning have flourished for solving complex data management problems. Such im-
provement of these technologies can automatically transform unstructured data into struc-
tured data.

1.2. Public Construction Cost Estimation System in Taiwan

In Taiwan, it is required by law that for public projects with bids over NTD 10 million,
the project documents need to be managed using the public construction cost estimation
system (PCCES). Additionally, as the PCCES is a coding system, the law also requires that
the accuracy rate of data encoded in the project documents should be at least 40%. However,
according to the statistics of the Public Construction Commission, Executive Yuan (PCC),
Taiwan, from 1 December 2016 to 30 June 2020, there were 422 public construction works
projects that needed to use the PCCES. Among the 422 cases, 215 projects had statistics on
the correct rate of coding, and the average correct rate was 37.47% [2].
The Taiwan government has been planning to make public construction work projects
more transparent since 1995. The solution to this issue is making its own coding standard
for the construction field. The Taiwan government imitated the MasterFormat coding
standard formulated by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and formulated its
own coding standard [3]. According to the coding structure of MasterFormat, the PCCES
coding standard is divided into chapters 00 to 16, for a total of 17 chapters. Its organization
is arranged according to engineering practice and the experience of engineers. According to
the work breakdown structure (WBS) [4], it is also divided into five code and four layer
structures. The coding architecture is shown in Figure 1. In the first layer, the first and
the second codes are the numbers of the chapter. In the second layer, the third code is a
major category. In the third layer, the fourth code is the detailed classification code under
each major category. For the fourth layer, the fifth code is for the work item, which is
related to the third layer. Users can customize the code, but it should be recognized by the
engineering committee’s public engineering technology database control management.

Figure 1. The coding architecture of the public construction cost estimation system (PCCES) [3].

The PCCES code considers work items and resource items. Resource items include
materials, human resources, and machines. Work items are included in the composition of
materials, machinery, labor, and miscellaneous. The coding of work items and resource
items can be used differently. As there are many projects in public works, the scale of
these projects varies, ranging from airports, dams, and tunnels to planting sidewalk trees,
paving bricks on sidewalks, and dredging trenches, all within the scope of public works.
Each project requires the participation of many upstream and downstream manufacturers,
office staff, and government officials.
Due to different roles and divisions of labor, the perspectives of project management
vary. Projects of various sizes, workers from different sources, and different roles in the
project will cause these people to have a different understanding of the PCCES encoding
system when using it. These differences in understanding have resulted in non-compliant
materials in the project. However, these non-compliant materials have accumulated over
time, presenting challenges for the database. Due to these reasons, with the accumulation
of days and months, the database has become full of non-compliant data.

194
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

1.3. Benefits and Challenges of the PCCES

The PCCES occupies a very important position in the field of public construction
works in Taiwan. Public construction projects require the use of the PCCES in accordance
with the law, so these projects have uniform specifications that can be followed. The
PCCES offers some benefits after collecting a large number of projects and integrating
data. For example, according to the PCC announcement [3], the PCCES can improve
the efficiency and credibility of fund review and fund comparison, avoid repeating the
establishment of system software and hardware by various agencies, save national public
funds, and reduce the opportunities for restricting competition and restricting bidding
during project bidding.
Although the PCCES does bring these benefits and helps users a lot, some researches
have pointed out problems with the system. For instance, users are not used to the stan-
dardized work items and resource codes in the PCCES [5]. Users need longer education and
training to be familiar with and operate the PCCES [6]. Many practical applications are still
not included in the PCCES [7,8]. The operation of the PCCES is time-consuming, requires
a lot of manpower, and has a high error rate [9]. Moreover, in the production of PCCES
documents there are general contradictions between architects and construction companies
in measurement and calculation methods, and some measurement and calculation methods
do not conform to the PCCES coding standard [10].

1.4. Research Objectives

This study focuses on the development of a machine-learning-based system to auto-
correct a public database of the construction field that contains the PCCES data in Taiwan.
People cannot use the data in the public database as the database is filled with messy data.
In actuality, while people use many tools for managing construction data, the data are still
chaotic. The quality of these data depends on how familiar a user is with the tools. There is
no classification method that can consider the meaning of construction specifications in
the construction classification system’s database and then automatically correct the wrong
data. Therefore, this study aims to develop a machine-learning-based system to improve
the performance of people who work on the construction files and need to use construction
classification systems. The developed method should achieve the following goals:
(1) Develop an auto-correct function to automatically correct the data from public
databases related to the construction field and the unstructured construction project
data. Users could use this function to correct data that they obtained from the open
data database made by the government.
(2) Develop a recommender function, which can help users to perform their job efficiently
without having experience in construction classification systems.

2. Literature Review
In order to develop a system that can automatically structuralize the construction data,
this study first reviews the characteristics and challenges of construction data management
(Section 2.1). Then, the novel methods for unistructural data processing proposed by other
studies is discussed in Section 2.2. Lastly, the review of state-of-the-art machine-learning-
based approaches to construction data processing is conducted in Section 2.3.

2.1. Challenges in Construction Data Management

Processing unstructured data is considered one of the most critical challenges in
construction data management. Project owners, architects, contractors, and suppliers com-
municate and coordinate through various documents. It is common that documents have
different naming conventions for the same object [11]. The different naming conventions
increase the time and cost of processing the data as the personnel need to organize the
raw materials for further communications. Attempts are being made by some to use a
construction classification system (CCS), such as the MasterFormat [12], UniFormat [13],
and OmniClass [12], to lower the extra cost of data processing. CCS usually uses layers of

195
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

coding to categorize various materials and adds narrative descriptions. This system allows
all team members to use the storage efficiently and use retrieval mechanism codes in the
system to reference specific parts of any document, reducing the cost [14]. However, even
users who are working on the same project will have different CCS systems according
to their various roles in the project. It is not feasible to make all users familiar with the
CCS systems used by each other: the learning cost is too high. Not all of the team mem-
bers are familiar with these specifications, which may cause the inputted data to remain
unstructured.
In the field of construction engineering, there is also the problem of dealing with
the unstructured data [15–17]. Unstructured data mean the data set is not stored in the
structured format in the database; an alternative definition may be that the data do not
follow a predefined data model composition. This makes the data irregular, ambiguous,
and difficult to understand using traditional computer programs [18]. Many documents are
generated in a construction project, including images and text. The text-based unstructured
materials include contract templates, construction specifications, quality documents, and
material management documents [17]. Among them, only 20% of the available data are
structured and stored in a relational database, while approximately 80% are unstructured
text and stored in various forms of documents [19]. Traditionally, unstructured data
are expected to be converted to structured data by manual work. However, acquiring
knowledge from unstructured data is usually painful and expensive [20]. Therefore, several
studies have been conducted to determine a simpler and cheaper means of retrieving useful
information from unstructured data.

2.2. Unstructured Data Processing

Unstructured data have been considered a critical challenge in data management for
decades. Several studies have been conducted on transferring the unstructured data into
useful information in many fields. For instance, Kharrazi et al. used natural language
processing (NLP) to solve the problem of unstructured electronic health records [21]. Luo
et al. used the knowledge from data specialists and computer data modules to extract
structured data from unstructured medical records [22]. In the business field, Farhadloo
et al. attempted to discover the relative importance of each service or unique product
using the Bayesian method for a customer review system [23]. These investigators used an
online analytical processing (OLAP) system to analyze unstructured data from multiple
perspectives, including text mining (TM), information retrieval (IR), and information
extraction (IE), in an attempt to extract business intelligence from unstructured data.
In the field of construction engineering, researchers have also tried to solve the problem
of unstructured data. In the study of [16], a view-based method was used, with metadata
models to convert documents to structured data. Alsubaey et al. presented a Naïve Bayes
text mining approach to identify early warnings of failure from meeting records [24].
Kim and Chi developed a system based on natural language processing (NLP) to extract
hidden knowledge from construction accident cases [25]. Even though studies have been
conducted that address unstructured data, none of these results can solve the problem that
the CCS faces.
The issue for the CCS is in the material codes and in challenges in providing accurate
description of materials. For materials in the CCS, there is a coding system for specifications,
and the CCS uses specific terms to describe the specifications. However, in actuality, not
everyone can master the coding system and become familiar with these terms. People use
unprofessional terms in construction files at work, and it works fine as these terms are
readable. Even though the codes and descriptions in construction files are invalid in the
CCS, these construction files contain data with coding errors yet proper descriptions of
unstructured data.
Machine learning is a popular solution to convert unstructured data into structured
data. Machine learning is flourishing due to the improvement of hardware computing
power, the reduction of data storage costs, and the innovation of various algorithms.

196
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

With the advancement of machine learning, various machine learning algorithms enable
the model to learn from data, which makes computers able to handle more and more
tasks. After training the model with a large number of examples, classifying the data or
predicting the model training, the model can extract information from samples to learn
and can complete specific tasks or prediction. These abilities allow a computer to complete
specific tasks or make predictions for a variety of applications. Machine learning can
gradually replace human resources in specific tasks, such as in autonomous vehicles [26],
voice recognition [27], weather prediction [28], face recognition [29], lie detection [7], image
processing [30], etc.

2.3. Machine-Learning-Based Methods For Construction Data Processing

A typical construction project may have thousands of outstanding issues. An artificial
intelligence program that can help humans systematize these problems and the data
accompanying them would greatly improve the efficiency of work. There are many things
that artificial intelligence can accomplish. For images, in the unstructured data processing
of images, some algorithms have performed classification of pictures directly [31], and
some studies have algorithms that give these images a text caption, then these images
became text data [32]. For text, Wu et al. used natural language analysis to automatically
extract keyword lists from pathological examination reports [33]. Nandhakumar et al. used
the characteristics of words or sentences and conditional random field (CRF) models to
extract important parts of medical reports [34]. The methods described above are attempts
made to structure data.

3. ACS Methodology
3.1. System Overview
This study proposes an automatic correction system (ACS) that can correct the data
automatically or provide a recommended list to users for manual correction. The proposed
system includes three primary modules: a data processing module, a search processing
module, and a mapping processing module. Figure 2 shows the system overview of the
ACS. The data processing module processes the raw data collected from different resources
and then stores them in the result database. The main job of the data processing module is
to train a word embedding model and establish a result data set. The search processing
module processes the target data input by the user and then puts them into the word
embedding model to find data with higher similarity. The data processing module and the
search processing module both use the same text processor [35]. The following sections
will describe each module sequentially.

Figure 2. The designed system structures for the automatic correction system (ACS).

197
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

3.2. Data Processing Module

The data processing module processes the raw data then uses the processed raw data
to train a word embedding model. This study used the corrected blank valuations and the
CCS system manual as the raw data. The data processing module uses the text processor to
normalize the data that were manually extracted from the raw data. These processed data
will then be inserted into a corpus. Subsequently, correct code, correct name, correct name’s
segmentation, and original name’s segmentation are extracted from the corpus as the result
data and stored in the result database. At the end of this module, the corpus is taken as the
input for training the word embedding model. Figure 3 shows the system overview of the
ACS.

Figure 3. The workflow of the ACS’s data processing module.

3.2.1. Raw Data Collection

For the raw data collection, the system manuals and blank valuations were collected
that related to a specific CCS. The ACS has a particular use in correcting a public database
associated with one specific CCS, and the performance of the ACS depends on the quality of
the collected data. System descriptive documents were collected from the institutions that
manage CCS, and blank valuations that use CCS were received from a private company’s
real cases. For the descriptive documents of the ACS, they at least contain specifications,
descriptions, and coding systems. These correct codes and descriptions were extracted as a
data column to two data fields in the “Manual Extracted Data,” termed as “Correct Code”
and “Correct Name.” The inaccurate description was also extracted as a data column,
termed as “Original Name”.

3.2.2. Text Processor

The text preprocessing is advantageous for the subsequent classification results and
can reduce the complexity of the calculation. Figure 4 shows workflow of the ACS’s text
processor. The text processor handles the text preprocessing and contains the following
tasks: stop word removal, lowercase conversion, normalization, and tokenization. Af-
ter users enter data, such as a sentence, the text processor removes stop words [36], converts
uppercase and lowercase letters to be consistent, normalizes the preprocessing data ob-
tained thus far, and finally uses tokenization to segment the data. An alias dictionary is
utilized for the tokenizing. The dictionary includes synonyms, which can increase the
quality of statements [35].
198
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Figure 4. The workflow of the text processor.

3.3. Search Processing Module

For the search processing module, the input is the target data that the user keys in,
and the output data are data with higher similarity obtained from the word embedding
model. After the data processing module trains the word embedding model, the search
processing module uses the text processor to handle the input target data and convert the
target data into segmentations. Subsequently, the segmentation is taken as the input to the
word embedding model to find similar data. The output of this module is the similar data
that the model found. Figure 5 shows the system overview of the ACS.

Figure 5. The workflow of the search process module.

3.3.1. Word Embedding

Word embedding is one of the most popular representations in documentation vo-
cabulary [37]. It can capture the context, semantic, and syntactic similarity of words in
documents, and the relationships with other words. Roughly speaking, it is vector rep-
resentations of specific words. The program cannot directly use the text contained in an
electronic file, and thus the text needs to be converted into a format that the computer can
handle, with word vector representation being one of these conversion methods. A series
of processing steps will be performed on the text until the text becomes a sentence or word.
These sentences or words are given an independent code, and the code is a vector.
There are many ways to do word embedding, such as hashing vectorizer [38], count vec-
torizer [39], and Term Frequency – Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) vectorizer [40].
The method we used in this system was a shallow neural network, where by learning a large
amount of text, words are transformed into vectors in vector space. Then, a distribution
of a large number of vectors in vector space is used to calculate similarity and find words
with similar meanings. Words with the same meanings have identical representations.
This representation is considered a fundamental breakthrough in machine learning for
natural language processing problems [41]. Here, the characteristics of word embedding
technologies are taken as the core application of the system.
Word embedding methods include dimensionality reduction of word co-occurrence
matrices [42–44], probability models [45], and explicit representation of the context in which
words are located [46]. In the ACS, we used the continuous bag of words (CBOW) [47] as
the language model to obtain the vector matrix. Figure 6 shows the system overview of
the ACS.

199
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Figure 6. The architecture of the continuous bag of words (CBOW) model.

In the CBOW model, the context of surrounding words is used to predict the word in
the middle. The input layer is one-hot encoding [48] and the size is equal to N. Each element
in the input layer corresponds to the words in a vocabulary. Zero means no input, and
a 1 means a word is input. The hidden layer is the input layer multiplied by the weight
matrix (1 × N * N × V = 1 × V). Since the input is a hot-coded vector, the hidden layer is
the result of superimposing multiple rows from the weight matrix. The row index of these
rows is equal to the index, with the input element being 1. Therefore, the input layer is like
a lookup table for the weight matrix row search.

3.3.2. Similarity Calculation

The ACS uses text similarity to correct the data. For example, there are data that have
been classified as wrong data, since the description is not sufficiently accurate even if it is
semantically close. The system can replace the incorrect data with the most similar data if
they can be found from the model.
The ACS deals with the text that users entered as a result and then inserts the results
into the word embedding model. The result is the segmentation of the text. The model will
give a vector to the result, which can represent the result in the model’s vector space. Then,
this study uses the cosine similarity [49–51] to calculate the similarity of vectors. The ACS
takes the results in the result database, inputs them into the model to obtain vectors, and
then uses the vectors from the results and the vectors from user model entries. After the
vectors are input to the model, the ACS calculates the normalized dot-product from the
cosine angle. Given two data a and b represented as two vectors Va and Vb , the cosine
similarity can be calculated as Equation (1).

∑iN=1 Va ·Vb
cosine(Va , Vb ) = + + . (1)
∑iN=1 Vai 2 ∑iN=1 Vbi 2

Va is the frequency of each word in the user statement after being disassembled. Vb
is the frequency of each word in the corpus statement after being disassembled. The
cosine(Va , Vb ) can represent the similarity of these two vectors. The closer the angle is to
zero degrees, the more similar the two vectors are.

3.4. Mapping Process Module

The mapping process module finds the correct code from the result data set depending
on the similar data from the search processing module. The system obtains a data set and
data after finishing the above two modules. The result database contains the data processed
by the text processor in the data processing module. The data in the database are similar to
200
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

the target data processed by the search processing module. The mapping process module
will pick the data from the similar data one by one as keywords to query the result database.
If it finds the data that contain the segmentation that 100% matches the keyword, it takes
the correct code from the data as the output. Figure 7 shows the system overview of the
ACS.

Figure 7. The workflow of the mapping process module.

4. Implementation
This research used the PCCES data as the training data to implement the developed
system. The following subsections will describe the training data and the implementation
of the ACS’s three modules.

4.1. Training Data

For data training, in this study two types of data were collected for training the
word embedding model: the PCCES manual and manually corrected actual project data.
The latter was used, as these data were more in line with real work scenarios.

4.1.1. PCCES System Manuals

In the PCCES manuals, there are many of the specification codes and instructions.
Anyone who wants to use the PCCES to estimate the project budget needs to know how
to use the PCCES manuals. People need to be trained to know which objects they want
to evaluate and where to place the objects, such as human resources, machines, materials,
methods, and the environment. Then, they need to select the correct manual chapter. The
specification code and description contain different layers, and thus a code and specification
are needed for picking objects layer by layer. Finally, after combining these picked codes
and specifications, the data processing is completed with 100% accuracy.
One-hundred percent correct information was obtained from the manual. There are
18 chapters in PCCES manuals, which cover the tender documents and contract items
such as general requirements and fieldwork. This study only selected concrete chapters
for implementations.
In a chapter there are multiple sections, and each section has a code designed for
the name, specification, and unit of the material. Permutations were used to generate
all possible data. The grid shown in Table 1 was used to choose one code from each
column and combine them as a specification code with a description. For example, the
code “03330/4/2/0/0/2” means “Building Concrete/Ready-Mixed Underwater Con-
crete/140 kgf/cm2 /M2 .” The exhaustive method in the table was used to list all specifi-
cation codes, with these specification codes being one of the training data for the word
embedding model.

201
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Table 1. The example of the PCCES manuals.

Chemical
Chapter Compressive Cement Type Valuation Unit
Chapter Name Class (6th) Admixture
No. Strength (7th) (8th) (10th)
(9th)
Building
03330 (0) (0) (0) (0) M (1)
Concrete
Machine-mixed
80 kgf/cm2 (1) - - M2 (2)
(1)
Ready-mixed
140 kgf/cm2 (2) - - 3 M (3)
(2)
Machine-mixed
175 kgf/cm2 (3) - - Lump (4)
underwater (3)
Ready-mixed
280 kgf/cm2 (4) - - T (5)
underwater (4)
Ready-mixed,
315 kgf/cm2 (5) - - Piece (6)
under 10F (5)
Ready-mixed,
350 kgf/cm2 (6) - - Each (7)
under 20F (6)
Ready-mixed,
400 kgf/cm2 (7) - - Set (8)
under 30F (7)
- - - - KG (9)

4.1.2. Blank Valuations

Real project documents were obtained from two companies, Knowledge Analy-
sis Space Exploration, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan and United Geotech, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan,
which were undertaking public works, and these documents were one of the word em-
bedding model training data sets. Each construction project contained a large number of
documents and data files. The desired files in these documents and files were the price
valuation files. The price valuation file contained names, terms, and aliases of objects or
materials in the construction files. In actuality, the price valuation file may contain vague
information that people can understand while the PCCES cannot. The system is unable
to process the information and needs humans to correct it for the system to understand.
Those corrected files were the desired files for collection as they contained two types
of information: vague information and manually structured data. These two types of
information can point to each other. Table 2 lists the example of the valuation we collected.

Table 2. The example of corrected blank valuation.

Wrong Data Correct Data

Work Item/Material Code Work Item/Material Code
Technician L00000520A5 Senior Worker L000006200001
Unskilled Laborer L0000061005 Junior Worker L000006100001
Product, Road Marking,
Plastic Road Marking M02898A003 M0289801009
Glass Ball
Reflective Glass Ball M02898B003 Road Marking, Glass Ball 02898B0009
Product, Road Marking
Adhesive M02900C000F M0289800019
Adhesive
Equipment Fee E0512450001 Not Classified Machinery E000001000004
Tool Wear W0127120004 Tool Wear W0127120004

4.2. System Implementation

The ACS can be divided into four parts: the text processor, the database, the model
training, and the searching and mapping. In this section, the implementation of these four
parts is introduced.

202
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

4.2.1. Text Processing

The text processor used in the ACS was developed and used in our previous work [35].
In the previous work, a proper term dictionary was already constructed to improve the
quality of data segmentation. This dictionary was used to develop a text processor, which
could be used to handle any data imported into the system. Since the PCCES is written
in Chinese, we implemented specific Chinese text processors, especially for Taiwan’s
construction field.
We constructed a dictionary for terms in Taiwan’s construction field to solve these
issues. This dictionary was used in the text processor to normalize the data. The text
processor unified inconsistent units in Chinese, removed and replaced Chinese symbols
and stop words, and replaced unit symbols with the real letter or number. The results are
shown in Table 3. For example, if the input text was “Building Concrete and Ready-Mixed
Underwater Concrete/140 kgf/cm2 /m2 ,” the output would be “Building Concrete/Ready-
Mixed Underwater Concrete/140 kgf/cm2 /M2 .”

Table 3. The characteristics that this study processed in the text processor.

Before Action
Stop words “.” (period) Remove
Symbols “m2 ” (square meter) Replace with “m2 ”
Unnecessary prepositions “and”, “or”, “included” Remove
Full width character “(” (left parenthesis), “˛” (period) Remove
Replace with “210
Unify units “3000psi”
kgf/cm2 ”

4.2.2. Database
Specific information was extracted from the raw data and stored in a database for
use in training the word embedding model. For the training data, there were already the
PCCES manuals and blank valuations. However, these data were raw data that could not
be used to train the word embedding model directly, and thus there was a need to first
preprocess these data. One-hundred percent correct data were already generated from
PCCES manuals. Furthermore, there were the original and corrected blank valuations. The
100% accurate data had two data types: specification code and specification description. For
the fixed blank valuations, there were four data types: correct specification code, accurate
specification description, invalid specification code, and invalid specification description.
These four different data types were combined as four data table fields. The correct
specification description and incorrect specification description were used to extend the
other data fields, termed as “correct description segmentation” and “original description
segmentation.” This data field was used to store the result of the text preprocessing module
after processing the specification text.
For example, consider three data strings. The first was from 100% correct data and was
“0331043003, Building Concrete and Ready-Mixed Underwater Concrete 140 kgf/cm2 m3 .”
The others were from the corrected blank valuations and were “0331000003, 140 kgf/cm2
premix concrete” and “0331023003, Building Concrete and Ready-Mixed Concrete
140 kgf/cm2 m3 .” After segmenting the data in the text processor, the data and data
segmentation were placed in the data table, as shown in Tables 4 and 5.

203
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Table 4. The example of 100% correct data that this study made from the PCCES manuals.

Field Name Value

Correct_Code 0331043003
Building Concrete and Ready-Mixed
Correct_Desc
Underwater Concrete 140 kgf/cm2 m2
Original_Code N/A
Original_Desc N/A
“building concrete,” “ready-mixed,”
Correct_Desc_Seg
“underwater,” “concrete,” “140 kgf/cm3 ,””m3 ”
Original_Desc_Seg N/A

Table 5. The example of the corrected blank valuation that this study obtained.

Field Name Value

Correct_Code 0331023003
Building Concrete and Ready-Mixed Concrete
Correct_Desc
140 kgf/cm2 m2
Original_Code 331000003
Original_Desc 140 kgf/cm2 premix concrete
“building concrete,” “ready-mixed,”
Correct_Desc_Seg
“concrete,” “140 kgf/cm3 ,””m3 ”
Original_Desc_Seg “140 kgf/cm2 ,” “ready-mixed”

4.2.3. Model Training

In this study, data segmentation and the CBOW were used to train the model. The seg-
mentation was stored in the previously constructed database. The language model used
was CBOW, which was developed by Tomas Mikolov [47]. Because the scope of application
of this research was for a small field, the use of CBOW was enough for the goal of solving
this research, and compared with other models such as BERT [52] and GPT-2 [53], the cost
of CBOW was low, due to reduced hardware requirements, reduced data volume, and
more constant training time, so this study chose CBOW. The CBOW language model has
been implemented in the gensim package provided in Python. This study used the gensim
package to train the CBOW model.
In the database, the correct description segmentation and original description segmen-
tation were already present. The segmentation was combined as a huge list that contained
18,513 data rows. This list was the input of the CBOW, and the output was the word
embedding model. The listing method is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. The list of segmentation that this study used to train the word embedding model.

Index Segmentation List

1 0331023003
“building concrete,” “ready-mixed,”
2
“underwater,” “concrete,” “140 kgf/cm3 ,””m3 ”
... ...
n “140 kgf/cm2 ,” “ready-mixed”

4.2.4. Searching
The goal of the search function was to find the 10 most similar data and return the data
to the user. In the search function, after the user entered a term, sentence, or messy text,
the system used a text processor to process the text entered by the user. After processing
the input text using a text processor, the text processor generated a word segmentation,
with the quality of the word segmentation equal to that of the training data. With these
word segmentations, the training data with the correct data were extracted from the
database and segmented. Then, in the word embedding model, one by one, the user input
204
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

text segmentation and training data segmentation performed calculations to find the 10
most similar data.

4.2.5. Mapping
The comparison function found the correct coding and narrative from the database
according to the 10 most similar words. In the search function, the system completed
the search and provided the 10 most similar words to the comparison function. The
type of data was word segmentation, and it could not be used directly. At this time, the
comparison function was needed to restore the word segmentation to the original text
narrative, which was why the segmentation was stored in the database. SQL statements
were used to compose database query commands, to query 10 segmentations of similar
data separately, to find the correct code and correct description, and then to display it on
the user interface for the user.

5. Validation
To validate that the ACS could structuralize and correct the existing data in the
PCCES, this research conducted a system evaluation to evaluate the performance of the
ACS. Additionally, a user test was also conducted to test if the recommendation function of
the ACS could help related personnel to correct the data with higher efficiency. Two tests
were designed to verify the usability of the ACS, one for the system evaluation and one
for the user test. Whether the auto-correction function was complete and feasible was first
tested, followed by testing of the recommendation function.

5.1. System Evaluation

A system evaluation test was conducted to validate the accuracy of the developed
auto-correction function of the ACS. This study used the PCCES as an example and used
real data from two companies in Taiwan as the data sources. The following subsections
will describe the data source, classification, and the results of the test.

5.1.1. Data Source

The real data was obtained from two companies in Taiwan: Knowledge Analysis
Space Exploration, Inc. and United Geotech, Inc. Furthermore, we generated 10,906 pieces
of 100% correct data from the PCCES manuals. Totals of 5847 and 1382 raw data points
were obtained from Knowledge Analysis Space Exploration, Inc. and United Geotech, Inc.,
respectively. The reason that these data were desirable was that they were from actual
work projects; regardless of whether the code or the description of these data were correct,
the project is still working fine, which means that the semantics in the data is accurate or
close to the object.
For the 100% correct data, as per the codes and specifications listed in Table 1, six layers
were included in the table. The PCCES manuals were used by picking one code and
one description from each layer, depending on whether the description met the target
material, and then combining these components. Finally, the data that perfectly fit the
PCCES manuals were obtained. The user needed to insert this material in the project
documentation if there was new material used in the construction project. For example, for
a premixed concrete that had no additives and a strength of 4000 psi, then Table 1 could
be used to generate the code and description for this material. The code of this material
would be “0333024003,” and the description would be “Building Concrete, Ready-Mixed
Concrete, 280 kgf/cm2 , M3.”

5.1.2. Classification
The corrected data were obtained after the raw data were processed by the devel-
oped system. These corrected data were used to calculate the accuracy of the automatic
construction function to validate the performance and accuracy of the ACS. The obtained
data included the raw data and correct data to calculate the accuracy of the corrected data.

205
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Furthermore, the raw data and accurate data could correspond to each other. With the
correct answers, we could know whether the system modified the data correctly or not.
Four rules were used to determine whether the automatically corrected data was
correct to evaluate the accuracy of the automatic correction function: (1) if the raw data,
manual correction data, and system correction data were all the same, it was correct;
(2) if the manual calibration data and the machine calibration data were the same, it was
accurate; (3) if the original data and the machine calibration data were the same, it was
correct; and (4) after finishing the comparison with the first three rules, the information
that was not included in the above three rules would be manually checked.

5.1.3. Results and Discussion for System Evaluation

In this section, the test result of the auto-correction function is presented. For the
auto-correction function, the above four rules were used to judge whether the corrected
data were correct. After completing the comparisons, 7392 and 1532 data points were
obtained based on the first and second rules, respectively. Additionally, 4268 data points
were obtained based on the third rule. Then, 1025 data points were confirmed manually.
A total of 14,217 correct data points were obtained after the system processed the 18,551
input data points for a 76.64% accuracy. The results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. The results of the auto-correction function evaluation.

Correct
Total Subtotal
Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Rate
(A) (B)
(B/Ax100)
18,551 7392 1532 4268 1025 14,217 76.64%

In the automatic correction function, the system took out the most similar data from the
10 most similar data and used these data to correct the wrong data. But in the failure cases,
we observed that the correct answers to some of the failure cases were actually included in
the 10 most similar data, but they were not the number one answers. In addition, there
were some failure cases because they did not exist in the training data, such as tremie pipe
and sprayed concrete, etc., so these cases were not applicable to this system.

5.2. User Test

Besides the auto-correction function, the ACS also provided a recommendation func-
tion to help the user correct the data manually. In order to test the usability of the rec-
ommendation function, this study designed a test and invited eight actual practitioners
and students from the Department of Civil and Construction Engineering to use the ACS.
The subjects were asked to conduct nine tasks by using both the PCCES and ACS. The
operation times of each task were recorded for further analysis.

5.2.1. Background of the Subjects

For the user test, we invited eight users who had many years of industry experience
and could use the PCCES proficiently at work, as well as students who had no work
experience and no experience in using the PCCES. These users tested whether people
with the same background in a specific field were familiar with the PCCES differently and
whether there were differences in test results. The subjects included five civil engineering
students without any experience in using the PCCES, and three civil engineers with 1, 4,
and 8 years’ experience. The details of these users are shown in Table 8.

206
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Table 8. The background information of the invited subjects.

Subject Background Experience in Using PCCES (Years)

Undergrad student from Civil
A 0
Engineering Department
Graduate students from Civil
B 0
Engineering Department
Graduate students from Civil
C 0
Engineering Department
Graduate students from Civil
D 0
Engineering Department
Graduate students from Civil
E 0
Engineering Department
F Civil Engineer 1
G Civil Engineer 4
H Civil Engineer 8

5.2.2. Testing Scenario

In actuality, users often use email and Microsoft Excel when they are working. The
resulting electronic documents contain various kinds of information. Users need to retrieve
useful information from the electronic documents and then manually extract this informa-
tion from the manual, finding the correct code and specification description in the PCCES
to meet the work specification.
In this test scenario, we simulated the user’s process of using the PCCES to create data
in accordance with the description of materials, manpower, and equipment in the Excel
file. Ten raw materials were extracted from some actual work project data to simulate the
real work situation (Table 9). The eight testers were asked to use the PCCES and ACS to
find their correct codes and specifications. At the same time, the time when they found the
code was recorded, giving a usage time, and these statistics were further used to evaluate
the benefits of the ACS for its users.

Table 9. List of the 10 tasks that were used in the user test.

Task Raw Data

T1 Structure concrete, ready-mixed, 210 kgf/cm2
T2 Structure concrete, including placing and compacting
T3 210 kg/cm2 ready-mixed concrete
T4 Concrete placing and compacting
Structure concrete, ready-mixed, 210 kgf/cm2 , nighttime
T5
construction
Structure concrete, ready-mixed, 140 kgf/cm2 , nighttime
T6
construction
T7 140 kgf/cm2 ready-mixed concrete
Structure concrete, ready-mixed, 140 kgf/cm2 , daytime
T8
construction
T9 175 kg/cm2 ready-mixed concrete
T10 280 kg/cm2 ready-mixed concrete

5.2.3. Results and Discussion for the User Test

In this section, the results of asking users to check the recommendation function are
presented. For the recommendation function, we mainly compared whether the ACS could
help users work more efficiently than the PCCES, so the operating time was examined.
For the recommendation function, the times taken by users to process 10 raw data
points using the two methods of the PCCES and ACS were recorded, and the processing
times of the users according to each topic were averaged, as shown in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10 shows that after repeated operation of the PCCES, all the users minimized their
operating times, and this minimum value could not be lowered. Additionally, as a result,
207
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

as shown in Table 11, no matter how good a user was at operating the PCCES, users had
really low operating times in the ACS. The average operating times of each question in the
two systems are shown in Figure 8. Comparing these two systems, even if the users were
allowed to repeat the operation 10 times in the PCCES, the average working time of the
PCCES was much higher than that of the ACS.

Table 10. Results of the user test with the PCCES.

Operation Time (Sec.)

User
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Total Avg.
Q1 62.80 59.40 72.60 61.60 65.20 37.70 31.30 113.11 35.90 52.50 592.11 59.21
Q2 74.77 64.20 52.54 43.08 51.73 33.18 29.81 37.28 29.64 27.45 443.68 44.37
Q3 102.64 50.81 68.09 33.33 59.56 44.06 31.66 33.97 32.54 36.55 493.20 49.32
Q4 62.75 85.04 72.15 45.26 53.25 45.78 41.16 40.51 41.15 32.60 519.65 51.97
Q5 69.04 87.15 51.87 42.07 53.88 49.01 37.02 42.18 35.76 41.19 509.17 50.92
Q6 83.82 71.67 49.50 56.35 51.79 47.19 45.06 39.62 33.76 29.30 518.06 51.81
Q7 43.23 37.09 30.50 31.44 33.35 29.57 35.95 28.88 28.82 28.92 327.75 32.78
Q8 86.27 97.47 99.77 63.55 67.59 46.86 49.89 52.99 52.99 39.44 646.57 64.66
Total 585.32 552.83 497.01 376.68 446.35 333.35 301.85 388.54 388.54 287.95 - -
Avg. 73.17 69.10 62.13 47.09 55.79 41.67 37.73 48.57 48.57 35.99 - -

Table 11. Results of the user test with the ACS.

Operation Time (Sec.)

User
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Total Avg.
Q1 12.15 17.90 22.11 22.72 30.81 28.11 27.25 21.60 23.02 22.30 227.97 22.80
Q2 11.14 22.83 20.38 19.20 24.52 21.78 21.29 21.96 20.44 21.37 204.91 20.49
Q3 18.30 15.12 29.43 30.68 28.01 24.92 22.82 27.51 25.14 21.39 243.32 24.33
Q4 16.76 13.09 24.14 22.76 28.61 27.13 37.92 23.62 18.42 22.33 234.78 23.48
Q5 15.61 20.36 31.42 25.92 27.95 28.04 29.01 26.26 25.32 27.97 257.86 25.79
Q6 21.34 16.82 38.53 38.23 32.84 31.97 28.09 28.72 26.69 25.01 288.24 28.82
Q7 12.01 19.42 17.52 16.43 23.14 17.75 17.57 22.18 15.68 16.66 178.36 17.84
Q8 25.80 16.63 23.10 28.34 37.57 20.23 20.33 25.06 23.69 19.50 240.25 24.03
Total 133.11 142.17 206.63 204.28 233.45 199.93 204.28 196.91 178.40 176.53 - -
Avg. 16.64 17.77 25.83 25.54 29.18 24.99 25.54 24.61 22.30 22.07 - -

In this testing, we found that for a continuously operating system, as the familiarity
increases, the user’s operating time will decrease to a point at which, finally, there is a
bottleneck that prevents further reductions. The decline rate of the operating time of the
PCCES was significant; however, the rate of decrease for the ACS was less obvious, and
the user’s operating time was almost the same. It could be seen that the recommendation
function of the ACS greatly eliminated this proficiency factor. Compared with the PCCES,
using the recommendation function of the ACS helped users save 54% of the operation time.

208
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Figure 8. The average operating time for each task by eight users in two systems.

6. Discussions
The main contribution of this research is the development of a system that can auto-
matically correct public databases in the field of construction engineering in Taiwan for
a database that is full of chaotic data. Two main functions are implemented in the ACS:
the auto-correction function and the recommendation function. No manual intervention is
required during the processing of the auto-correction function, which can reduce the user’s
workload. The recommendation function allows users to input different keywords or
similar words. The function will process the input text data and automatically check to find
the most similar and standard data to provide to the user. The language model was trained
based on the collected 18,551 data points, used to calculate the similarity between the user
input text and the correct data, and then used the accurate data in the automatic correction
function or provided a list of user recommendations. The auto-correction function was
used to summarize 18,551 data points at an accuracy of 76%. Ten data out of the 18,551
were taken for user operation. Compared with the PCCES, using the recommendation
function can help users save 54% in operation time.

6.1. Contributions
In the existing public database in Taiwan, there is a large amount of messy data,
so that the Taiwan government needs to stipulate the accuracy rate of the data by law.
We attempted to use the auto-correction function of the ACS to solve the problem of this
messy data.
(1) The ACS can automatically correct and structuralize the untrusted construction
data. Many studies have been conducted to structuralize the semi-structured data. For
instance, Woo et al. used the text clustering method to clean the large-scaled medical
report data [54]. Soto et al. proposed the ViTA-SSD system that allows the user to
explore the insightful patterns in the semi-structured data by providing a visualized
analysis method [55]. However, these methods still require lots of human interactions
on results checking, correcting, and exploring. Instead, the ACS used a machine-
learning-based method that can automatically correct and structuralize the construction
data. It allows the ACS to improve quality and output efficiency and does not require
human intervention in the processing process, which can reduce the workload of users.
209
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

Furthermore, the automation of operations to achieve the maximum benefit is a current

industrial target.
(2) The ACS provides a recommendation function that can improve the related per-
sonnel’s working efficiency and accuracy. As not everyone can be proficient in under-
standing the PCCES coding specifications, the produced data are often non-standard.
Even for users who are skilled in using the PCCES, due to the operation steps of the
PCCES, the operation time will encounter a bottleneck and cannot continue to be re-
duced. The recommendation function of the ACS is an attempt to solve the above
two problems. By providing a more user-friendly experience and removing the need
for familiarity of coding standards, the user’s operating time and data accuracy are
improved.
(3) The ACS successfully reduces the threshold of operating the data management
system. It can be seen from the test of the recommendation function that, regardless of
whether users have used the PCCES or not, when operating the PCCES, as the number
of operations increases, the proficiency will increase, and the operation time will not
continue to reduce past a certain level. This is because the PCCES code is attached and
the operation interface has a lower operating time, even if the user is already skilled.
The recommendation function implemented by the ACS relies on the user entering
divergent keywords or similar words, such as material names, aliases, or specifications,
and other obscure data. The system then provides the results that meet the PCCES
specifications for the user to select. The benefit of the recommendation function is
that it removes the variable proficiency levels. Regardless of whether the user has a
professional background or is familiar with coding standards, he or she can rely on
keywords to find the correct result.
(4) The system we developed is not limited to the PCCES, it can be applied to differ-
ent CCS systems. Since the system is based on the CBOW language model, the data
we collect will determine the application direction of this system. In this study, we use
the data related to the PCCES system to obtain the model after training and use this
model to classify and correct the wrong PCCES data. In other words, if the training
data are replaced by another CCS system, this system can also be utilized on other CCS
systems.

6.2. Limitations
(1) In this study, the data collected limited the scope of the ACS in the PCCES. In
machine learning, data are the foundation of everything, where only by having more
data can the application scope and accuracy be expanded. In this study, we only
implemented one section of the PCCES coding specification. Most of the collected data
belong to this category, as it is one of the most commonly used codes in this section.
Furthermore, the specification description contained in this section has a description of
the strength of the concrete. If this section can be improved, the coding accuracy rate
will be beneficial for the PCCES as a whole.
(2) The accuracy of the ACS is not sufficient. In this study, we used 18,551 PCCES
data to train the CBOW model, applied it to a small range of the PCCES, and got a
76.64% correct rate. The application range of the ACS in the PCCES depends on the data
we collected, and although the accuracy of 76.64% was much higher than the 37.47%
announced by PCC, it is not good enough to meet expectations. The application range
of the ACS in the PCCES is not that wide. The average accuracy rate will decrease when
the application range of the ACS is expanded and extended to a range that is difficult
to automatically correct if the higher accuracy rate is not achieved in the application
range for now. For the system that uses machine learning technology, the amount of
data collected will affect the trained model and then affect its accuracy. If we can obtain
more information, we may be able to improve the accuracy rate.

210
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

7. Conclusions
This research proposed a data correction system, the ACS, for automatically correcting
the public construction data. The system we developed provides data auto-correction
and recommendation features to improve human working performance and reduce the
threshold of operating the data management system. A text classification system, the
ACS, was developed using language models based on natural language processing and
machine learning to correct public databases in the field of construction in Taiwan; at the
same time, this system is also proposed to help users produce correct data more efficiently.
By using a machine-learning-based language model to analyze text semantics and provide
higher accuracy and efficiency information, the ACS can improve the efficiency of actual
users and the accuracy of data in construction projects. In the automatic calibration test,
a 76% accuracy rate was obtained after correcting 18,551 data points. A user test was also
conducted on the recommendation function. A question was provided containing 10 real
data points as well as a questionnaire to perform a user test on eight participants to observe
them solving the problem under the two systems. After the trial, for the average processing
time for each data point, 51.95% of the time was saved. From the test results, it was found
that users using the ACS were more efficient than when using the original system and could
accurately produce materials that meet the specifications. The results show that the ACS
can effectively save operation time of the CCS and thus reduce the threshold of operating
the data management system by providing a recommendation function. The proposed
method can not only be used in the PCCES but can also be deployed to different CCS
systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.-H.T.; data curation, M.-H.T. and M.-L.Y.; methodology,
M.-H.T. and M.-L.Y.; software, M.-L.Y.; validation, M.-L.Y.; writing—original draft, M.-L.Y.; writing—
review and editing, M.-H.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) under
contract 109-2124-M-002-005.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Ming-Dar Tsai of Knowledge Analysis Space Exploration
and Liang-Yuan Li of National Taiwan University of Science and Technology for providing their
feedback and for their assistance in the development of the system.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Aziz, R.F.; Hafez, S.M. Applying lean thinking in construction and performance improvement. Alex. Eng. J. 2013, 52, 679–695.
[CrossRef]
2. Public Construction Commission. Turnkey Cases That Already Been Awarded between 1 December 2017 and 30 June 2020.
Available online: https://pcces2.pcc.gov.tw/PCC_MRP/Announcement/AnnDetail/9dec7761-dc2c-4dad-8cd4-be61fa44e5a7
(accessed on 18 November 2020). (In Chinese)
3. Public Construction Commission 2020. Public Construction Cost Estimation System. Available online: https://pcces.pcc.gov.tw/
CSInew/Default.aspx?FunID=Fun_12&SearchType=E (accessed on 18 November 2020).
4. Norman, E.S.; Brotherton, S.A.; Fried, R.T. Breakdown Structures: The Foundation for Project Management Excellence; John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [CrossRef]
5. Liao, M. Study of Current State of Software for Drafting and Estimating in Construction. National Kaohsiung University. 2011.
Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11296/t7u695 (accessed on 18 November 2020).
6. Yu, S.H. Evaluation of the Public Works Procedure Efficiency of E-Procurement of Government of Kaohsiung. National Sun
Yat-sen University. 2004. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11296/w4h5xd (accessed on 18 November 2020).
7. Davatzikos, C.; Ruparel, K.; Fan, Y.; Shen, D.G.; Acharyya, M.; Loughead, J.W.; Gur, R.C.; Langlebenb, D.D. Classifying Spatial
Patterns of Brain Activity with Machine Learning Methods: Application to Lie Detection. NeuroImage 2005, 28, 663–668. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
8. Lin, C.C. Study on Budget Rationality and Supervision Practice of Construction Safety and Health. 2014. Available online:
https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=8390698 (accessed on 18 November 2020).

211
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

9. Chen, Y.C. Combination of Public Construction Coding System and Building Information Modeling for Budget Estimate. Master’s
Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 19 June 2013. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11296/khec2y
(accessed on 18 November 2020).
10. Huang, C.H.; Yang, I.T.; Wang, C.Y.; Wu, M.J. A Study of Introducing Omniclass on BIM-based Building Design Checking,
Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, ROC (Taiwan): Taipei, Taiwan. 2017. Available online:
https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=12066805 (accessed on 18 November 2020).
11. Caldas, C.H.; Soibelman, L. Automating hierarchical document classification for construction management information systems.
Autom. Constr. 2003, 12, 395–406. [CrossRef]
12. Construction Specifications Institute. CSI MasterFormat. 2008. Available online: https://www.csiresources.org/home
(accessed on 18 November 2020).
13. Charette, R.P.; Marshall, H.E. UNIFORMAT II Elemental Classification for Building Specifications, Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis;
U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; NIST Interagency or Internal Reports (NISTIR) 6389.
14. Ioannou, P.G.; Liu, L.Y. Advanced Construction Technology System—ACTS. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1993, 119, 288–306. [CrossRef]
15. Russell, A.D.; Chiu, C.Y.; Korde, T. Visual Representation of Construction Management Data. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 1045–1062.
[CrossRef]
16. Mao, W.; Zhu, Y.; Ahmad, I. Applying Metadata Models to Unstructured Content of Construction Documents: A View-Based
Approach. Autom. Constr. 2007, 16, 242–252. [CrossRef]
17. Soibelman, L.; Wu, J.; Caldas, C.; Brilakis, I.; Lin, K.Y. Management and Analysis of Unstructured Construction Data Types. Adv.
Eng. Inform. 2008, 22, 15–27. [CrossRef]
18. Sint, R.; Schaffert, S.; Stroka, S.; Ferstl, R. Combining unstructured, fully structured and semi-structured information in Semantic
Wikis. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings; Heraklion: Crete, Greece, 2009; pp. 73–87.
19. Chen, H.M.; Schütz, R.; Kazman, R.; Matthes, F. Amazon in the Air: Innovating with Big Data at Lufthansa. In Proceedings of
the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; pp. 5096–5105.
[CrossRef]
20. Rusu, O.; Halcu, I.; Grigoriu, O.; Neculoiu, G.; Sandulescu, V.; Marinescu, M.; Marinescu, V. Converting Unstructured and
Semi-Structured Data into Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2013 11th RoEduNet International Conference, Sinaia, Romania,
17–19 January 2013; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
21. Kharrazi, H.; Anzaldi, L.J.; Hernandez, L.; Davison, A.; Boyd, C.M.; Leff, B.; Kimura, J.; Weiner, J.P. The Value of Unstructured
Electronic Health Record Data in Geriatric Syndrome Case Identification. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2018, 66, 1499–1507. [CrossRef]
22. Luo, L.; Li, L.; Hu, J.; Wang, X.; Hou, B.; Zhang, T.; Zhao, L.P. A Hybrid Solution for Extracting Structured Medical Information
from Unstructured Data in Medical Records via a Double-Reading/Entry System. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2016, 16, 114.
[CrossRef]
23. Farhadloo, M.; Patterson, R.A.; Rolland, E. Modeling Customer Satisfaction from Unstructured Data Using a Bayesian Approach.
Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 90, 1–11. [CrossRef]
24. Alsubaey, M.; Asadi, A.; Makatsoris, H. A Naïve Bayes Approach for EWS Detection by Text Mining of Unstructured Data:
A Construction Project Case. In Proceedings of the IntelliSys 2015—Proceedings of 2015 SAI Intelligent Systems Conference,
London, UK, 10–11 November 2015; pp. 164–168. [CrossRef]
25. Kim, T.; Chi, S. Accident Case Retrieval and analyses: Using natural language processing in the construction industry. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019004. [CrossRef]
26. Navarro, P.J.; Fernandez, C.; Borraz, R.; Alonso, D. A Machine Learning Approach to Pedestrian Detection for Autonomous
Vehicles Using High-Definition 3D Range Data. Sensors 2016, 17, 18. [CrossRef]
27. Sainath, T.N.; Weiss, R.J.; Senior, A.; Wilson, K.W.; Vinyals, O. Learning the Speech Front-End with Raw Waveform CLDNNs.
In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH, Dresden,
Germany, 6–10 September 2015; pp. 1–5. Available online: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2015/i15_0001
.html (accessed on 18 November 2020).
28. Krasnopolsky, V.M.; Fox-Rabinovitz, M.S. Complex Hybrid Models Combining Deterministic and Machine Learning Components
for Numerical Climate Modeling and Weather Prediction. Neural Netw. 2006, 19, 122–134. [CrossRef]
29. Sharif, M.; Bhagavatula, S.; Bauer, L.; Reiter, M.K. Accessorize to a crime: Real and stealthy attacks on state-of-the-art face
recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security; Association for
Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1528–1540. [CrossRef]
30. Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Commun. ACM
2017, 60, 84–90. [CrossRef]
31. Lu, D.; Weng, Q. A Survey of Image Classification Methods and Techniques for Improving Classification Performance. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 2007, 28, 823–870. [CrossRef]
32. Lu, J.; Yang, J.; Batra, D.; Parikh, D. Neural Baby Talk. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–23 June 2018; pp. 7219–7228. [CrossRef]
33. Wu, P.H.; Yu, A.; Tsai, C.W.; Koh, J.L.; Kuo, C.C.; Chen, A.L.P. Keyword Extraction and Structuralization of Medical Reports.
Health Inf. Sci. Syst. 2020, 8, 18. [CrossRef]

212
Sustainability 2021, 13, 362

34. Nandhakumar, N.; Sherkat, E.; Milios, E.E.; Gu, H.; Butler, M. Clinically Significant Information Extraction from Radiology Reports.
In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering—DocEng ’17, Valletta, Malta, 4–7 September 2017;
pp. 153–162. [CrossRef]
35. Yu, M.L.; Chan, H.Y.; Tsai, M.H. NLP-Based Method for Auto-Correcting Public Constructions Data. In Proceedings of the 2019
4th International Conference on Civil and Building Engineering Informatics, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan, 6–9 November 2019.
36. Hao, L.; Hao, L. Automatic Identification of Stop Words in Chinese Text Classification. In Proceedings of the 2008 International
Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, IEEE, Wuhan, China, 12–14 December 2008; pp. 718–722. [CrossRef]
37. Yin, Z.; Shen, Y. On the Dimensionality of Word Embedding. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems, Montreal, Canada, 2–8 December 2018; pp. 887–898. Available online: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7368-on-the-
dimensionality-of-word-embedd (accessed on 21 December 2020).
38. Hasan, M.; Islam, I.; Hasan, K.M.A. Sentiment Analysis Using Out of Core Learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 International
Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineering (ECCE), IEEE, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, 7–9 February 2019;
pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
39. Kulkarni, A.; Shivananda, A. Converting Text to Features. In Natural Language Processing Recipes; Apress: Berkeley, CA, USA,
2019; pp. 67–96. [CrossRef]
40. IEEE Photonics Technology Letters Information for Authors. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 2009, 21, C3. [CrossRef]
41. Li, W.; Zhu, L.; Guo, K.; Shi, Y.; Zheng, Y. Build a Tourism-Specific Sentiment Lexicon via Word2vec. Ann. Data Sci. 2018, 5, 1–7.
[CrossRef]
42. Lebret, R.; Collobert, R. Word Emdeddings through Hellinger PCA. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European
Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26–30 April 2014; Association for
Computational Linguistics: Stroudsburg, PA, USA; pp. 482–490. [CrossRef]
43. Levy, O.; Goldberg, Y. Neural Word Embedding as Implicit Matrix Factorization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems; Mit Press: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2014; pp. 2177–2185. Available online: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5477-neural-
word-embedding-as (accessed on 21 December 2020).
44. Li, Y.; Xu, L.; Tian, F.; Jiang, L.; Zhong, X.; Chen, E. Word Embedding Revisited: A New Representation Learning and Explicit
Matrix Factorization Perspective. In Proceedings of the IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 25–31 July 2015; pp. 3650–3656. Available online: https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/15/Papers/513.pdf
(accessed on 21 December 2020).
45. Globerson, A.; Chechik, G.; Pereira, F.; Tishby, N. Euclidean Embedding of Co-Occurrence Data. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2007,
8, 2265–2295. Available online: https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v8/globerson07a.html (accessed on 21 December 2020).
46. Qureshi, M.A.; Greene, D. EVE: Explainable Vector Based Embedding Technique Using Wikipedia. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2019,
53, 137–165. [CrossRef]
47. Mikolov, T.; Chen, K.; Corrado, G.; Dean, J. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. In Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013—Workshop Track Proceedings, Scottsdale, AZ, USA,
2–4 May 2013; Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 (accessed on 21 December 2020).
48. Hatamian, M.; Hung, D.; Kurmas, Z.; Frenzel, J.; Pinter-Lucke, J.; and Zhao, P. In Praise of Digital Design and Computer
Architecture. In Digital Design and Computer Architecture; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2016; pp. i–ii. [CrossRef]
49. Sidorov, G.; Gelbukh, A.; Gómez-Adorno, H.; Pinto, D. Soft Similarity and Soft Cosine Measure: Similarity of Features in Vector
Space Model. Comput. Sist. 2014, 18, 491–504. [CrossRef]
50. Basu, T.; Murthy, C.D. Effective Text Classification by a Supervised Feature Selection Approach. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE
12th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, Brussels, Belgium, 10 December 2012; pp. 918–925. [CrossRef]
51. Kim, K.; Chung, B.S.; Choi, Y.; Lee, S.; Jung, J.Y.; Park, J. Language Independent Semantic Kernels for Short-Text Classification.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 735–743. [CrossRef]
52. Devlin, J.; Chang, M.W.; Lee, K.; Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-Training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Under-
standing. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2019—2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies—Proceedings of the Conference 1 (October), Minneapolis, MN, USA,
2–7 June 2019; Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 (accessed on 21 December 2020).
53. Radford, A.; Wu, J.; Child, R.; Luan, D.; Amodei, D.; Sutskever, I. Language Models Are Unsupervised Multitask Learners.
OpenAI Blog 2020, 1, 9.
54. Woo, H.; Kim, K.; Cha, K.; Lee, J.Y.; Mun, H.; Cho, S.J.; Chung, J.I.; Pyo, J.H.; Lee, K.C.; Kang, M. Application of Efficient Data
Cleaning Using Text Clustering for Semistructured Medical Reports to Large-Scale Stool Examination Reports: Methodology
Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e10013. [CrossRef]
55. Soto, A.J.; Kiros, R.; Kešelj, V.; Milios, E. Exploratory visual analysis and interactive pattern extraction from semi-structured data.
ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2015, 5, 1–36. [CrossRef]

213
sustainability

Article
Influence Mechanism of Organizational Flexibility on
Enterprise Competitiveness: The Mediating Role of
Organizational Innovation
Guodong Ni 1,2, *, Heng Xu 1 , Qingbin Cui 3 , Yaning Qiao 1,2 , Ziyao Zhang 1 , Huaikun Li 1 and Paul J. Hickey 3

1 School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology,
Xuzhou 221116, China; [email protected] (H.X.); [email protected] (Y.Q.);
[email protected] (Z.Z.); [email protected] (H.L.)
2 Research Center for Digitalized Construction and Knowledge Engineering, School of Mechanics and Civil
Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA; [email protected] (Q.C.); [email protected] (P.J.H.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Organizational success heavily relies on the competitiveness of products and services
under rapidly changing market conditions. This enterprise competitiveness becomes more critical
for project-based enterprises as modernization of the Chinese construction industry creates greater
challenges and uncertainty in construction operations, which determines the sustainable advantages
of enterprises to a certain degree. Traditional wisdom focuses on cost efficiency, asset differentiation,
and service performance to gain competitive advantages. This paper explores the influence of
organizational flexibility and organizational innovation on enterprise competitiveness for Chinese
construction organizations. A designed structured questionnaire was developed and conducted
targeting the project-based enterprises in China’s construction industry and is accompanied by a
structural equation modeling analysis. Results indicate a positive impact of organizational flexibility
Citation: Ni, G.; Xu, H.; Cui, Q.; Qiao, on enterprise competitiveness along with a mediation role of organizational innovation. The study
Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H.; Hickey, P.J. concludes that new organizational strategies are required for Chinese project-based enterprises to
Influence Mechanism of
maintain enterprise competitiveness in order to realize the sustainable development of enterprises.
Organizational Flexibility on
Enterprise Competitiveness: The
Keywords: enterprise competitiveness; organizational flexibility; organizational innovation; modern-
Mediating Role of Organizational
ization of construction industry; structural equation modeling
Innovation. Sustainability 2021, 13,
176. https://dx.doi.org/
10.3390/su13010176

Received: 8 November 2020

1. Introduction
Accepted: 23 December 2020 In today’s competitive business environment, how to enhance enterprise competi-
Published: 27 December 2020 tiveness has been a hot topic [1]. Existing studies show that strengthening leadership [2],
establishing good relationships with partners [3], technological renovations [4], and capital
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- investment [5] are all effective for the promotion of enterprise competitiveness. However,
tral with regard to jurisdictional claims due to fast technological advancement, increased competition, market fluctuations [6],
in published maps and institutional and even the impact of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, traditional measures are
affiliations. struggling to maintain competitiveness effectively for enterprises in turbulent and complex
business environments. Flexibility plays an important role in keeping firms alive and
prospering in changing market environments [7]. Thanks to flexibility, firms can react to
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
environmental changes and uncertainties more quickly: They can absorb change, integrate,
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This develop, and restructure resources and capabilities in the organization in a short time [8].
article is an open access article distributed Besides, improving flexibility is considered a crucial tool that can predict organizational per-
under the terms and conditions of the formance [9]. Therefore, enhancing flexibility serves as a feasible solution for promotion of
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) enterprise competitiveness in a turbulent environment. Although there are sporadic clues
license (https://creativecommons.org/ to indicate that strengthening flexibility inside an organization is conducive to enterprise
licenses/by/4.0/). survival and development, to our knowledge, few empirical studies connect organizational

215

Sustainability 2021, 13, 176. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010176 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

flexibility with competitiveness, which turns out to be a barrier for further understanding
of the competitiveness promotion mechanism under the flexibility perspective.
Generally, it takes a relatively long time to complete a construction project. The longer
the project duration, the greater the risk and uncertainties, such as increases in the price
of labor and material, payments delays, safety, quality, and poor estimating [10]. Long
project duration brings more uncertainties and dynamic risks and makes it even more
difficult to manage project results and profitability for Project-Based Enterprises (PBEs)
in the construction industry, which generally includes construction, design, engineering
management, real estate development, and consulting firms [11,12]. Thus, on the one hand,
it is more difficult to remain flexible for construction industry PBEs compared with the
manufacturing company. On the other hand, keeping flexibility would make more sense
for construction industry PBEs. Once construction industry PBEs are more flexible, they
can prevent risks and loss or seize the opportunity caused by uncertainty and changes in
advance via rapid and active response, which can not only improve their profitability but
also enable them to gain a stronger market competitive advantage.
For Chinese construction industry PBEs, the advantage of flexibility in facing uncer-
tainties and promoting enterprise competitiveness is more prominent. Under the trend of
deep integration into the global economy, with China’s proposal of the “Belt and Road”
initiative in 2013, the construction industry, as a supporting industry of the national econ-
omy in China [13], has accelerated the pace of undertaking projects overseas. Obviously,
faced with the uncertainties and risks in overseas markets, continuous competitive im-
provement holds the key to survival and development of PBEs in China’s construction
industry [14,15]. The sustainable development of China’s construction industry concerns
not only the interests of China, but also the healthy development of the whole world
economy. Meanwhile, the rapid development of construction industry standards demands
PBEs constantly dealing with a large number of changes in the operating environment [16].
Contributing factors include fluctuating construction demands [16], changing procurement
trends [17], clients’ higher performance standards for building services [10], and higher
technical requirements [16]. The combined effect of these changes forces firms to improve
their viability and competitiveness in the business environment [7]. Similar situations
are particularly prominent in China’s construction industry. Since the strategy of Mod-
ernization of Construction Industry (MCI) was first proposed by Chinese authorities in
2013, governments have focused on deepening the construction industry reform. MCI
refers to the transformation and upgrade of the construction industry, taking technological
innovation as a guide, modern management as support, informatization as the means, and
new construction industrialization as the core, the strategy aims to renew, transform, and
upgrad the whole industrial chain of construction, thus realizing the transformation from
the traditional production mode to the modern industrial production mode and improving
the quality, efficiency, and benefits comprehensively. MCI is the key to realizing sustainable
development and upgrading the construction industry. MCI involves many aspects, such
as prefabricated building [18], construction industry informatization and industrializa-
tion [19], design and construction integration, green development concept, and sustainable
strategy [15,20,21]. Current development trends in construction can fundamentally change
the traditional production modes of the Chinese industry but also create many uncertainties
and challenges to PBEs. Therefore, maintaining the advantage in competition and avoid
elimination in continuously changing and uncertain market environments emerges as an
urgent issue for PBEs leaders and managers in China’s construction industry.
As is well-known, innovation might be one of a few lasting sources of enterprise
competitive advantage [22,23]. Promoting organizational innovation (OI) actively within
the enterprise aids in coping with environmental changes and uncertainties. Organizational
innovation means that an organization adopts a new idea or behavior [24], which generally
includes technological environment advancements and management modernization of
the organization [25]. Implementing organizational innovation activities is conducive to
increase productivity and profitability as well as to expand existing market shares and

216
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

exploiting new markets [26]. Organizational innovation capacity is of vital importance

in shaping PBEs competitiveness in the construction industry [15]. Meanwhile, there is
evidence indicating that innovation partially mediates the relationship between organi-
zational flexibility and project portfolio performance [9]. PBEs with flexibility are likely
to use various organizational resources to fully realize the benefits of technological inno-
vation and management innovation. Therefore, organizational innovation, together with
organizational flexibility, will play a critical role in enhancing the PBEs’ competitiveness in
the current complex situation.
However, it remains unclear whether enterprise competitiveness can be promoted
effectively by organizational flexibility in China’s construction industry and whether or-
ganizational innovation can play a mediating role between organizational flexibility and
enterprise competitiveness. Therefore, this paper tries to figure out these two questions
and aims to explore the mechanism for improving enterprise competitiveness in China’s
construction industry with a specific focus on organizational flexibility and organizational
innovation. On the basis of theoretical analysis, this study will set up a theoretical model of
the influence mechanism of organizational flexibility on the enterprise competitiveness of
PBEs through putting forward the research hypotheses. Then, based on China’s construc-
tion industry under the background of MCI, it will test the theoretical model and research
hypotheses using the standard paradigm of empirical research, clarify the influence mech-
anism of organizational flexibility on enterprise competitiveness, and further verify the
mediating role of organizational innovation.

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Enterprise Competitiveness
Competitiveness can be regarded as an independent, dependent, or intermediary
variable, depending on the perspective one takes in dealing with the problem. In the
construction industry, the analysis of competitiveness is based on four levels: country,
industry, firm, and project [2]. Among them, the firm’s competitiveness provides the
greatest interest for practitioners and attracts the most attention of researchers [27]. Many
researchers emphasize the importance of competitiveness at the firm level [21,28]. Enter-
prise competitiveness for a coal firm, for example, refers to the enterprise’s advantages
compared with competitors in design, production, sale of products, personnel, technology,
and management, considering price and non-price factors [29]. But for contractors, the
firm’s competitive advantage comes from its competitive strategy when facing strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as its unique, irreplaceable, and inimitable
resources [30]. The understandings of enterprise competitiveness are not the same in view
of the differences between industry and research perspectives. It is necessary to clarify the
connotation of the PBEs’ competitiveness in the context of MCI.
Prior researchers tended to focus on how to measure and improve competitive-
ness [14,31]. According to [27], assets and processes within an organization (the mea-
surement of competitive advantage) can be either tangible or intangible, including brand,
reputation, culture, human resources, technology, market share, and profitability. In ad-
dition, Ghobadian et al. [32] proposed that identifying business opportunities such as
increased market share, increased profitability, or reduced cost structure could lead to
enterprise competitive advantage. In the construction sector, underlying contractor con-
tributors can be divided into three parts: core competence, company strategy, and project
performance [15]. According to [3], measurement indexes of enterprise competitiveness
include firm image, financial ability, marketing ability, technical ability, management skill,
and human resources advantage. Deng et al. [14] developed potential factors of the Chi-
nese construction industry: domestic stable market, supply chain management, corporate
management practices, qualified professionals, sound business climate, and migrant work-
ers. These results indicate that the advantages in human resource, finance, market share,
and management can form sources of enterprise competitiveness. In order to make the
construction industry more competitive, Chinese PBEs need to not only learn from inter-

217
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

national practices but also to adjust and complete them according to the Chinese market
environment [33]. Under the background of MCI, new technologies and construction
requirements bring great uncertainty to project investment and construction. Strengthen-
ing the project management ability of construction engineering enterprises is crucial to
ensuring the output of high-quality products and services and the stable operation and
decision-making efficiency of project teams. Building on the literature review and the
PBEs characteristic of the construction industry, this study establishes the measurement
structure of enterprise competitiveness about PBEs from the following five competitive
advantages: Talent Competition Advantage (TCA), Financial Operation Advantage (FOA),
Market Share Advantage (MSA), Enterprise Management Advantage (EMA), and Project
Management Advantage (PMA), which will be tested by empirical research later. In this
study, enterprise competitiveness is defined as providing products or services more effec-
tively than other competitors, with the help of the advantages in talents, financial operation,
market, organizational management, and project management, so as to gain profits and
sustainable development.

2.2. Organizational Flexibility

Usually, flexibility is considered as an independent variable to predict the effectiveness
of an organization [34] and refers to the degree to organizational capability to make positive
changes and adapt to environmental disturbances [35]. What is similar to flexibility is the
concept of agility, which appears later than flexibility [36]. Some researchers regard flexibil-
ity as the center of agility [37], other studies see agility as an extension of flexibility [38]. To
eliminate this confusion, Abdelilah et al. [36] analyzed the development of flexibility and
agility and their relationship. The study pointed out that flexibility is just a part of agility,
and other types of flexibility can also be viewed as agility sub-capabilities or as agility
enablers. Flexibility is considered an operational ability, while agility is a strategic ability
that enables a firm to build a long-term strategic vision [36]. However, the above findings
are only discussed in manufacturing and the supply chain. It is still urgent to figure out
the connotation of flexibility in the construction industry.
Firms’ potential primarily rests with intrinsic flexibility of its resources and its ability to
coordinate the use of those resources to achieve strategic goals [39], and more importantly,
firms can generate sustainable competitive advantages by effectively controlling and using
their unique, irreplaceable, and inimitable resource [40]. Theoretically, situation awareness,
management of key vulnerabilities, and adaptive ability are the main three attributes of
organizational flexibility and associated performance improvement processes [41]. Flex-
ibility management is vital for firms to survive in turbulent market environments [42].
Organizational attributes such as human resources [43], organizational learning [44], or-
ganizational structure and management style [45], technologies capabilities [46,47], and
supply chain capabilities [48] may affect the firm’s organizational flexibility. In the field of
engineering construction, this topic attracted the attention of scholars, although research
works are relatively few compared with other fields [6,7,49–51]. Organizational flexibility
in construction can be defined as an ability for organization to make use of resources
effectively to respond and adapt to environmental changes via continuous learning in a
timely and reversible manner [7].
Prior research offers a multitude of approaches on the structural dimensions of or-
ganizational flexibility. Ozer [43] pointed out some critical elements of flexibility: hu-
man resources, operations, market, finance, technology, and management. According
to Maghool [35], organizational flexibility can be divided into four dimensions: opera-
tional flexibility, financial flexibility, structural flexibility, and technological flexibility. Lim
et al. [7] deemed that the definition of organizational flexibility for construction firms
includes various dimensions. It can be interpreted as “operational”, “tactical”, or “strate-
gic” flexibility. Other studies involved product development flexibility [52], supply chain
flexibility [53], human resource flexibility [54], process flexibility [47,55], leadership flexibil-
ity [56,57], team flexibility [58], cross-cultural flexibility [59], and contractual flexibility [60].

218
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

However, specific structural dimensions of organizational flexibility need to be adjusted to

match specific enterprise or organization type.
For PBEs in the construction industry, organizational structure, resource, leadership,
and technological flexibility can be intuitively considered as necessary elements. Further-
more, corporate culture is a strategic asset [59], and ideal organizational culture builds
a learning organization that encourages and fosters organizational growth [44]. Study
results show cultural change relates closely to incremental and radical innovation [61].
Hence, cultural flexibility encourages individuals and organizations to learn and innovate,
generating an open atmosphere in PBEs. Besides, the ability to innovate is a component
of flexibility capabilities [62]. Considering the significance of organizational climate in
construction innovation [63], the authors conclude that innovation flexibility is one of the
most important dimensions for PBEs’ organizational flexibility under the changeable con-
struction market environment, which is verified in this study. In summary, organizational
flexibility measurement metrics for construction industry PBEs include six dimensions in
this study: Structural Flexibility (SF), Resource Flexibility (RF), Leadership Flexibility (LF),
Cultural Flexibility (CF), Technological Flexibility (TF), and Innovative Flexibility (IF).
• Structural Flexibility—Ability of the organization to restructure [35].
• Resource Flexibility—Ability to transform resources into other beneficial uses, provid-
ing a buffer for organizations to adapt to changes in uncertain environments [64].
• Leadership Flexibility—Leadership’s capability to play several different roles, some-
times even opposite roles, to meet the demand of rapid pace and diversity of activities
in various contexts [57], and their ability to adapt to by adjusting goals with their own
knowledge and ability.
• Cultural Flexibility—Ability to adjust corporate culture to form a mental model, sense
of worth, and learning atmosphere in order to adapt to environmental changes and
uncertainties effectively.
• Technological Flexibility—Ability to change technical capacity in line with the com-
petitive requirements [35].
• Innovative Flexibility—Ability to develop new products or services to quickly adapt
to market demands at low cost [65].
Measurement of organizational flexibility developed in this study will also be tested
by future follow-up empirical research.

2.3. Organizational Innovation

For a long time, innovation has been considered as one of the critical factors to im-
prove national economic growth, firms’ competitiveness and living advantages [26,66–69].
The process of innovation generally includes three basic steps: starting with a preliminary
idea, deciding to adopt the concept, and finally, implementing the innovation [24]. In the
previous study, the development of new products and new technologies is regarded as
an innovation, so innovation was initially considered as a technical term, a synonym for
invention. However, the concept has expanded to cover many domains and features, espe-
cially in non-technological areas [70], among which management innovation deserves a
place. Evan [25] theorized that both executive administrators and working level employees
initiate improvements, depending upon the type of proposed change. Organizations can
adopt inspiration originating from both ends of the organizational hierarchy: Management
Innovation (MI) originates near the top of the hierarchy and trickles down while Tech-
nological Innovation (TI) emerges near the bottom of the hierarchy and trickles up [25].
Technological innovation is the act of turning an idea for a new product, process or service
into a reality [25]; management innovation, on the other hand, is usually recognized as the
adoption of new management practices, processes, rules, methods, and structures with
the aim of achieving organizational goals [71,72] and benefitting long-term performance
promotion [70]. The interest in management innovation has been growing recently [73–75].
In the construction industry, innovation is shaped by project demands and forced by
various environmental factors and is regarded as a means of performance improvement [66,76].
219
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

Adopting new methods presents challenges because of the disjointed and project-based
characteristics of construction projects [77]. Therefore, various practices are applied to
promote innovation within an organization. Liu and Chan [78] verified the crucial role
of learning transfer climate in promoting innovation in construction. Lijauco et al. [79]
tested the potential relationships between cultural factors and tendencies for adopting
new concepts in small to medium enterprises of the construction industry. The results
show that corporate relationships, market orientation, and workforce capacity are the main
factors. Ozorhon et al. [77] conducted a case study and reported that denying changes,
insufficient experience, and lack of innovative products can restrict adoption. Based on
the characteristics of construction organizations, components of organizational innova-
tion capacity include entrepreneurship, culture, learning organization, human resources,
and information management [15]. Using Thailand’s Bang Na Expressway case study,
Brockmann et al. [80] summed up the categories of innovation as product or construction
technology within technical, management, or legal organizations. Meng and Brown [81]
argued that innovation strategies in construction firms fall into four categories: technology,
management, resource, and marketing. MCI brings the motive power for PBEs to search for
new innovative sources in China, and these firms should carefully consider organizational
innovation. In this paper, organizational innovation refers to integration and utilization of
new products and services in technology or management, change of existing production
methods, renewal of new management policies, or the implementation of new manage-
ment systems [82]. Considering the equally important role of technology and management
in the construction industry, this research constructed measurements of organizational
innovation structures as two dimensions according to Evan [25]: technological innovation
and organizational innovation, which will also be tested in follow-on investigations.

3. Research Hypotheses and Theoretical Model

3.1. Organizational Flexibility and Enterprise Competitiveness
Through continuous learning, a flexible firm can maintain its competitiveness [83]
because organizational flexibility serves as the most important source of competitive
advantage for firms in today’s dynamic environment [7]. Flexibility has usually been
recognized as an ability for individuals, communities, or organizations to deal with, adapt
to, and recover from a disaster event [84]. An organization with heightened flexibility
weathers both daily business problems and successfully navigates crisis situations, gaining
advantages in the fierce market competition [41]. Organizational flexibility can improve
a firm’s maneuvering capacity, and it is also beneficial to adapt existing systems and
processes to environmental changes [7]. Project management practices that focus on
flexibility based on collaboration, exploratory learning, and adaptation improve time
performance in complex infrastructure projects [51]. Changes resulting from MCI in China
induced a complex process of responses. Demands for effective organizational structure,
rapid technological advancement, recruitment of new talents, and management mode
innovation place significant challenges on industry PBEs. Organizational flexibility should
also be required to improve enterprise competitiveness and response to these challenges
for PBEs, so as to remain viable in the business environment. Therefore, this study submits
the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Organizational flexibility has a significant positive impact on enterprise

competitiveness in the construction industry.

3.2. Organizational Flexibility and Organizational Innovation

Organizational nimbleness generates creative thought according to Vickery et al. [53],
allowing the firm to develop new products or services and adapt to market demands
quickly at low cost. Flexibility offers a solution to environmental uncertainty as members
can adjust the project to possible consequences brought by uncertain circumstances [50].
The six dimensions of the flexibility construct established in this paper are closely con-

220
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

nected with organizational innovation. Effective leadership encourages creativity in indi-

vidual project teams across the construction sector [63,77], and leadership fosters ingenuity
throughout organizations [85]. The strongest driving forces of change are technical prob-
lems in construction projects, client demands, and top management [86]. Establishing an
open, productive culture improves relationships between company leadership and outside
firms [63]. Cultural factors drive propensity for positive change within enterprises in
the construction sector [79]. The contribution of tactical business strategies to innovation
performance has been confirmed by firms in the Australian construction industry [87];
furthermore, the positive relationship between external human resource flexibility and
innovation has also been tested [54]. Within the context of MCI in China, organizational flex-
ibility will be conducive to taking advantage of all kinds of PBEs organizational resources
to fully realize the benefits of technological innovation and management innovation. Thus,
the hypotheses are put forward:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Organizational flexibility has a significant positive impact on technological

innovation in the construction industry.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Organizational flexibility has a significant positive impact on management

innovation in the construction industry.

3.3. Organizational Innovation and Enterprise Competitiveness

Innovation serves as an organizational key performance indicator; resourcefulness
enhances productivity and financial outcomes, and competitiveness has an essential role in
the construction sector in enhancing work effectiveness, efficiency, and business perfor-
mance [63]. According to Ozorhon et al. [76], innovation can bring many benefits, such
as increased productivity and client satisfaction at the project level, improved corporate
image, enhanced technical and management capability, and experience acquired at the
firm-level. The relationship between innovation and competition is the focus of many
academic studies concerned with economic growth and development, and companies need
innovative skills in creating, producing, marketing, and managing to gain competitive
advantage in global markets [26]. With accelerating fluctuations in market economies,
firms must pursue revolutionary changes to gain and maintain competitive advantage [22].
Development and sustainability of competitiveness are based on speed and efficiency of
the implementation of innovations to some extent [4]. Whether based on passive or active
responses, organizational innovation evolves into an important factor impacting enterprise
competitiveness and determines organizational viability [88], which can be harvested
through building firms’ capacity [15]. Both management innovation and technological
innovation contribute to organization performance positively [89]. Economists have widely
recognized technological innovation as a source of economic growth [90]. Existing research
shows the significant positive effect of green technological innovation ability on enterprise
competitiveness [91], and technological innovation can increase the economic benefits
of construction firms [92]. The significant role of management innovation in boosting
enterprise performance and competitive advantage has been verified [74]. Thus, it can be
concluded that technological innovation and management innovation are helpful in pro-
moting the formation of enterprise competitiveness in the construction industry. Therefore,
the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Technological innovation has a significant positive impact on enterprise

competitiveness in the construction industry.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Management innovation has a significant positive impact on enterprise

competitiveness in the construction industry.

221
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

3.4. Technological Innovation and Management Innovation

Researchers approved and adopted the viewpoint of the double cores model in re-
gards to organizational innovation (e.g., technological innovation and management in-
novation) [24]. The impact of technological innovation and management innovation on
organizational performance has been tested [89], which indicates that technological innova-
tion and management innovation have a combined impact on performance and that a close
relationship develops between technological innovation and management innovation [93].
The literature review for this study identified limited existing studies exploring the direct
relationship between technological innovation and management innovation. Against the
background of MCI in China, PBEs should master many evolving technologies highlighted
by prefabricated construction technology, Building Information Model (BIM) technology,
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), green construction technology, and sponge city con-
struction technology. Technological revolution requires the support of management reform,
which means that technological innovation is conducive to the development of manage-
ment innovation and management innovation needs to be consistent with technological
innovation. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Technological innovation has a significant positive impact on management

innovation in the construction industry.

3.5. Mediating Role of Technological Innovation and Management Innovation

For business operations and industrial development, the institutional environment is
an important external environment and can influence the performance of the enterprise.
The existing study shows that institutional environment changes may have an effect on
enterprise technology innovation motivation [94]. Flexibility offers a solution to environ-
mental uncertainty as members can adjust the project to possible consequences brought
by uncertain circumstances [50]. It means that enhancing flexibility is helpful for keeping
technological innovation motivation. As proposed in this paper, technology flexibility, the
main component of organizational flexibility, refers to firms’ ability to change the technical
capacity in line with the competitive requirements [35]. Technological adjustments accord-
ing to market demands change are likely to lead to innovation, and technology innovation
is usually viewed as an effective assessment indicator of competitiveness [91]. Therefore,
surmising the mediator role of technological innovation is reasonable.
Although there is no direct evidence indicating the role of management innovation be-
tween organizational flexibility and enterprise competitiveness, previous studies provide
useful information to sort out the underlying logic. Inspiration of management inno-
vation is considered as originating from the top of the hierarchy [25] when it comes to
non-technological areas, such as management practices, processes, rules, methods, and
structures [71,72]. Leaders possessing flexibility would be more likely to play several
different roles to meet the demand for rapid pace and diversity of activities in various
contexts [57]. Besides, the adaption of organizational culture—such as common values,
beliefs and attitudes, and work practices at the organizational and national levels—to
management innovations has be viewed as important [95]. Companies with flexibility in
culture can align with management innovation practices quickly, and management innova-
tion is found to have a positive relationship with firms’ overall performance and financial
performance [96]. It is worth noting that a mediating role of management innovation
between the effects of manufacturing flexibility on organizational performance has been
tested by an empirical study of 159 Spanish firms [97].
Within the context of MCI in China, organizational flexibility offers a solution to
environmental uncertainty. PBEs with flexibility can respond to market demands promptly
by making active adjustments in culture, resources, structure, and technology [35], which
provides driving force for innovation. The dynamic environment can effectively improve
the learning ability of the organization and increase the probability of implementing
innovative activities. Technology innovation has been always recognized as an important

222
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

approach to gain competitive advantage [90]. However, the adoption of new technology
poses a higher challenge to the management ability of enterprises as the financial benefit of
technology will be reduced without the support of management regulation, process, and
method. Sometimes, technology innovation is an accelerator of the management revolution.
For example, blockchain technology applied in prefabricated buildings can effectively
stimulate innovation in quality management [98].
Based on the analysis above, three hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 7a (H7a). Technological innovation mediates the relation between organizational

flexibility and enterprise competitiveness in the construction industry.

Hypothesis 7b (H7b). Management innovation mediates the relation between organizational

flexibility and enterprise competitiveness in the construction industry.

Hypothesis 7c (H7c). Technological innovation and management innovation serially mediate

the relation between organizational flexibility and enterprise competitiveness in the construction
industry.

Based on the above analysis and hypotheses, the theoretical model is established
which is shown in Figure 1.

+D
6WUXFWXUDO)OH[LELOLW\ 7DOHQW&RPSHWLWLRQ
7HFKQRORJLFDO $GYDQWDJH
,QQRYDWLRQ
5HVRXUFH)OH[LELOLW\ + +
)LQDQFLDO2SHUDWLRQ
$GYDQWDJH
+
/HDGHUVKLS)OH[LELOLW\
2UJDQL]DWLRQDO + (QWHUSULVH 0DUNHW6KDUH
)/H[LELOLW\ &RPSHWLWLYHQHVV $GYDQWDJH
&XOWXUDO)OH[LELOLW\
+F
(QWHUSULVH0DQDJHPHQW
$GYDQWDJH
7HFKQRORJLFDO)OH[LELOLW\ + +
0DQDJHPHQW
,QQRYDWLRQ 3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW
,QQRYDWLYH)OH[LELOLW\ $GYDQWDJH
+E ȱ
Figure 1. Theoretical model.

4. Methodology
4.1. Measures and Instruments
The scales in this study were developed based on reviewed literature to ensure the
credibility of the research tool, and the localization of scale was fully considered according
to advices of experts. Measurement methodology for each factor implemented a five-item
scale adopted from SF—Young-Ybarra et al. [99] and Maghool [35]; RF—Mathews [64],
and Martínez-Sánchez et al. [54]; LF—Phillips and Wright [100] and Baron et al. [57]; CF—
Phillips and Wright [100]; TF—Ozer [43] and Maghool [35]; IF—Vickery et al. [53] and
Zhu and Cheung [15]; TI—Daft [24] and Ozorhon et al. [76]; MI—Hamel [101], Crossan
and Apaydin [82] and Zhu and Cheung [15]; EC(TCA/FOA/MSA/EMA/PMA)—Shen
et al. [102], Tan et al. [103], Lu et al. [30], Orozco et al. [77], and Zhu and Cheung [15]. Based
on the measurement scale mentioned above, this study developed a questionnaire with a
total of 13 scales and 65 items. The items in the questionnaire are listed in Appendix A.

223
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

4.2. Sample and Data Collection

The hypotheses were tested by structured questionnaire surveys. As OF and EC
of PBEs are interactive, various employees in China’s construction industry comprised
the sample respondent pool. Survey samples mainly involve senior managers, middle
managers, junior managers, and common employees from various PBEs, specifically,
construction, engineering management, real estate development, design, engineering
consulting, and other firms in China’s construction industry.
The questionnaire was originally done in English. The authors used a back-translation
approach [104], which translated the original tool into Chinese according to the Chinese
context. After modification and confirmation by two independent professors, the validity
of the measurement project was tested. Then, the authors conducted an initial pilot test by
selecting some employees in the construction industry through random selection in order
to check whether respondents could accurately understand the wording and meaning of
the questions. The survey questions were revised according to the pilot questionnaire
analysis data. Finally, after the preliminary questionnaire was revised, the final Chinese
questionnaire was developed for data collection. The Likert-type scale was used for the
questionnaire, which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey
lasted from January to May 2019, during which 1000 questionnaires were distributed in
29 provinces and cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong, Chongqing, and Jiangsu.
Among the 1000 questionnaires issued, 644 were responded to (a response rate of 64.4%).
After eliminating invalid questionnaires, 463 were found to have been answered effectively
(an effective rate of 71.9%). The demographic information of the interviewees is shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic information of respondents (N = 463).

Variable Category Number of Cases Frequency (%)

Male 343 74.1
Gender
Female 120 25.9
≤25 108 23.3
26–30 137 29.6
Age 31–35 92 19.9
36–40 63 13.6
>40 63 13.6
PhD 13 2.8
Postgraduate 155 33.5
Education Bachelor’s degree 255 55.1
Junior college student 34 7.3
Technical secondary school or
6 1.3
below
≤5 year 294 63.5
Years of
5–10years 62 13.4
experience
>10 years 107 23.1
Senior manager 22 4.8
Middle manager 92 19.9
Position Junior manager 188 40.6
Common employees 146 31.5
Others 15 3.2
Construction firms 169 36.5
Engineering management firms 45 9.7
Real estate development firms 107 23.1
Firm type
Design firms 60 13.0
Engineering consulting firms 23 5.0
Other firms 59 12.7

224
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

4.3. Data Analysis Methods

Data analysis adopted Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM), using the SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 21.0 software. In statistics, CFA is the most
commonly used special form of factor analysis in social research. The purpose of CFA test
is to confirm that the data collected by the study conform to a hypothetical measurement
model [105]. In this study, CFA was implemented to test the convergence and discriminant
validity of the measured structural model. SEM provides support for these hypotheses and
can perform path analysis.

5. Research Results
5.1. CFA
CFA modeling is used to verify the effectiveness of the overall measurement model.
Both convergent and discriminant validity are considered in the study. The indicators for
testing the convergent validity include factor loading, which should exceed 0.6 and be
significant at the level of 0.01, and Composite Reliability (CR), which should be greater
than 0.8. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of all constructs should be larger than 0.5 [106].
In addition, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used to evaluate construct reliability in this
study, which should be greater than 0.70 [105]. According to CFA, factor loading of SF1
and SF2 are lower than 0.6, so these two items are excluded from SF scale.
Table 2 presented the final results for the remining constructs, including Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients, factor loading, CR, and AVE. It can be seen that factor loading was
always greater than 0.6 at the 0.001 significant level. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, CR,
and AVE of all items exceeded 0.7, 0.8, and 0.5 respectively. To conclude, the results show
that the measurement model fully meets the reliability standard and convergent validity.

Table 2. Construct Validity and Reliability.

Construct Item Cronbach’s Alpha Factor Loading CR AVE

SF3 0.736
SF SF4 0.822 0.826 0.825 0.611
SF5 0.780
RF1 0.795
RF2 0.846
RF RF3 0.910 0.836 0.912 0.675
RF4 0.847
RF5 0.780
LF1 0.766
LF2 0.770
LF LF3 0.907 0.854 0.898 0.637
LF4 0.820
LF5 0.778
CF1 0.792
CF2 0.859
CF CF3 0.911 0.864 0.914 0.680
CF4 0.829
CF5 0.777
TF1 0.776
TF2 0.855
TF TF3 0.922 0.893 0.923 0.707
TF4 0.844
TF5 0.833

225
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

Table 2. Cont.

Construct Item Cronbach’s Alpha Factor Loading CR AVE

IF1 0.816
IF2 0.872
IF IF3 0.916 0.867 0.914 0.680
IF4 0.804
IF5 0.760
TI1 0.830
TI2 0.804
TI TI3 0.936 0.882 0.931 0.731
TI4 0.863
TI5 0.894
MI1 0.814
MI2 0.854
MI MI3 0.948 0.916 0.947 0.781
MI4 0.916
MI5 0.914
TCA1 0.808
TCA2 0.855
TCA TCA3 0.925 0.846 0.926 0.715
TCA4 0.867
TCA5 0.849
FOA1 0.855
FOA2 0.858
FOA FOA3 0.924 0.829 0.925 0.711
FOA4 0.801
FOA5 0.871
MSA1 0.857
MSA2 0.835
MSA MSA3 0.919 0.844 0.920 0.697
MSA4 0.837
MSA5 0.800
EMA1 0.859
EMA2 0.894
EMA EMA3 0.944 0.884 0.945 0.774
EMA4 0.912
EMA5 0.848
PMA1 0.844
PMA2 0.891
PMA PMA3 0.941 0.879 0.941 0.761
PMA4 0.868
PMA5 0.878
Note: SF = Structural Flexibility; RF = Resource Flexibility; LF = Leadership Flexibility; CF = Cultural Flexibility;
TF = Technological Flexibility; IF = Innovative Flexibility; TI = Technological Innovation; MI = Management
Innovation; TCA = Talent Competition Advantage; FOA = Financial Operation Advantage; MSA = Market Share
Advantage; EMA = Enterprise Management Advantage; PMA = Project Management Advantage.

Two criteria for evaluating discriminant validity were identified [106,107]. This study
adopted the one proposed by [107], which suggested that the AVE of each latent variable is
greater than the correlation coefficients between the same construct and any other construct.
Table 3 presents the results of the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. It can
be inferred that the measurement model achieves appropriate discriminant validity as
the diagonal elements are found to exceed respective off-diagonal elements. Besides,
all correlation coefficients reveal significant positive correlations between all variables.
Furthermore, this study assessed the collinearity between all measure variables by adopting
the collinearity diagnostics. The results show that the maximal Variance Inflation Factor

226
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

(VIF) value is 5.587, well below the recommended cut-off of 10 [108], which indicates that
there is no evident multicollinearity problem between measure variables.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis (N = 463).

Variable Mean SD SF RF LF CF TF IF TI MI TCA FOA MSA EMA PMA

SF 3.846 0.733 0.782
RF 3.715 0.764 0.668 ** 0.822
LF 3.767 0.740 0.739 ** 0.768 ** 0.798
CF 3.854 0.732 0.738 ** 0.666 ** 0.845 ** 0.825
TF 3.747 0.740 0.633 ** 0.824 ** 0.798 ** 0.713 ** 0.841
IF 3.691 0.752 0.666 ** 0.722 ** 0.748 ** 0.734 ** 0.824 ** 0.825
TI 3.588 0.784 0.572 ** 0.741 ** 0.699 ** 0.629 ** 0.791 ** 0.791 ** 0.855
MI 3.625 0.773 0.609 ** 0.708 ** 0.702 ** 0.623 ** 0.739 ** 0.757 ** 0.818 ** 0.884
TCA 3.646 0.758 0.625 ** 0.650 ** 0.713 ** 0.686 ** 0.719 ** 0.754 ** 0.722 ** 0.744 ** 0.846
FOA 3.651 0.778 0.554 ** 0.555 ** 0.623 ** 0.614 ** 0.633 ** 0.625 ** 0.585 ** 0.597 ** 0.742 ** 0.843
MSA 3.682 0.722 0.593 ** 0.644 ** 0.684 ** 0.638 ** 0.711 ** 0.681 ** 0.713 ** 0.699 ** 0.740 ** 0.785 ** 0.835
EMA 3.638 0.760 0.615 ** 0.593 ** 0.678 ** 0.653 ** 0.666 ** 0.695 ** 0.666 ** 0.682 ** 0.752 ** 0.759 ** 0.805 ** 0.880
PMA 3.695 0.724 0.616 ** 0.603 ** 0.685 ** 0.675 ** 0.677 ** 0.690 ** 0.652 ** 0.658 ** 0.757 ** 0.742 ** 0.785 ** 0.869 ** 0.872

Note: SD = Standard Deviations. The diagonal italic values are the square roots of AVE. ** = Equals significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Adopting Hair et al.’s [109] approach, the measurement model fit is evaluated using
indicators/parameters as follows:
• Absolute fit measures: Chi-square degree of freedom ratio (χ2 /df), Root Mean Square
(RMS), Residual (RMR), Goodness-Of-Fit index (GFI), and RMS Error of Approxima-
tion (RMSEA);
• Incremental fit measures: Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and
Adjusted Goodness-Of-Fit index (AGFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI);
• Parsimonious fit measures: Parsimony Goodness-Of-Fit index (PGFI), and Parsimony
Comparative Fit Index (PCFI).
According to the data in Table 4, the fit indexes of the measurement models all reach
the standard [44,105], which means the measurement model fit the survey data well.
Therefore, the measurement models proposed in this paper are completely applicable to
test the research hypothesis.

Table 4. Overall Fit Indices of the Scales.

Fit Index χ2 /df RMR RMSEA GFI AGFI TLI IFI CFI PGFI PCFI
OF 3.193 0.033 0.069 0.848 0.815 0.929 0.938 0.938 0.694 0.824
scale OI 2.764 0.017 0.062 0.964 0.936 0.983 0.989 0.989 0.543 0.681
EC 2.562 0.019 0.058 0.894 0.870 0.960 0.965 0.965 0.729 0.852
Recommended ≤3 a ; <0.08 a ; ≥0.9 a ; ≥0.9 a ;
≤0.05 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.5 ≥0.5
cutoff value ≤5 b <0.1 b ≥0.8 b ≥0.8 b
Fit? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Note: OF = Organizational Flexibility; OI = Organizational Innovation; EC = Enterprise Competitiveness; a = Equals acceptable; b = Equals
marginal.

5.2. SEM Analysis and Hypotheses Testing

SEM analysis (again using AMOS 21.0) was performed to verify the hypotheses. The
critical ratio and the p value are two significant indicators for testing the hypothesis. Critical
ratio should be higher than 1.96 [44]. The results of hypotheses testing are presented in
Table 5 and Figure 2. Except for H4, all the critical ratio values exceed 1.96. OF has
significant effect on EC, TI, and MI (β = 0.633, p < 0.001; β = 0.868, p < 0.001; β = 0.351,
p < 0.001), which support H1, H2, and H3, respectively. However, influence of TI on
EC is not significant (β = 0.041, p > 0.05); therefore, H4 is rejected. MI has a significant
impact on EC (β = 0.234, p < 0.001); therefore, H5 is supported. H6 is also supported as the
relationship of TI on MI is also found to be significant (β = 0.556, p < 0.001). In conclusion,
except for H4, all direct effect hypotheses proposed in this paper have been confirmed.

227
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

Table 5. Hypothesis Testing Results.

Hypothesis Path Path Coefficient β Critical Ratio p Remarks

H1 OF–EC 0.633 7.872 *** Supported
H2 OF–TI 0.868 14.137 *** Supported
H3 OF–MI 0.351 5.338 *** Supported
H4 TI–EC 0.041 0.540 0.589 Rejected
H5 MI–EC 0.234 3.584 *** Supported
H6 TI–MI 0.556 8.503 *** Supported
Note: *** = Equals significant at the 0.001 level (two tailed).

6WUXFWXUDO)OH[LELOLW\ 7DOHQW&RPSHWLWLRQ
7HFKQRORJLFDO $GYDQWDJH
,QQRYDWLRQ
5HVRXUFH)OH[LELOLW\
)LQDQFLDO2SHUDWLRQ
$GYDQWDJH

/HDGHUVKLS)OH[LELOLW\
2UJDQL]DWLRQDO (QWHUSULVH 0DUNHW6KDUH

)OH[LELOLW\ &RPSHWLWLYHQHVV $GYDQWDJH
&XOWXUDO)OH[LELOLW\
(QWHUSULVH0DQDJHPHQW
$GYDQWDJH
7HFKQRORJLFDO)OH[LELOLW\
0DQDJHPHQW
,QQRYDWLRQ 3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW
,QQRYDWLYH)OH[LELOLW\ $GYDQWDJH

1RWH S

Figure 2. Research model and results of hypotheses test.

5.3. Bootstrapping
The indirect effect was tested using bootstrapping analysis with a sample of 5000.
When the 95% confidence interval (CI) does not include zero, it means that the indirect
mediation effect is significant at a 5% level [110]. In this study, three specific mediation
effects are tested. First, the CI for the effect on the pathway from OF via TI to EC included
zero (95% CI = [−0.099, 0.172]). The result indicates that the indirect mediation effect of TI
is not significant at a level of 5%, thus rejecting Hypothesis 7a. Second, MI significantly
mediates the effect of OF and EC, with 95% CI [0.030, 0.144]. Thus, Hypothesis 7b is
supported. Third, the CI for the effect on the pathway from OF via TI and MI to EC
excluded zero (95% CI = [0.047, 0.198]). It means the serial mediation effect of TI and MI
between OF and EC is significant at a level of 5%, thus supporting Hypothesis 7c.

6. Discussion
6.1. Summary of Findings
This study is aimed at exploring the mechanism for EC promotion of PBEs in Chinese
construction industry against the background of MCI with a specific focus on OF and OI
when OI is considered including TI and MI. Five major findings are presented as follows
after carrying out empirical analysis.
• OF has a significant and positive effect on EC with the influence effect of 0.633.
• OF is positively related with TI and MI, with the influence effect of 0.868 and 0.351,
respectively.
• The influence effect of MI on EC is 0.234, while the direct influence between TI and
EC is not supported.
• TI has a direct influence on MI with the influence effect of 0.556.

228
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

• MI significantly mediates the relation between OF and EC. The indirect mediation
effect of TI is not significant. TI and MI play a serial mediation role in the relationship
between OF and EC.
The results show that OF is an effective predictor of EC, which is in line with previ-
ous evidence [7]. Organizations with flexibility can react to environmental changes and
uncertainties (e.g., velocity of technological advancement, increased competition, market
fluctuations [6]) more quickly by absorbing change, integrating, and developing and re-
structuring resources and capabilities in a short time [8], which is beneficial to successfully
navigating crisis situations and gaining advantages in the fierce market competition [41].
The uncertainty of an environment could be an opportunity or challenge depending on
whether an organization can adjust according to new market demands effectively. In
generally, firms with higher flexibility tend to exist and prosper [7].
Besides, the findings of this study show that OF is conducive to promoting TI and
MI. OF generates creativity [53], allowing the firm to develop new products or services
and make adjustments in management regulation, process, and method to adapt to market
demands quickly [9]. Furthermore, previous studies demonstrated that the dimensions
of organizational flexibility that are established in this paper (SF/RF/LF/CF/TF/IF) can
positively promote OI. For example, effective leadership encourages creativity and foster
ingenuity in individual project teams across the construction sector [15,77]. External human
resource flexibility is also positively related with innovation [54].
Moreover, MI is found to have a direct influence on EC, which is aligned with a
previous study [74]. The indirect effect testing results indicate that MI serves as a significant
mediating function in the relationship between OF and EC. As analyzed in this study, firms
with flexibility in some aspects (e.g., leadership [57], culture [95]) are more likely to respond
to environmental changes actively by making adjustments in management practices to
satisfy market acquirements and gain competitive advantages.
The empirical results show that TI has no direct positive influence on EC, which
is the opposite to the conclusion drawn by Li et al. (2019) [91], and that the indirect
mediation effect of TI is not significant. Interestingly, the indirect mediation effect of
MI between OF and EC is significant, both in the serial mediation of TI and MI. The
authors attempt to make the following explanations. In theory, TI in other literatures
may be defined in an overly broad fashion, involving innovation in management, which
is not consistent with this study. Moreover, the concept of competitiveness proposed in
this paper is aimed at PBEs in the construction industry (see Section 2.1), which is not
the same as existing definition [31]. It is universally acknowledged that the industry
background and market development trend need to be considered fully when establishing
competitiveness assessment indicators [29]. Therefore, the direct contribution of TI on
EC may be limited to a certain industry or a special situation, which is not an eternal
truth. Besides, it has been found that the influence of technological innovation output
on the competitiveness of enterprises has a threshold effect and lag. Only when the
number of patent applications of enterprise reaches a certain level can the innovation
output promote enterprise competitiveness effectively [111]. As a practical matter, in a
complex business environment, TI is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it provides
opportunities for firms to profit from innovation and improve their capabilities. On the
other hand, innovation may change traditional supply chains, destroy some immature
business processes, and bring expected losses to enterprises [112]. Furthermore, cycle of TI
has been greatly shortened currently, and the technology penetration rate is increasing [113].
In the context of MCI, the competition in technology is intensified, and the possibility of
maintaining the growth and competitiveness of enterprises through technical means is
decreasing. Innovation in non-technical fields (management, etc.) is gradually considered
a new breakthrough to enhance firm performance [75,114]. In addition, the application of
new technologies poses a higher challenge to the management ability of enterprises. The
introduction of innovative technologies is a common tool to promote the development of
firms. However, the effectiveness of this work mainly depends on the absorption ability of

229
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

technology receivers. The application of technology needs the support of the management
practices within the organization. In other words, maximizing the value of TI requires
the support of MI. Therefore, TI can effectively promote MI to some extent, which is also
partly supported by research of Zhang et al. [98]. In a word, the above analysis supports
the results of hypotheses H6 and H7c, that is, TI can promote MI, and TI and MI play an
important serial mediation between EC and OF.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

Existing literature presented effective research of EC promotion and obtained sig-
nificant research outcomes in the construction industry. Although researchers in the
construction industry agree on the importance of gaining OF in a constantly changing
business environment [6,7,47,49,50], specific effects of OF on EC require additional con-
sideration and testing. The mediating role of OI, including TI and MI, also needs further
study. This paper presents the first attempt to establish the theoretical connection between
OF, OI, and EC in the construction industry in a single research framework. This study
clarifies the direct influence effect of OF on EC, while verifying important mediating role of
MI and serial mediating functions of TI and MI between them. These are the outstanding
theoretical contribution to PBEs based on the context of MCI in China. However, the medi-
ating role of TI between OF and EC is not significant, which is an interesting result. The
author has given some explanations in theory and practice, which is helpful to re-examine
the role of TI in enhancing EC.
In addition, previous research explored multiple types of flexibility from different
perspectives and their importance. Key elements include product development [52], supply
chain [53], process [47,55], operational [115,116], strategic [117], leadership [56,57], project
team [58], financial, structural, technological [35], cross-cultural [59], contractual [60],
and human resource flexibilities [54]. However, existing literature exploring construction
industry PBEs OF is scarce. According to existing research, OF measurement structures are
not uniform. Applying MCI to Chinese construction industry, OF measurement structure
is grouped into six dimensions: SF, RF, LF, CF, TF, and IF. New and beneficial attempts
in the construction industry have been well verified and contribute to literature on OF
theory, especially dimensions of CF and IF proposed by this paper in particular. Similarly,
considering the difference between PBEs and other types of organizations, this manuscript
establishes the measurement structure about EC from five competitive perspectives: TCA,
FOA, MSA, EMA, and PMA. All of them return good reliability and validity results and
can pass the empirical test. Therefore, the proposed measurement scales (of OF and EC)
can provide a reference for scholars to perform similar research.

6.3. Practical Implications

In the process of MCI in China, PBEs construction leaders and managers should
consider implementing EC in order to survive and prosper in turbulent market environ-
ments. Based on empirical evidence, the findings of this study provide guidelines for
PBEs’ senior management, as well as practitioners, to make policies and strategies for
gaining sustainable development and competitiveness. Researching and discussing EC
improvement mechanisms from the comprehensive perspective of OF and OI can inspire
the construction industry in China. Faced with the uncertainty in the context of MCI,
OF provides an effective solution. By strengthening OF in terms of structure, resources,
leadership, culture, technology, and innovation the environmental adaptability of firms
can be significantly enhanced, which is conducive to seizing opportunities or avoiding
underlying risks through dynamic learning so as to gain competitiveness. In addition, the
serial mediating function of TI and MI in improving EC has been tested. Thus, OI should
be valued by embracing TI as a power source, which further contributes in promoting MI.
Coupling these components amplifies the benefits within the organization. Therefore, it is
recommend that PBEs emphasize TI and MI to improve sustainability and performance,
rather than focusing only on TI.

230
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

First of all, this paper adopted the questionnaire survey to test the theoretical model
of China’s construction industry with cross-sectional data. The data merely reflect the
relationship, as well as regular rules, in the short term with a Chinese context. Future
research is needed to conduct research in a long termed and longitudinal perspective. The
research results should be examined via repeated research subjects, so as to verify the
validity of the results. Although the results of this study could be an important and valued
reference for Chinese construction PBEs leaders and managers who want to keep enterprise
competitive advantage when responding to uncertainties and challenges brought by MCI.
However, how to apply the theoretical results better to practice for enterprises is also a
problem to be explored and solved.
Furthermore, this paper studied the common influence laws of OF and OI on EC in
PBEs because the number of research samples in this study is insufficient to distinguish
different types of PBEs for comparative analysis. However, it can be speculated that
different types of enterprises may require different types of organizational flexibility.
Therefore, if possible, more data can be collected for a specific focus on one type of
enterprise (e.g., construction, design, engineering management, etc.).
Finally, this paper exclusively investigated the influence mechanism of OF and OI on
EC in PBEs, but offers an interesting topic to analyze and study the factors affecting OF for
PBEs. The results show that OF has a significant positive effect on EC, which provides a
reference for improving EC from the perspective of flexibility. However, this paper only
defines the connotation and develops the measurement dimension of OF, but the formation
mechanism of OF and related influencing factors are not covered in this paper. Therefore,
the authors suggest that more attention should be paid to these two aspects and how to
improve the PBEs’ OF should be further analyzed. In addition, the optimal level of the OF
for an enterprise is also an important and interesting issue that need to be explored.

7. Conclusions
The MCI strategy influences improvement and development of China’s construction
industry, causing numerous uncertainties and complex external environment changes for
various PBEs. Improving the enterprise competitiveness constantly and surviving and
developing in fierce market competition are the focus of the leaders and managers of
PBEs in China at present. Therefore, greater attention should be paid to improving PBEs’
enterprise competitiveness. This paper explored improvement mechanism of enterprise
competitiveness, focusing on organizational flexibility and organizational innovation. The
following conclusions are drawn:
(1) Organizational flexibility can positively affect enterprise competitiveness significantly
in China’s construction industry. This indicates the need to improve PBEs’ organi-
zational flexibility so organizations can cope with the challenges and opportunities
generated by MCI.
(2) Technological innovation and management innovation can play an important serial
mediating role between organizational flexibility and enterprise competitiveness in
the construction industry, and strengthening technological innovation and manage-
ment innovation improves the enterprise competitiveness of PBEs. Furthermore,
technological innovation positively facilitates management innovation, and resultant
development strategy, organizational structure, management system, management
process, and management method innovations should be compatible with technologi-
cal innovation in PBEs.
(3) The measurement structure of organizational flexibility including structural flexibility,
resource flexibility, leadership flexibility, cultural flexibility, technological flexibil-
ity, and innovative flexibility has been well verified, and measurement scales offer
proven reliability and validity. Strengthening the structural flexibility, resource flexi-
bility, leadership flexibility, cultural flexibility, technological flexibility, and innovative
flexibility of the organization enhances organizational flexibility capabilities.

231
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

(4) The measurement structure of enterprise competitiveness involving talent competi-

tion advantage, financial operation advantage, market share advantage, enterprise
management advantage, and project management advantage has also been well tested,
and measurement scales were found to have ideal reliability and validity. Therefore,
through strengthening the advantages associated with talent competition, financial
operation, market share, enterprise management, and project management enterprise
competitiveness of PBEs can be reinforced further.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.N.; methodology, G.N. and H.X.; software, H.X.; val-
idation, G.N., Z.Z. and H.L.; formal analysis, G.N. and Q.C.; investigation, G.N., Z.Z. and H.L.;
resources, G.N.; data curation, Y.Q. and H.X.; writing—original draft preparation, G.N., H.X., Z.Z.
and H.L.; writing—review and editing, Q.C., Y.Q. and P.J.H.; supervision, G.N. and Q.C.; project
administration, G.N.; funding acquisition, G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
number 72071201 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in China, grant
number 2020ZDPYMS30.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Questionnaire items in measurement scales.

Construct Code Measurement Item

SF1 Your firm carries out organizational structure reform in response to the MCI.
SF2 Your firm is able to actively prepare or perfect specialized organizations to cope with the MCI.
SF SF3 Your firm advocates inter-departmental cooperation and communication within the organization.
SF4 Your firm can fully arise the initiative of functional departments in response to MCI.
SF5 Your firm establishes strategic cooperation with other firms to adapt to the MCI.
RF1 Leaders and employees in your firm are good at learning and applying relevant knowledge of the MCI.
RF2 Your firm attaches great importance to the training and education of employees related to the MCI.
RF RF3 Your firm can be equipped with all kinds of equipment required for the MCI timely.
RF4 Your firm is good at capturing and utilizing information related to the MCI.
RF5 Your firm can raise funds to meet the needs of the MCI timely.
LF1 Leaders of your firm pay close attention to the relevant policies and development status of the MCI.
LF2 Leaders of your firm often adopt advices on facilitating the MCI.
LF LF3 Leaders of your firm are good at motivating employees and display their subjective initiative.
LF4 Leaders of your firm can respect, trust, understand and care for employees.
LF5 Leaders of your firm can treat the success and failure of his subordinates objectively and fairly.
CF1 Your firm is open and willing to develop the MCI.
CF2 Your firm encourages free communication between superiors and subordinates.
CF CF3 Your firm advocates teamwork and win-win cooperation.
CF4 Your firm encourages employees to learn and communicate across functional areas.
CF5 Your firm attaches great importance to humanistic care for employees.
TF1 Your firm attaches great importance to the impact of technological revolution on economic benefits.
TF2 Your firm is good at introducing relevant technologies to develop the MCI.
TF TF3 Your firm can apply the relevant technologies of the MCI timely.
TF4 Your firm is good at predicting the development trend of technology in the construction industry.
TF5 Your firm values investment in technology research and development.

232
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

Table A1. Cont.

Construct Code Measurement Item

IF1 Your firm attaches great importance to the recruitment and introduction of innovative talents.
IF2 Your firm pays attention to the cultivation of employees’ innovative consciousness and ability.
IF IF3 Your firm advocates continuous innovation in the reform of the construction industry.
IF4 Your firm can provide financial support for employees to do innovative work.
IF5 Your firm focuses on rewarding employees for their innovations.
TI1 Your firm has implemented technological innovation related to the MCI, independently or cooperatively.
TI2 Your firm has obtained a number of patents or unique technologies related to the MCI.
TI TI3 Your firm has improved traditional construction or management techniques in response to the MCI.
TI4 Your firm has adapted traditional production or management tools in response to the MCI.
TI5 Your firm can launch new products or services to cope with the market changes timely.
MI1 Your firm has adjusted development strategy in response to the MCI.
MI2 Your firm has innovated organizational structure in response to the MCI.
MI MI3 Your firm has innovated management regulation in response to the MCI.
MI4 Your firm has innovated management procedure in response to the MCI.
MI5 Your firm has innovated management methods in response to the MCI.
TCA1 Your firm has more talents to meet the needs of MCI.
TCA2 Employees have higher comprehensive quality in your firm.
TCA TCA3 Employees have strong learning ability in your firm.
TCA4 Your firm has a reserve of talents
TCA5 Your firm receives more attention or favor from job seekers.
FOA1 You firm has more solid financial support.
FOA2 You firm has stronger financing capacity.
FOA FOA3 Your firm is in good financial condition.
FOA4 You firm has higher cost control ability.
FOA5 Your firm is more capable of capital appreciation.
MSA1 Your firm is able to respond to market needs or opportunities timely.
MSA2 Business scope is more suitable for the MCI in your firm.
MSA MSA3 Your firm has a higher winning rate in the market.
MSA4 Your firm has better marketing and public relations ability.
MSA5 Your firm has a better corporate reputation and image.
EMA1 Modern enterprise system is more sound in your firm.
EMA2 Internal processes are more efficient in your firm.
EMA EMA3 Internal communication mechanism is better in your firm.
EMA4 Functional departments and project teams in your firm can cooperate effectively.
EMA5 There are closer relationships between your firm and partners.
PMA1 Your firm gives project team more powers and responsibilities.
PMA2 Project team has a stronger comprehensive strength in your firm.
PMA PMA3 Project team’ cohesion is stronger in your firm.
PMA4 Operation mechanism of project team is more reasonable in your firm.
PMA5 Project team can provide a higher quality product or service in your firm.

References
1. Drobyazko, S.; Barwińska-Małajowicz, A.; Ślusarczyk, B.; Zavidna, L.; Danylovych-Kropyvnytska, M. Innovative entrepreneur-
ship models in the management system of enterprise competitiveness. J. Entrep. Educ. 2019, 22, 1–6.
2. Orozco, F.A.; Serpell, A.F.; Molenaar, K.R.; Forcael, E. Modeling competitiveness factors and indexes for construction companies:
Findings of Chile. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, B4013002. [CrossRef]
3. Tan, Y.; Xue, B.; Cheung, Y.T. Relationships between main contractors and subcontractors and their impacts on main contractor
competitiveness: An empirical study in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 05017007. [CrossRef]
4. Stoyanova, T.; Angelova, M. Impact of the internal factors on the competitiveness of business organizations. In Proceedings of the
2018 International Conference on High Technology for Sustainable Development (HiTech) IEEE, Sofia, Bulgaria, 11–14 June 2018;
pp. 1–3.
5. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Fosso Wamba, S.; Roubaud, D.; Foropon, C. Empirical investigation of data analytics
capability and organizational flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 1–19. [CrossRef]

233
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

6. Lim, B.T.; Ling, F.Y.; Ibbs, C.W.; Raphael, B.; Ofori, G. Mathematical models for predicting organizational flexibility of construction
firms in Singapore. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 361–375. [CrossRef]
7. Lim, B.T.; Ling, F.Y.; Ibbs, C.W.; Raphael, B.; Ofori, G. Empirical analysis of the determinants of organizational flexibility in the
construction business. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 225–237. [CrossRef]
8. Gonçalves, J.M.; Ferreira, F.A.F.; Ferreira, J.J.M.; Farinha, L.M.C. A multiple criteria group decision-making approach for the
assessment of small and medium-sized enterprise competitiveness. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 480–500. [CrossRef]
9. Saeed, M.A.; Jiao, Y.; Zahid, M.M.; Tabassum, H.; Nauman, S. Organizational flexibility and project portfolio performance: The
roles of innovation, absorptive capacity and environmental dynamism. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, J.; Li, B.; Lin, B.; Nguyen, V. Key issues and challenges of risk management and insurance in China’s construction industry:
An empirical study. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007, 107, 382–396. [CrossRef]
11. Gann, D.M.; Salter, A.J. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems.
Res. Policy. 2000, 29, 955–972. [CrossRef]
12. Javernick-Will, A. Local embeddedness and knowledge management strategies for project-based multi-national firms. Eng.
Manag. J. 2013, 25, 16–26. [CrossRef]
13. Luo, M.; Fan, H.; Liu, G. Measuring regional differences of construction productive efficiency in China: A distance friction
minimization approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 27, 952–974. [CrossRef]
14. Deng, F.; Liu, G.; Jin, Z. Factors Formulating the Competitiveness of the Chinese Construction Industry: Empirical Investigation.
J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 29, 435–445. [CrossRef]
15. Zhu, L.; Cheung, S.O. Harvesting competitiveness through building organizational innovation capacity. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33.
[CrossRef]
16. Gruneberg, S. Construction markets in a changing world economy. In Economics for the Modern Built Environment; Taylor & Francis
Group: Oxfordshire, UK, 2008; pp. 153–167.
17. Cartlidge, D. Procurement of Built Assets; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2004.
18. Luo, T.; Xue, X.; Wang, Y.; Xue, W.; Tan, Y. A systematic overview of prefabricated construction policies in China. J. Clean Prod.
2020, 280. [CrossRef]
19. Huang, J. Research on information industry innovation model under the background of integration of industrialization and
informatization. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management, Wuhan, China, 4–5 December
2010; pp. 588–592.
20. Zhai, X.; Reed, R.; Mills, A. Addressing sustainable challenges in China: The contribution of off-site industrialization. Smart
Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 261–274. [CrossRef]
21. Cao, D.; Li, H.; Wang, G.; Luo, X.; Tan, D. Relationship network structure and organizational competitiveness: Evidence from
BIM implementation practices in the construction industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018005. [CrossRef]
22. Dess, G.G.; Picken, J.C. Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century. Organ. Dyn. 2000, 28, 18–34. [CrossRef]
23. Ungerman, O.; Dedkova, J.; Gurinova, K. The impact of marketing innovation on the competitiveness of enterprises in the context
of industry 4.0. J. Compet. 2018, 10, 132–148. [CrossRef]
24. Daft, R.L. A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad. Manag. J. 1978, 21, 193–210.
25. Evan, W.M. Organizational lag. Hum. Organ. 1966, 25, 51–53. [CrossRef]
26. Dereli, D.D. Innovation management in global competition and competitive advantage. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195,
1365–1370. [CrossRef]
27. Ajitabh, A.; Momaya, K. Competitiveness of firms: Review of theory, frameworks and models. Singap. Manag. Rev. 2004, 26,
45–61.
28. Falciola, J.; Jansen, M.; Rollo, V. Defining firm competitiveness: A multidimensional framework. World Dev. 2020, 129, 104857.
[CrossRef]
29. Afanasieva, N.V.; Rodionov, D.G.; Vasilev, Y.N. System of indicators of coal enterprise competitiveness assessment. Espacios 2018,
39, 10.
30. Lu, W.; Shen, L.; Yam, M.C. Critical success factors for competitiveness of contractors: China study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008,
134, 972–982. [CrossRef]
31. Yamova, O.; Maramygin, M.; Sharova, I.; Nesterenko, J.; Sobina, N. Integral valuation of an enterprise’s competitiveness in the
industrial economy. Eur. Res. Stud. 2018, 21, 777–786.
32. Ghobadian, A.; Viney, H.; Liu, J.; James, P. Extending linear approaches to mapping corporate environmental behaviour. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 1998, 7, 13–23. [CrossRef]
33. Xu, T.; Tiong, R.L.; Chew, D.A.; Smith, N.J. Development model for competitive construction industry in the People’s Republic of
China. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 844–853. [CrossRef]
34. Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M.T.; Kiziltas, S. Prediction of organizational effectiveness in construction companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2005, 131, 252–261. [CrossRef]
35. Maghool, A. Investigating the effect of flexibility (operational, financial, structural and technological) required for Banking
Industry on the correlation between the strategic planning and the organization efficiency. Am. J. Sci. 2013, 9, 102–109.
36. Abdelilah, B.; El Korchi, A.; Balambo, M.A. Flexibility and agility: Evolution and relationship. J. Manuf. Technol. Mana. 2018, 29,
1138–1162. [CrossRef]

234
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

37. Prater, E.; Biehl, M.; Smith, M.A. International supply chain agility-Tradeoffs between flexibility and uncertainty. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Man. 2001, 21, 823–839. [CrossRef]
38. Backhouse, C.J.; Burns, N.D. Agile value chains for manufacturing-implications for performance measures. Int. J. Agil. Manag.
Systems 1999, 1, 76–82. [CrossRef]
39. Koev, S.R.; Pavliuk, S.; Derhaliuk, M.; Sokolova, L.; Portna, O. Resource Strategy for Enterprise Management as a Tool to Ensure
Its Competitiveness. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020, 19, 1–8.
40. Lin, H.; Zeng, S.X.; Ma, H.Y.; Qi, G.Y.; Tam, V.W. Can political capital drive corporate green innovation? Lessons from China. J.
Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 63–72. [CrossRef]
41. McManus, S.; Seville, E.; Vargo, J.; Brunsdon, D. Facilitated process for improving organizational resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev.
2008, 9, 81–90. [CrossRef]
42. Úbeda-García, M.; Claver-Cortés, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Zaragoza-Sáez, P.; García-Lillo, F. High performance work system and
performance: Opening the black box through the organizational ambidexterity and human resource flexibility. J. Bus. Res. 2018,
88, 397–406. [CrossRef]
43. Ozer, M. The role of flexibility in online business. Bus. Horiz. 2002, 45, 61–69. [CrossRef]
44. Ni, G.; Cui, Q.; Sang, L.; Wang, W.; Xia, D. Knowledge-sharing culture, project-team interaction, and knowledge-sharing
performance among project members. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04017065. [CrossRef]
45. Lansley, P.R. Corporate strategy and survival in the UK construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1987, 5, 141–155. [CrossRef]
46. Ho, S.P.; Liu, L.Y. How to evaluate and invest in emerging A/E/C technologies under uncertainty. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003,
129, 16–24. [CrossRef]
47. Gil, N.; Tommelein, I.D.; Stout, A.; Garrett, T. Embodying product and process flexibility to cope with challenging project
deliveries. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 439–448. [CrossRef]
48. Langford, D.A.; Male, S.P. Strategic Management in Construction, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Science: London, UK, 2001.
49. Lansley, P.R. A practical approach to auditing organizational flexibility. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 1, 145–156. [CrossRef]
50. Olsson, N.O. Management of flexibility in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 66–74. [CrossRef]
51. Eriksson, P.E.; Larsson, J.; Pesamaa, O. Managing complex projects in the infrastructure sector-a structural equation model for
flexibility-focused project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1512–1523. [CrossRef]
52. Thomke, S.; Reinertsen, D. Agile product development: Managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 1998, 41, 8–30. [CrossRef]
53. Vickery, S.N.; Calantone, R.; Dröge, C. Supply chain flexibility: An empirical study. J. Supply Chain Manag. 1999, 35, 16–24.
[CrossRef]
54. Martínez-Sánchez, Á.; Vela-Jimenez, M.; Abella-Garces, S.; Gorgemans, S. Flexibility and innovation: Moderator effects of
cooperation and dynamism. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 1548–1564. [CrossRef]
55. Chou, M.C.; Teo, C.P.; Zheng, H. Process flexibility: Design, evaluation, and applications. Flex. Serv. Manuf. 2008, 20, 59–94.
[CrossRef]
56. Singh, A.; Jampel, G. Leadership flexibility space. J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 26, 176–188. [CrossRef]
57. Baron, L.; Rouleau, V.; Grégoire, S.; Baron, C. Mindfulness and leadership flexibility. J. Manag. Dev. 2018, 37, 165–177. [CrossRef]
58. Zhang, L.; He, J.; Zhou, S. Sharing tacit knowledge for integrated project team flexibility: Case study of integrated project delivery.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 795–804. [CrossRef]
59. Cray, D.; McKay, R.; Mittelman, R. Cultural intelligence and mindfulness: Teaching MBAs in Iran. J. Int. Educ. Bus. 2018, 11,
220–240. [CrossRef]
60. Song, H.; Zhu, F.; Klakegg, O.J.; Wang, P. Relationship between contractual flexibility and contractor’s cooperative behavior. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 382–405. [CrossRef]
61. Moreno-Luzon, M.D.; Gil-Marques, M.; Valls-Pasola, J. TQM, innovation and the role of cultural change. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
2013, 113, 1149–1168. [CrossRef]
62. Dai, Y.; Goodale, J.C.; Byun, G.; Ding, F. Strategic flexibility in new high-technology ventures. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 55, 265–294.
[CrossRef]
63. Liu, A.M.M.; Chan, I.Y.S. Understanding the interplay of organizational climate and leadership in construction innovation. J.
Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017021. [CrossRef]
64. Mathews, J.A. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm: A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pac.
J. Manag. 2002, 19, 467–488. [CrossRef]
65. Lund, R. Organizational and Innovative Flexibility Mechanisms and Their Impact upon Organizational Effectiveness; DRUID Working
Paper 1998 (23); Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 1998.
66. Ozorhon, B. Analysis of construction innovation process at project level. J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 29, 455–463. [CrossRef]
67. Yu, M.C.; Lu, Y.J.; Li, C.; Lin, H.; Shapira, P. More is less? The curvilinear effects of political ties on corporate innovation
performance. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2019, 25, 1309–1335. [CrossRef]
68. Chen, J.; Yin, X.; Li, J. Firm innovation system: Paths for enhancing corporate indigenous innovation capability. Front. Eng.
Manag. 2020, 7, 404–412. [CrossRef]
69. Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Liu, H.; Li, C. Bridging the gaps or fecklessness? A moderated mediating examination of intermediaries’ effects
on corporate innovation. Technovation 2020, 94, 102018. [CrossRef]

235
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

70. Mothe, C.; Thi, T.U.N. The link between non-technological innovations and technological innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2010,
13, 313–332. [CrossRef]
71. Birkinshaw, J.M.; Mol, M.J. How management innovation happens. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2006, 47, 81–88.
72. Birkinshaw, J.; Hamel, G.; Mol, M.J. Management innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 825–845. [CrossRef]
73. Su, S.; Baird, K. The role of leaders in generating management innovation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 29, 2758–2779.
[CrossRef]
74. Kraśnicka, T.; Głód, W.; Wronka-Pośpiech, M. Management innovation, pro-innovation organisational culture and enterprise
performance: Testing the mediation effect. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 12, 737–769. [CrossRef]
75. Allahar, H. A management innovation approach to project planning. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2019, 9, 4–13. [CrossRef]
76. Ozorhon, B.; Oral, K.; Demirkesen, S. Investigating the components of innovation in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016,
32, 04015052. [CrossRef]
77. Ozorhon, B.; Abbott, C.; Aouad, G. Integration and leadership as enablers of innovation in construction: Case study. J. Manag.
Eng. 2014, 30, 256–263. [CrossRef]
78. Liu, A.M.M.; Chan, I.Y.S. Critical role of the learning transfer climate in fostering innovation in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2017,
33, 04016050. [CrossRef]
79. Lijauco, F.; Gajendran, T.; Brewer, G.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M. Impacts of culture on innovation propensity in small to medium
enterprises in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04019116. [CrossRef]
80. Brockmann, C.; Brezinski, H.; Erbe, A. Innovation in construction megaprojects. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2016, 142, 04016059.
[CrossRef]
81. Meng, X.; Brown, A. Innovation in construction firms of different sizes: Drivers and strategies. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018,
25, 1210–1225. [CrossRef]
82. Crossan, M.M.; Apaydin, M. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature.
J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1154–1191. [CrossRef]
83. Oke, A. A framework for analysing manufacturing flexibility. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2005, 25, 973–996. [CrossRef]
84. Riolli, L.; Savicki, V. Information system organizational resilience. Omega 2003, 31, 227–233. [CrossRef]
85. Chan, I.Y.S.; Liu, A.M.M.; Fellows, R. Role of leadership in fostering an innovation climate in construction firms. J. Manag. Eng.
2014, 30, 06014003. [CrossRef]
86. Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V.; Correa, C.L.; Alarcón, L.F. Model for systematic innovation in construction companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2014, 140, B4014001. [CrossRef]
87. Manley, K.; McFallan, S.; Kajewski, S. Relationship between construction firm strategies and innovation outcomes. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2009, 135, 764–771. [CrossRef]
88. Subramaniam, M.; Youndt, M.A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad. Manag. J. 2005,
48, 450–463. [CrossRef]
89. Zhang, Y.; Khan, U.; Lee, S.; Salik, M. The influence of management innovation and technological innovation on organization
performance: A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 495. [CrossRef]
90. Zhang, J.; Chang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Li, D. Do technological innovations promote urban green development?—A spatial econometric
analysis of 105 cities in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 395–403. [CrossRef]
91. Li, G.; Wang, X.; Su, S.; Su, Y. How green technological innovation ability influences enterprise competitiveness. Technol. Soc.
2019, 59, 101136. [CrossRef]
92. Wen, Q.; Chen, Y.; Hong, J.; Chen, Y.; Ni, D.; Shen, Q. Spillover effect of technological innovation on CO2 emissions in China’s
construction industry. Build. Environ. 2020, 171, 106653. [CrossRef]
93. Damanpour, F.; Szabat, K.A.; Evan, W.M. The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. J. Manag.
Stud. 1989, 26, 587–602. [CrossRef]
94. Du, Z. A Literature Review on Institutional Environment and Technological Innovation. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2018, 8,
1941–1950. [CrossRef]
95. Alofan, F.; Chen, S.; Tan, H. National cultural distance, organizational culture, and adaptation of management innovations in
foreign subsidiaries: A fuzzy set analysis of TQM implementation in Saudi Arabia. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 184–199. [CrossRef]
96. Khosravi, P.; Newton, C.; Rezvani, A. Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of
research. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 694–707. [CrossRef]
97. Camison, C.; López, A.V. An examination of the relationship between manufacturing flexibility and firm performance. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 2010, 30, 853–878. [CrossRef]
98. Zhang, Z.; Yuan, Z.; Ni, G.; Lin, H.; Lu, Y. The quality traceability system for prefabricated buildings using blockchain: An
integrated framework. Front. Eng. Manag. 2020, 7, 528–546. [CrossRef]
99. Young-Ybarra, C.; Wiersema, M. Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost
economics and social exchange theory. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 439–459. [CrossRef]
100. Phillips, P.A.; Wright, C. E-business’s impact on organizational flexibility. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 1071–1080. [CrossRef]
101. Hamel, G. The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 72–84. [PubMed]
102. Shen, L.Y.; Lu, W.; Shen, Q.; Li, H. A computer-aided decision support system for assessing a contractor’s competitiveness. Autom.
Constr. 2003, 12, 577–587. [CrossRef]

236
Sustainability 2021, 13, 176

103. Tan, Y.T.; Shen, L.Y.; Yam, M.C.; Lo, A.A. Contractor key competitiveness indicators (KCIs): A Hong Kong study. Build. Environ.
2007, 18, 17–32.
104. Yang, J. The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. J. Knowl. Manage. 2007, 11, 83–90.
[CrossRef]
105. Fang, D.; Wu, C.; Wu, H. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31,
04015001. [CrossRef]
106. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
107. Chin, W.W.; Marcolin, B.L.; Newsted, P.R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction
effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14,
189–217. [CrossRef]
108. Wei, Z.; Song, X.; Wang, D. Manufacturing flexibility, business model design, and firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 193,
87–97. [CrossRef]
109. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper SaddleRiver, NJ, USA,
1998.
110. Kim, B.J. Unstable jobs cannot cultivate good organizational citizens: The sequential mediating role of organizational trust and
identification. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Wang, L.; Wang, S.; Tao, P. R&D Investment, Innovation Output and Enterprise Competitiveness: A Perspective of Employee
Education. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1616. [CrossRef]
112. Yang, Y.; Guo, L.; Zhong, Z.; Zhang, M. Selection of Technological Innovation for Service-Orientated Enterprises. Sustainability
2018, 10, 3906. [CrossRef]
113. Kim, D.G.; Choi, S.O. Impact of Construction IT Technology convergence innovation on business performance. Sustainability
2018, 10, 3972. [CrossRef]
114. Giuliani, P.; Robert, M.; Roy, F.L. Reinvention of management innovation for successful implementation. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus.
2018, 34, 343–361. [CrossRef]
115. Calvo, R.; Domingo, R.; Sebastián, M.A. Operational flexibility quantification in a make-to-order assembly system. Int. J. Flex.
Manuf. Sys. 2007, 19, 247–263. [CrossRef]
116. Fisch, J.H.; Zschoche, M. The role of operational flexibility in the expansion of international production networks. Strateg. Manage.
J. 2012, 33, 1540–1556. [CrossRef]
117. Javalgi, R.; Whipple, T.W.; Ghosh, A.K.; Young, R. Market orientation, strategic flexibility, and performance: Implications for
services providers. J. Serv. Mark. 2005, 19, 212–221. [CrossRef]

237
sustainability

Article
Multi-Criteria Ranking of Green Materials According
to the Goals of Sustainable Development
Amirhossein Balali 1 , Alireza Valipour 1, *, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas 2, * and
Zenonas Turskis 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz 5-71993, Iran;
[email protected]
2 Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT–10223 Vilnius, Lithuania;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.V.); [email protected] (E.K.Z.)

Received: 19 October 2020; Accepted: 12 November 2020; Published: 14 November 2020

Abstract: Modern, well-educated and experienced policy-makers support and promote the use of
environmentally friendly materials and resources. The use of green resources is an exceptional and
inevitable strategy to meet the needs of a rapidly growing Earth population. The growing population
raises the need for new housing construction and urban infrastructure development. Such substances
in construction refer to green building materials (GBMs). The environmental impact is lower if GBMs
replace non-GBMs. Here, ranking among GBMs can facilitate and support the selection process.
This study aimed to contribute to the body of knowledge to introduce a method for identifying and
prioritizing GBMs in the construction industry to use in green building. The required data were
collected using existing literature, interviews and questionnaires. Relevant Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) are the first criteria for assessing GBM selection criteria. Critical weighted GBM selection
criteria are the second criteria for prioritizing GBMs. The results show that “Natural, Plentiful and
Renewable”, “Affordability from cradle to gate” and “Affordability during operation” are the top
three GBM selection criteria. The real case study helped select “Stramit Strawboard”, “Aluminium
Composite Panels (ACPs)” and “Solar Roof Tiles” as the most suitable GBMs for use in the context of
the study. The model and results presented in this study will help actors of the construction industry
to select and use GBMs more quickly and thus achieve a better level of construction sustainability, as
well as environmental friendliness, than before.

Keywords: green building materials (GBMs); building industry; Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs); construction industry; MCDM; SWARA method; COPRAS method; real case study

1. Introduction
The vast majority of human activities in the modern world affect the environment. In most
cases, this is a negative factor. It is essential to find the best solutions that cause the least possible
conflict between people’s wellbeing, their activities and the environment instead of looking for answers
to such disputes [1]. Buildings are an integral part of all societies as they provide housing for
people. Unfortunately, the building sector is known as one of the biggest energy-consuming sectors,
and exploiting energy contributes to global climatic change and other environmental issues [2,3].
Previous studies illustrated that the building sector is responsible for consuming over 40% of the total
final energy, using approximately 30% of the total resources, producing 45–65% of the waste disposed
to landfills and emitting more than 30% of the greenhouse gases in developed countries [4–9].
Although constructing buildings results in environmental issues, there are some ways to decrease
its negative impacts. One of the ways to achieve this goal is to consider sustainability in various
parts of a building project. According to the definition of the United Nations’ World Commission

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482; doi:10.3390/su12229482 239 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, sustainability is “development that meets the
needs of the present without comprising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs”.
The given definition can be thus linked to the low cost of operation and maintenance (O & M), long
service life and high energy efficiency as pillars of a sustainable and green building [10].
The consideration of sustainability in the construction industry has delivered some valuable
benefits by reducing the extensive impact on the environment through the use of renewable energy,
analysing the consequences of design choices over the entire building life cycle, revised energy codes
and low environmental impact materials [11]. Low environmental impact materials, also known as
green building materials (GBMs), are widely used in the construction industry in order to alleviate the
negative impacts of constructing buildings [12].
These materials are usually considered environmentally friendly and environmentally
responsible [13,14]. GBMs not only promote health but also help in meeting sustainability goals [15].
Generally, various definitions of greenness in building materials can be summarised into possessing
two main concepts, including “being sustainable during whole life-cycle” and “not being hazardous for
human health”. The former concept can be quantified by the life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology,
in a “cradle to grave” perspective [16]. With regards to the latter concept, GBMs must not lead to indoor
types of pollutions constituting radon emissions, biological pollutions, uncomfortable indoor climate
conditions and hazardous fibre dispersion [17,18]. Exploiting GBMs in the construction industry
results in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in both direct and indirect ways. SDGs are
discussed in the next paragraphs.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) consist of 17 primary goals and 169 targets in various
parts of sustainability. The mentioned goals are illustrated in Figure 1 [19–22].

Figure 1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [21].

Some of the SDGs are directly or indirectly related to the construction industry. For instance,
Goal 11 is about sustainable cities and communities. Figure 2 illustrates the targets of this goal, which
show a sensible relationship [21,23]. The construction industry consumes a large amount of natural
resources, water, energy and materials; it can have a dramatic impact on achieving SDGs and some of
the global challenges such as climate change, health and wellbeing [24,25]. The World Green Building
Council (WGBC) illustrated how using GBMs can help the construction industry to attain SDGs.
The mentioned contribution is illustrated in Figure 3 [26].

240
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

Figure 2. Targets of SDG 11 [21].

SGDs are less considered in all the fields and especially in the construction industry of Iran.
An extensive study was conducted through the existing literature in order to find papers that are
relevant to SDGs, but only a few were found, and no relevant studies on GBMs within Iran could
be identified.
To be able to select the optimum GBM for use in the construction industry, GBM selection criteria
are required. Various studies have been conducted to introduce such criteria since 2009 [14,27].
Khoshnava et al. identified GBM’s selection criteria using three pillars of sustainability in 2018.
According to their findings, the mentioned criteria can be divided into five critical categorisations by
considering their characteristics. These categorisations were AF (Affordability), WC (Water Efficiency),
EE (Energy Efficiency), IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) and RE (Resource Efficiency), which stand for
Affordability, Water Conservation, Energy Efficiency, Indoor Air Quality and Resource Efficiency,
respectively [12]. Figure 4 illustrates this categorisation.
Mokal et al. studied the advantages, disadvantages, durability and economic impacts of various
GBMs consisting of lime, sand-lime bricks, eco-friendly tiles, coloured lime plaster and reflectasol glass,
concluding that GBMs reduce the adverse effects on construction projects [28]. Chauhan and Kamboj
(2016) identified different means and needs to go green in the world’s construction industry and found
that exploiting green materials in the mentioned industry plays an important role in bringing benefits
to both humans and the environment [29]. Another study was conducted in order to assess the relative
fungal resistance of four pairs of GBMs. It was illustrated that the presence of organic matter in GBMs
plays a significant role in their environmental impacts [30].

241
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

The general lack of related studies in the context of Iran and the absence of available GBMs makes
it hard for regional comparison conceptually and the local industry practices to embrace sustainable
practices in the material selection. Therefore, this paper aims to identify GBMs as well as rank them
in the construction industry of Shiraz, Iran. The novelty of this study is that two groups of selection
criteria were being used together to conduct this ranking. The first group of selection criteria was SDGs.
Both relevant SDGs and the existing GBM selection criteria, which exist in the literature, were used to
weight selection criteria. Then, these weighted criteria were exploited to rank GBMs. The SWARA and
the COPRAS methods were used as the data analysing tools due to their success in solving complex
decision-making problems. The findings of this study can be widely used by designers, engineers,
managers and contractors in the construction industry in both existing and new buildings.

Figure 3. Relationship between green building materials (GBMs) and SDGs [26].

242
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

Figure 4. Categorization of GBM’s selection criteria [12].

2. Research Methodology
The current paper’s research methodology can be divided into four main steps. Firstly,
green building materials were identified through conducting an extensive study on the existing
literature, including journal papers, books, interviews with experts and online resources [14,16,28].
Then, in the second step, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were studied precisely to identify
relevant goals for the construction industry. To do so, several experts were interviewed. Then, using a
questionnaire distributed among experts, the relevant goals were weighted using the SWARA method.
Data of the questionnaires were gathered, analysed and put in the SWARA process for weighting.
The third step focused on identifying and weighting the identified GBM selection criteria according
to the specified SDGs using the previous studies and considering experts’ opinions. The second
questionnaire was used, and the COPRAS method was exploited as the analysis method. Concerning
the usage of the COPRAS method, the weighted SDGs and GBM selection criteria were considered
simultaneously and put in the process of the COPRAS method. In the final step, the weighted
GBM selection criteria were exploited to prioritize GBMs through the second questionnaire using
the COPRAS method. The COPRAS method assumes direct and proportional dependence of the
significance and utility degree of considered versions based on a system of criteria proportionally
explaining the alternatives and on weights and values of the criteria; this is the superiority of the
COPRAS method compared to the other MCDM methods. Figure 5 illustrates the research methodology
of this study.

243
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

Figure 5. Research methodology.

2.1. Questionnaire
Questionnaires are widely used in different research as information collecting tools. In fact,
questionnaires provide raw data, which will be analysed later. In this study, three types of questionnaires
were exploited. Respondents’ general information, including sex, years of experience, educational
level and working background, can be seen in Section 3.2. Questionnaire A was used to weight the
identified relevant SDGs. In Questionnaire B, the aim was to weight GBM selection criteria according
to the weighted SDGs. Finally, questionnaire C was exploited to prioritise GBMs. In all the designed
questionnaires, experts were supposed to give scores from 1 to 5, in which 1 and 5 stand for “very
inappropriate” and “very appropriate”, respectively.
Questionnaires must be reliable. Otherwise, the results are not viable. One of the ways to attain
this goal is to compute Cronbach’s alpha. Questionnaires that are more reliable possess a higher
value of Cronbach’s alpha. The value of 0.7 is regarded as an acceptable value [31–33]. In this study,
the mentioned coefficient was calculated by SPSS software. Table 1 shows the computed values.

Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha values of questionnaires.

Questionnaire Purpose Value

A Obtaining weight of relevant SDGs 0.912
Obtaining weight of GBM
B 0.871
selection criteria
C Ranking GBMs 0.934

2.2. SWARA (Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) Method

Keršuliene et al. introduced the SWARA method in 2010. The technique is exploited to weight
criteria. This method has been exploited by numerous researchers [34,35]. Balali et al. used the SWARA
method as part of their study to weight passive energy consumption strategies in Iran [36]. Akhanova
et al. assessed the building’s sustainability by SWARA in Kazakhstan [37]. Prajapati et al. prioritised
the solutions of reverse logistics implementation to mitigate its barriers in India using the SWARA

244
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

method [35]. Valipour et al. assessed risks of deep foundation excavation projects in Malaysia by using
this method [38]. Maghsoodi et al. used SWARA to select dam materials in Iran [39]. Jaber assessed
construction projects’ risks in Iraq by using the SWARA method [40]. Readers are referred to the
following papers [41–47] to observe more usages of the SWARA method.
In this study, the identified Sustainable Development Goals were weighted using SWARA. These
goals were first ranked by experts from 1 to 5, where 1 and 5 stand for the most and least important goals,
respectively. Average values of the returned questionnaires were used for analysis. The procedure of
the SWARA method is illustrated below [35,48–53]:

1. Selection criteria are identified.

2. Identified criteria are sorted in terms of relative importance in descending order according to the
respondents’ points of view.
3. Comparative average value (s j ) is calculated. To do so, the second important ( j − 1) criterion is
compared to the first criterion ( j), and its relative importance is expressed. The same trend is
continued for all the criteria.
4. Coefficient k j , which stands for comparative importance, is computed according to the
following formula:

1 j=1
kj = (1)
sj + 1 j > 1

5. Recalculated weights (q j ) are determined:

⎧
⎪
⎪ 1 j=1
⎨
qj = ⎪
⎪ q j−1 (2)
⎩ kj j>1

6. Relative weights of the selection criteria (w j ) are computed as follows:

qj
w j = n (3)
m=1 qm

where n stands for the number of selection criteria.

2.3. The COPRAS Method

Zavadskas and Kaklauskas introduced the complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) in 1994,
which is a powerful and useful multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool [54]. This method is
usually used as the second tool due to its need for weighted selection criteria. Criteria are supposed to
be weighted by other methods like the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the analytic network process
(ANP), the step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) or any other method [55,56] and
software [57]. The COPRAS method has been used by many researchers. For instance, Ghose and
Pradhan analysed renewable energy sources in India using the fuzzy COPRAS [58]. Tolga and Durak
used the fuzzy COPRAS to evaluate innovation projects [59]. Amoozad Mahdiraji et al. exploited the
COPRAS to identify and prioritise sustainable architecture factors in Iran [60]. Kundakcı and Işık used
the COPRAS as part of their study for selecting a textile company’s air compressor [61].
In this study, the COPRAS method was exploited to weight GBM selection criteria, as well as
ranking GBMs. The procedure of using the method is presented as follows [54,62–64]:

1. Weighted selection criteria (qi ) were calculated before. Here, alternatives are determined.

245
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

2. Matrix X is constructed as below:

⎡ ⎤
⎢⎢ x11 x12 ··· x1m ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ x21 x22 ··· x2m ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎥⎥
X = ⎢⎢⎢ . .. .. .. ⎥⎥⎥; i = 1, n and j = 1, m
⎢⎢ .. . ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ . . ⎥⎦
⎣
xn1 xn2 ··· xnm

where i, j, m and n stand for an alternative, its corresponding criteria, number of alternatives and
number of criteria, respectively.
3. Decision matrix X is normalised as follows:

xij
Xij = n ; i = 1, n (4)
j=1 xij

4. Weighted-normalised decision matrix (Xˆ) is calculated in which the values are computed
according to the formula below:

x̂ij = xij .q j ; i = 1, n and j = 1, m (5)

where the importance of the ith criterion is shown with qi .

5. Beneficial and non-beneficial (positive and negative) attributes are calculated using the
following formulas:
k
Pi + = x̂ij (6)
j=1

m
Pi− = xij (7)
j=k + 1

6. Minimum value of Pi− is calculated as follows:

Pmin− = min Pi− ; i = 1, n (8)

7. The importance degree of each alternative is calculated and illustrated by Qi :

Pmin− = min Pi− ; i = 1, n (9)

8. Optimality criterion (K) is determined as below:

K = maxQi ; i = 1, n (10)

9. Alternatives’ order ranking is determined according to Qi .

10. Finally, the utility degree of each alternative is computed:

Qi
Ni = × 100% (11)
Qmax

3. Application of the Model

The current study’s purpose was identifying and ranking various green building materials for
Shiraz, Iran. The generated results of this paper can be used in the buildings that are located in Shiraz
and other cities that possess similar conditions. Two hundred building specialists were identified and

246
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

contributed to the survey to attain this goal. By using the SWARA and the COPRAS methods, relevant
SDGs to this topic, GBM selection criteria and GBMs themselves were weighted and ranked.

3.1. Case Study

Shiraz is one of the most populous cities in southwestern Iran [65]. The Shiraz climate is
moderate [66,67]. Humidity and temperature difference between days and nights in Shiraz are vital
factors influencing building materials and construction projects [68]. The municipality of Shiraz has
reported that, according to the latest statistics, more than 1,500,000 people live in Shiraz [38]. Due to
the growing demand for housing, many buildings are growing. It seems necessary to try to use GBMs
in such projects. In this way, less damage would be done to the environment, leading to greater
sustainability than before.

3.2. Sample Size

Building specialists who take part in building construction projects of Shiraz, Iran, were considered
as the sample size of this study. The formula used for achieving the number of required specialists is
shown as follows [69]:
z2 p ( 1 − p )
SS = (12)
c2
where SS stands for the calculated sample size, z stands for the confidence level value, p stands for
percentage picking a choice, and c stands for a confidence interval. Then, the corrected sample size
was computed as follows:
SS
Corrected SS = (13)
1 + SS−1 pop

where rr stands for response rate.

Two hundred professional building experts were considered as the sample size. In this study,
to get an acceptable result, the values of the variables were as follows. Percentage picking a choice
(p) was considered as 0.5. The confidence level value (z) was taken as 95%. The confidence interval
was also considered 10%. According to the conducted calculations, this survey required at least 116
questionnaires to be filled out by experts, which was considered. Table 2 describes general information
about specialists.

Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha values of questionnaires.

Category Classification Number

Academia 33
Manager 48
Occupation
Contractor 21
Technician 22
Male 74
Sex
Female 50
<5 22
Experience 5–10 14
(years) 10–15 30
>15 58

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Identification and Allocation of Weights to the Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Sustainable Development Goals include 17 primary goals, as well as 169 corresponding targets in
vast areas [21]. Some of these goals and targets are related to the construction industry. Due to the
profound impact of the construction industry on the environment and society, it is important to find

247
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

relevant SDGs and consider them in decision-making problems. Various studies have taken place that
showed the impact of the construction industry on achieving SDGs [24,25].
Thus, identifying relevant SDGs was the first stage of this research. A large number of building
specialists, constituting both academic and building industry experts, were identified and interviewed.
Finally, five relevant SDGs were identified according to three pillars of sustainability goals such as
economy, environment and society. In the interviews’ questions, the mentioned pillars were considered.
The identified SDGs were G7, G9, G11, G12 and G17. These goals are illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3. Relevant Identified SDGs.

Sign SDG Nature

G7 Affordable and Clean Energy Benefit
G9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure Benefit
G11 Sustainable Cities and Communities Benefit
G12 Responsible Consumption and Production Benefit
G17 Partnerships for the Goals Benefit

These goals were then analysed by the SWARA method to obtain their weights [34]. To do that,
Questionnaire A was distributed among specialists to prioritise the goals. Table 4 shows the outcome
of this part of the study.

Table 4. Weight of each selection criterion.

Criteria Sj Kj = sj +1 qj wj Rank
G9 — 1 1 0.43 1
G7 0.63 1.63 0.61 0.26 2
G11 0.63 1.63 0.38 0.16 3
G12 0.78 1.78 0.21 0.09 4
G17 0.74 1.73 0.12 0.05 5

The results show that “Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure” (G9), “Affordable and Clean
Energy” (G7), “Sustainable Cities and Communities” (G11), “Responsible Consumption and Production”
(G12) and “Partnerships for the Goals” (G17) were ranked first to fifth important SDGs, respectively.
Weights of the SDGs are shown in Table 4.

4.2. Identification and Weighting GBM Selection Criteria

GBM selection criteria must be identified in decision-making problems regarding GBMs. Various
studies have been conducted to do so [14,27]. For instance, in one study in 2018, GBM selection criteria
were identified and categorised into five main groups including affordability (AF), water conservation
(WC), energy efficiency (EE), indoor air quality (IAQ) and resource efficiency (RE) [12].
In the current study, after obtaining the weights of the identified relevant SDGs, the next stage was
to identify and weight GBM selection criteria. To identify GBM selection criteria, relevant identified
SDGs from the last step were considered. GBM selection criteria were put into five categorisations
using the findings of a study on the existing literature and conducting interviews with specialists, as
well as considering the aims of the relevant SDGs. The descriptions of the relevant SDGs are illustrated
in Figure 6 [21]. Finally, 19 criteria were identified [12]. These criteria and their categorisation are
illustrated in Table 5.

248
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

Figure 6. Descriptions of the relevant SDGs [21].

Table 5. Identified GBM selection criteria.

Main GBM Selection Criteria Sign GBM Selection Criteria

RE1 Recycled content
RE2 Natural, plentiful or renewable
RE3 Resource-efficient manufacturing process
RE4 Locally available
Resource Efficiency (RE)
RE5 Salvaged, refurbished or remanufactured
RE6 Reusable or recyclable
RE7 Recycled or recyclable product packaging
RE8 Durable
IAQ1 Low or non-toxic
IAQ2 Minimal chemical emissions
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) IAQ3 Moisture resistant
IAQ4 Healthfully maintained
IAQ5 Systems or equipment
EE1 Energy efficiency from cradle to gate
Energy Efficiency (EE) EE2 Energy efficiency during operation
EE3 Energy efficiency in the recycling process
AF1 Affordability from cradle to gate
Affordability (AF) AF2 Affordability during operation
AF3 Affordability recycles process

Questionnaire B was given to specialists to weight GBM selection criteria, and the analysis took
place through the COPRAS method. By considering the calculated criteria weights, the mentioned
criteria were ranked. As it was mentioned before, due to the beneficial nature of SDGs, sums of
normalised values for non-beneficial criteria do not exist in this study. Therefore, the sums of the
weighted normalised values for beneficial criteria (pi +) are calculated and presented in Table 6. Priority
values, as well as the quantitative utility of GBM selection criteria, are also calculated and presented in
Table 7.

249
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

Table 6. The COPRAS results for GBM selection criteria.

GBM Selection Criteria

k
Pi + = xij
j=1

RE1 0.055
RE2 0.070
RE3 0.053
RE4 0.036
RE5 0.043
RE6 0.054
RE7 0.044
RE8 0.041
IAQ1 0.056
IAQ2 0.051
IAQ3 0.060
IAQ4 0.039
IAQ5 0.047
EE1 0.062
EE2 0.045
EE3 0.055
AF1 0.067
AF2 0.064
AF3 0.056

Table 7. GBM selection criteria weights and ranking.

n
Mi Qi
GBM Selection Criteria Qi =Pi + R i=1n 1 Ni = Q 100% Rank
i i=1 Ri max

RE1 0.055 78.07 9

RE2 0.070 100 1
RE3 0.053 75.27 11
RE4 0.036 51.69 19
RE5 0.043 61.85 16
RE6 0.054 76.96 10
RE7 0.044 62.69 15
RE8 0.041 58.58 17
IAQ1 0.056 79.92 7
IAQ2 0.051 71.98 12
IAQ3 0.060 85.65 5
IAQ4 0.039 55.12 18
IAQ5 0.047 67.06 13
EE1 0.062 88.46 4
EE2 0.045 63.66 14
EE3 0.055 78.41 8
AF1 0.069 95.05 2
AF2 0.064 91.81 3
AF3 0.056 80.34 6

According to the results, it is illustrated that the top three GBM selection criteria were “Natural,
plentiful and renewable” (RE2), “Affordability from cradle to gate” (AF1) and “Affordability during
operation” (AF2), respectively.

4.3. Identification and Prioritisation of GBMs

The final stage of this study was identifying and ranking GBMs. Many researchers have identified
and investigated GBMs [14]. For instance, according to a survey conducted in India, five GBMs were
investigated in terms of economic effects, durability, pros and cons. The mentioned GBMs were
reflecting sol glass, coloured lime plaster, eco-friendly tiles, sand-lime bricks and lime [28]. However,

250
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

it is worth noting that any new building material can be regarded as a green material if it possesses
the required properties. Thus, no study can claim that it has identified and investigated all the GBMs.
In this study, by considering previous research, as well as specialists’ opinions, nine green building
materials were finally identified for Shiraz and are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Identified GBMs.

Sign GBM Selection Criteria

M1 Cement Plast Artificial Stone
M2 Sand-Lime Bricks
M3 Fibre-Reinforced Concrete
M4 Solar Roof Tiles
M5 Thermochromic Windows
M6 Grasscrete
M7 Stramit Strawboard
M8 Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs)
M9 Fly Ash Concrete

The purpose of the last questionnaire, questionnaire C, was ranking GBMs. Like in the previous
part of the study, experts were asked to use their knowledge, expertise and experience to complete the
questionnaire. Ranking of GBMs was conducted using GBM selection criteria weights and exploiting
the COPRAS method. Weighted normalised values for beneficial criteria (pi +) were computed and are
shown in Table 7.
To weight GBM selection criteria, Questionnaire B was exploited. Each specialist was asked to
complete the questionnaire according to their own knowledge and experience, and the scores were
analysed by the COPRAS method. As mentioned before, due to the beneficial nature of SDGs, sums of
normalised values for non-beneficial criteria did not exist in this study. Therefore, the sums of the
weighted normalised values for beneficial criteria (pi +) were computed and are illustrated in Table 9.
Priority values, as well as the quantitative utility of GBMs, were also calculated and are presented in
Table 10.

Table 9. The COPRAS results for GBM ranking.

GBMs
k
Pi+ = xij
j=1

M1 0.107
M2 0.113
M3 0.104
M4 0.122
M5 0.086
M6 0.104
M7 0.130
M8 0.124
M9 0.111

According to the results, it is shown that the top three GBMs were “Stramit Strawboard” (M7),
“Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs)” (M8) and “Solar Roof Tiles” (M4), respectively. As it was
mentioned in the previous parts of the study, there has not been a ranking for selecting GBMs. Although
GBMs have been discussed separately in other papers, and their benefits and advantages illustrate that
the ranking of this study seems sensible and accurate. This ranking can be used by members of the
construction industry to assess GBMs in other regions.

251
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

Table 10. The COPRAS results for GBM ranking.

n
Mi Qi
GBMs Qi =Pi + R i=1n 1 Ni = Q 100% Rank
i i=1 Ri max

M1 0.107 82.87 6
M2 0.113 87.68 4
M3 0.104 80.92 8
M4 0.122 94.97 3
M5 0.086 66.49 9
M6 0.104 81.26 7
M7 0.129 100 1
M8 0.124 96.53 2
M9 0.111 86.36 5

5. Conclusions
Due to a growing number of people and therefore constructing a large number of buildings,
it is necessary to attain sustainability using green building materials, which are environmentally
friendly. To do so, the existence of a ranking of green building materials can help decision-makers
to select suitable GBMs for their projects more manageable. This paper identified several GBMs and
prioritised those using the SWARA and the COPRAS methods as tools to analyse options. To move
through sustainability, relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) to the research topic were
identified and used as the first selection criteria. These goals were “Affordable and Clean Energy”
(G7), “Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure” (G9), “Sustainable Cities and Communities” (G11),
“Responsible Consumption and Production” (G12), and “Partnerships for the Goals” (G14). These goals
were weighted using the SWARA method, and it was shown that G9, G7 and G11 were the top three
goals with weights of 0.431, 0.264 and 0.162, respectively. The next part of the research was associated
with identifying and weighting GBM selection criteria according to the weights of the identified SDGs
using the COPRAS method. Results show that “Natural, plentiful and renewable” (RE2), “Affordability
from cradle to gate” (AF1) and “Affordability during operation” were the top three GBM selection
criteria with weights of 0.070, 0.067 and 0.064, respectively. The last part of the study focused on the
identification and prioritisation of GBMs. “Stramit Strawboard” (M7), “Aluminium Composite Panels
(ACPs)” (M8) and “Solar Roof Tiles” (M4) were the top three GBMs, respectively.
The method used in this study is an appropriate one that can be exploited in other construction
industry problems. Members of the construction industry in Shiraz, as well as all the cities possessing
similar climatic and economic situations, can use this paper’s results. The GBMs identified by this
study are highly suggested to be used to move towards sustainability more than before. One of
the limitations of this study was considering residential buildings. Therefore, it is suggested that
prospective researchers conduct similar studies about other types of buildings such as commercial and
industrial buildings. The authors also suggest using other MCDM tools and comparing their obtained
results with this study.

Author Contributions: A.B.; Conceptualization, methodology, software, investigation, writing—original draft,

A.V.; methodology, visualization, validation, investigation, writing—reviewing and editing, supervision, Z.T.;
writing—reviewing and editing, investigation, writing—reviewing and editing, supervision, E.K.Z. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

252
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

References
1. Zolfani, S.H.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Design of Products with Both International and Local Perspectives
based on Yin-Yang Balance Theory and Swara Method. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2013, 26, 153–166.
[CrossRef]
2. Wang, W.; Zmeureanu, R.; Rivard, H. Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design
optimization. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 1512–1525. [CrossRef]
3. Turskis, Z.; Lazauskas, M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Fuzzy multiple criteria assessment of construction site alternatives
for non-hazardous waste incineration plant in Vilnius city, applying ARAS-F and AHP methods. J. Environ.
Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2012, 20, 110–120. [CrossRef]
4. Ruzgys, A.; Volvačiovas, R.; Ignatavičius, Č.; Turskis, Z. Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation
in residential buildings using SWARA-TODIM MCDM method. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 103–110.
[CrossRef]
5. Zagorskas, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Burinskienė, M.; Blumberga, A.; Blumberga, D. Thermal insulation
alternatives of historic brick buildings in Baltic Sea Region. Energy Build. 2014, 78, 35–42. [CrossRef]
6. Katsinde, S.M.; Srinivas, S.C. Breast feeding and The Sustainable Development agenda. Indian J. Pharm. Pr.
2016, 9, 144–146. [CrossRef]
7. Castro-Lacouture, D.; Sefair, J.; Florez, L.; Medaglia, A.L. Optimization model for the selection of materials
using a LEED-based green building rating system in Colombia. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1162–1170.
[CrossRef]
8. Medineckiene, M.; Zavadskas, E.; Turskis, Z. Dwelling selection by applying fuzzy game theory. Arch. Civ.
Mech. Eng. 2011, 11, 681–697. [CrossRef]
9. Medineckienė, M.; Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K. Sustainable construction taking into account the building
impact on the environment. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2010, 18, 118–127. [CrossRef]
10. Medineckiene, M.; Zavadskas, E.; Björk, F.; Turskis, Z. Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable
building assessment/certification. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2015, 15, 11–18. [CrossRef]
11. Bagočius, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Multi-person selection of the best wind turbine based on the
multi-criteria integrated additive-multiplicative utility function. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 590–599.
[CrossRef]
12. Khoshnava, S.M.; Rostami, R.; Valipour, A.; Ismail, M.; Rahmat, A.R. Rank of green building material
criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria decision making method.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 82–99. [CrossRef]
13. Dahooei, J.H.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Abolhasani, M.; Vanaki, A.; Turskis, Z. A Novel Approach for Evaluation of
Projects Using an Interval–Valued Fuzzy Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method: A Case Study of Oil
and Gas Well Drilling Projects. Symmetry 2018, 10, 45. [CrossRef]
14. Spiegel, R.; Meadows, D. Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and Specification; John Wiley &
Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
15. Akhtar, N.; Patel, S. Agro-Industrial Discards and Invasive Weed-Based Lignocelluloses as Green Building Materials:
A Pertinent Review; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 121–130.
16. Franzoni, E. Materials Selection for Green Buildings: Which Tools for Engineers and Architects? Procedia Eng.
2011, 21, 883–890. [CrossRef]
17. Directive, H.A.T. Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products. Off. J. L 1989, 40,
0012–0026.
18. Monti, C. Il Progetto Ecosostenibile: Metodi e Soluzioni per la Casa e la città, Il Progetto Ecosostenibile.
2008. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/life/publications/otherpub/documents/
life_successo_web.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2020).
19. Ede, A.N.; Bamigboye, G.; Olofinnade, O.M.; Omole, D.O.; Adeyemi, G.A.; Ngene, B.U. Impact of reliable built
structures in driving the sustainable development goals: A look at Nigerian building structures. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on African Development Issues (CU-ICADI) Ota-Nigeria, 11–13 May 2016;
Covenant University Press: Ota, Nigeria, 2016; pp. 350–353.
20. McArthur, J.W.; Rasmussen, K. Change of pace: Accelerations and advances during the Millennium
Development Goal era. World Dev. 2018, 105, 132–143. [CrossRef]

253
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

21. Sayamov, Y.; Lomonosov Moscow State University, M.V.; Teplov, I. UNESCO and Sustainable Development
Goals. Her. Belgorod Univ. Coop. Econ. Law 2020, 4. [CrossRef]
22. Wofford, D.; Macdonald, S.; Rodehau, C. A call to action on women’s health: Putting corporate CSR standards
for workplace health on the global health agenda. Glob. Heal. 2016, 12, 1–12. [CrossRef]
23. United Nations. Make Cities Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable. Available online: https://www.un.
org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/ (accessed on 16 July 2020).
24. Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency in green
buildings to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Build. Environ. 2018, 146,
119–132. [CrossRef]
25. Hurlimann, A.; Warren-Myers, G.; Browne, G.R. Is the Australian construction industry prepared for climate
change? Build. Environ. 2019, 153, 128–137. [CrossRef]
26. Omer, M.A.; Noguchi, T. A conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of building materials in
the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101869. [CrossRef]
27. Zhou, C.-C.; Yin, G.-F.; Hu, X.-B. Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products:
Artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 1209–1215. [CrossRef]
28. Mokal, A.B.; Shaikh, A.I.; Raundal, S.S.; Prajapati, S.J.; Phatak, U.J. Green building materials-a way towards
sustainable construction. Int. J. Appl. Innovat. Eng. Manag. 2015, 4, 244–249.
29. Chauhan, S.; Kamboj, J. A way to Go Sustainable: Identifying Different Means & Need to Go Green in the
Sector of Construction World. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2016, 7, 22–32.
30. Hoang, C.P.; Kinney, K.A.; Corsi, R.L.; Szaniszlo, P.J. Resistance of green building materials to fungal growth.
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation 2010, 64, 104–113. [CrossRef]
31. Santos, J.R.A. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J. Ext. 1999, 37, 1–5.
32. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric theory—25 years ago and now. Educ. Res. 1975, 4, 7–21.
33. Gliem, J.A.; Gliem, R.R. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for
Likert-type scales. In Proceedings of 29th Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing,
and Community, Michigan State University, 26–28 September 2010; Glowacki-Dudka, M., Ed.; Michigan State
University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2010.
34. Keršulienė, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new
step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010, 11, 243–258. [CrossRef]
35. Prajapati, H.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics implementation to mitigate
its barriers: A hybrid modified SWARA and WASPAS approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118219. [CrossRef]
36. Balali, A.; Hakimelahi, A.; Valipour, A. Identification and prioritization of passive energy consumption
optimization measures in the building industry: An Iranian case study. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101239.
[CrossRef]
37. Akhanova, G.; Nadeem, A.; Kim, J.R.; Azhar, S. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for building
sustainability assessment in Kazakhstan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101842. [CrossRef]
38. Valipour, A.; Yahaya, N.; Noor, N.M.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Tamošaitienė, J. Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method
for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: An iranian case study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017,
23, 524–532. [CrossRef]
39. Maghsoodi, A.I.; Maghsoodi, A.I.; Poursoltan, P.; Antucheviciene, J.; Turskis, Z. Dam construction material
selection by implementing the integrated SWARA–CODAS approach with target-based attributes. Arch. Civ.
Mech. Eng. 2019, 19, 1194–1210. [CrossRef]
40. Jaber, A.Z. Assessment Risk in Construction Projects in Iraq Using COPRAS-SWARA Combined Method.
J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2019, 54. [CrossRef]
41. Karabasevic, D.; Stanujkic, D.; Urosevic, S.; Maksimovic, M. Selection of candidates in the mining industry
based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montan. Slovaca 2015, 20,
116–124.
42. Alimardani, M.; Zolfani, S.H.; Aghdaie, M.H.; Tamošaitienė, J. A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR
methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 19, 533–548.
[CrossRef]
43. Perçin, S. An integrated fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy AD approach for outsourcing provider selection. J. Manuf.
Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 531–552. [CrossRef]

254
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

44. Zarbakhshnia, N.; Soleimani, H.; Ghaderi, H. Sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider evaluation and
selection using fuzzy SWARA and developed fuzzy COPRAS in the presence of risk criteria. Appl. Soft Comput.
2018, 65, 307–319. [CrossRef]
45. Zolfani, S.H.; Pourhossein, M.; Yazdani, M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Evaluating construction projects of hotels based
on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 357–365. [CrossRef]
46. Ghorabaee, M.K.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for
evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2018, 18,
32–49. [CrossRef]
47. Ighravwe, D.E.; Oke, S.A. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for selecting a suitable maintenance
strategy for public buildings using sustainability criteria. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24, 100753. [CrossRef]
48. Stanujkic, D.; Karabasevic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K. A framework for the Selection of a packaging design based
on the SWARA method. Eng. Econ. 2015, 26, 181–187. [CrossRef]
49. Vafaeipour, M.; Zolfani, S.H.; Varzandeh, M.H.M.; Derakhti, A.; Eshkalag, M.K. Assessment of regions
priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision
making approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 86, 653–663. [CrossRef]
50. Keršulienė, V.; Turskis, Z. Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2012, 17, 645–666. [CrossRef]
51. Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. SWARA Method. In Fundamentals of Traffic Simulation; Springer Science and Business
Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 99–102.
52. Zavadskas, E.K.; Čereška, A.; Matijošius, J.; Rimkus, A.; Bausys, R. Internal Combustion Engine Analysis
of Energy Ecological Parameters by Neutrosophic MULTIMOORA and SWARA Methods. Energies 2019,
12, 1415. [CrossRef]
53. Ghenai, C.; AlBawab, M.; Bettayeb, M. Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using
multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renew. Energy 2020, 146,
580–597. [CrossRef]
54. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A. Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of
multicriteria assessment. In International Symposium for “The Organization and Management of Construction”.
Shaping Theory and Practice; Langford, D.A., Retik, A., Eds.; St. Edmudsbury Press: Bury St. Edmunds,
Suffolk, UK, 1996; Volume 1, pp. 94–104.
55. Turskis, Z.; Dzitac, S.; Stankiuviene, A.; Šukys, R. A Fuzzy Group Decision-making Model for Determining
the Most Influential Persons in the Sustainable Prevention of Accidents in the Construction SMEs. Int. J.
Comput. Commun. Control. 2019, 14, 90–106. [CrossRef]
56. Zemlickienė, V.; Turskis, Z. Evaluation of the expediency of technology commercialization: A case of
information technology and biotechnology. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2020, 26, 271–289. [CrossRef]
57. Erdogan, S.A.; Šaparauskas, J.; Turskis, Z. Decision Making in Construction Management: AHP and Expert
Choice Approach. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 270–276. [CrossRef]
58. Ghose, D.; Pradhan, S.; Shabbiruddin. A Fuzzy-COPRAS Model for Analysis of Renewable Energy Sources
in West Bengal, India. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 1st International Conference on Energy, Systems and
Information Processing (ICESIP); Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, USA,
2019; pp. 1–6.
59. Tolga, A.C.; Durak, G. Evaluating Innovation Projects in Air Cargo Sector with Fuzzy COPRAS. In
Proceedings of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer Science and Business Media LLC:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 702–710.
60. Mahdiraji, H.A.; Arzaghi, S.; Stauskis, G.; Zavadskas, E.K. A Hybrid Fuzzy BWM-COPRAS Method for
Analyzing Key Factors of Sustainable Architecture. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1626. [CrossRef]
61. Kundakci, N.; Işık, A.T. Integration of MACBETH and COPRAS methods to select air compressor for a textile
company. Decis. Sci. Lett. 2016, 5, 381–394. [CrossRef]
62. Goswami, S.S.; Mitra, S. Selecting the best mobile model by applying AHP-COPRAS and AHP-ARAS
decision making methodology. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2020, 4, 27–42. [CrossRef]
63. Alinezhad, A.; Khalili, J. COPRAS Method. In Fundamentals of Traffic Simulation; Barcelo, K., Ed.; (International
Series in Operations Research and Management Science); Springer Science and Business Media LLC: New
York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 87–91.

255
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9482

64. Şahin, R. COPRAS method with neutrosophic sets. In Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-Making Using Neutrosophic
Sets; Kahraman, C., Oray, I., Eds.; (Series, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computin); Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019; pp. 487–524.
65. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Discovering Shiraz. 2015. Available online: http://www.educationiran.
com/en/Shiraz/sums/page/18924/Discovering-Shiraz (accessed on 20 July 2020).
66. Rahimi, F.; Goli, A.; Rezaee, R. Hospital location-allocation in Shiraz using Geographical Information System
(GIS). Shiraz E-Med. J. 2017, 18, e57572. [CrossRef]
67. Aref, F. Residents’ Attitudes Towards Tourism Impacts: A Case Study of Shiraz, Iran. Tour. Anal. 2010, 15,
253–261. [CrossRef]
68. Masoudi, M.; Ordibeheshti, F.; Rajaipoor, N. Status and prediction of nitrogen oxides in the air of Shiraz city,
Iran. JJEES 2019, 10, 85–91.
69. Al-Tmeemy, S.M.H.; Rahman, H.A.; Harun, Z. Contractors’ perception of the use of costs of quality system
in Malaysian building construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 827–838. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

256
sustainability

Article
Identifying and Assessing Sustainable Value
Management Implementation Activities in
Developing Countries: The Case of Egypt
Ahmed Farouk Kineber 1, *, Idris Othman 1 , Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke 2 , Nicholas Chileshe 3 and
Mohanad Kamil Buniya 1
1 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universiti Technologi PETRONAS,
Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia; [email protected] (I.O.); [email protected] (M.K.B.)
2 Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology Akure, Akure 340271, Nigeria;
[email protected]
3 UniSA STEM, Scarce Resources and Circular Economy (ScaRCE), University of South Australia,
Adelaide 5001, Australia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Received: 8 October 2020; Accepted: 28 October 2020; Published: 3 November 2020

Abstract: Value management (VM) has become a useful tool for achieving sustainability in many
countries. This paper aims to assess VM implementation and its activities towards achieving
sustainable building projects in Egypt. Data were obtained from the literature, followed by a qualitative
approach through a semi-structured interview and a quantitative approach via a questionnaire
survey. In Cairo and Giza, data were collected from a sample of 200 building professionals using
a questionnaire, while exploration of the country’s VM activities practice was completed using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), including descriptive statistics such as “frequency analysis” and
”measures of central tendencies”. The results show that VM awareness was demonstrated by 64% of
the sample, which means that they know about VM. On the other hand, most respondents, 85.3%,
did not adopt VM and did not receive any VM training. The results also show, through EFA, that the
correlations between these activities show five main components: an information phase, a function
phase, a creativity phase, an evaluation phase, and a development/presentation phase. This study
will help building professionals to eliminate unwanted costs and enhance project sustainability by
adopting VM in building projects in developing countries. Finally, the results of this study will
enhance building management through the implementation of VM elements, with a view to ensuring
value for money and meeting sustainability goals.

Keywords: building projects; sustainability; sustainable construction; value management; exploratory

factor analysis; construction management

1. Introduction
Building projects significantly influence culture, the environment and the economy over their
whole life cycle. Buildings utilize more than 40% of universal power and energy and represent 30%
of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in developed and developing nations [1]. Over 40% of
Europe’s and the USA’s absolute power and energy is consumed via buildings [2,3]. In developing
countries, the building field’s project sustainability is subservient. These countries have experienced
rapid development; therefore, there is no doubt that the building industry provides a crucial role in
providing basic living [4]. This field’s success indicators are measured by quality, cost, and time of
construction projects [5]. The construction industry has experienced significant changes in meeting
the developing countries’ commercial requirements and goals [6]. It has been reported that the

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143; doi:10.3390/su12219143 257 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

majority of the financial procedures of developing countries are still in the process of up-gradation [7].
Building projects in these cultures are frequently faced with various challenges, including failure
to meet the required targets, schedule delays, budget over-runs, and insufficient sustainability [8,9].
Additionally, efforts to study the social budget of building projects in urban residential fields are still
inadequate [10]. Taken altogether, the construction industry does not fulfill the aspirations of their
respective government, clients, and sustainability targets in developing nations unlike other sectors
like banking and manufacturing [11].
Egypt is a developing country with one of the most extreme examples of hazard marketplaces due
to joblessness and the low salary scale of the employed [12]. These problems are a result of currency
fluctuations, an absence of occupational selections and restrictions in financing standards [13]. It is
also one of the most populated countries in North Africa, with rapid population increases occurring
from 1950 to 2020 [14]. It is reported that the projected population by 2020 will be more than five times
that of the 1950 population, according to average estimates. Consequently, building project shortages
and meeting sustainability requirements represent the most significant and rising challenges facing
policymakers in Egypt [15]. This problem puts pressure on the government to meet the residents’
demands for adequate housing, with sufficient sustainability [16]. The building market is expected to
grow due to population growth and urbanization, and between 2008 and 2013, the Egyptian population
increased by 9% [15]. Moreover, rural urbanization between 2001 and 2012 has increased by 0.9% [15].
This has stressed the importance of and directed the improvement of “sustainable buildings” that are
environmentally friendly and resource-efficient over their development procedures.
Brundtland et al. [17] defined sustainability as “achieving the needs of the current population
without compromising future generations’ ability to satisfy their own needs”. Kibert [18] expressed
sustainable construction as building a healthy ecosystem using ecological concepts, and with efficient use
of resources. Sustainable construction has commonly been explained as a procedure that initiates before
execution and continues after the practical completion of the construction project [19]. Wolstenholme
et al. [20] agreed that the building industry should be modernized through implementing effective,
integrated, novel, and sustainable building practices. Enhancing sustainability knowledge and
understanding at the beginning of a building project is hugely recommended to control its course.
Value management (VM) can integrate a sustainable approach at the initial and design stages of
project procedures [21]. Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) [22] recommended that VM is a
mechanism that has been confirmed to improve the sustainable value of a project.
VM is a structured, function-oriented, systemic team approach to evaluate the functions, objectives,
and costs of a process or facility to maximize its efficiency, by performing the necessary functions
defined by customers at the least possible overall expense, coherent with performance criteria [23].
VM studies are frequently organized in the initial stages of a project to accomplish the greatest benefits
and resource savings [24]. While costs are the essential objective of VM studies, VM is recognized as
a cost-cutting method and a value-improvement technique [25]. The project’s budget should not be
decreased at the expense of its sustainability and functionality purposes, which would then reduce its
value [26]. VM targets to accomplish the anticipated value with lower prices, without compromising
the building’s quality and performance [27]. VM adoption allows an in-depth evaluation of the
objectives and expectations of projects from the customer or investor’s perception [28].
Although previous studies have discussed VM benefits, activities, and technological efficiency
in several countries, no effort has been made to determine the effects of VM implementation in
developing countries. VM methods have not received comparable coverage in the majority of
developing countries, including Egypt [29]. It is vital to remember that there is a research gap in
this area. There is no formal VM study for the purpose of VM implementation and awareness in
Egypt [30]. Subsequently, the implementation of VM standards is vital, as the country experiences
low environmentally sustainable projects [31]. Moreover, Egypt had planned to be a country with a
prosperous, balanced, and competitive economy. By 2030, the Government of Egypt aims to make
Egypt one of the best thirty nations in the world, through the application of various management

258
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

approaches like VM [32]. As a result, there is a need for VM implementation in Egyptian construction
projects [33]. It is was hypothesized that there is a concordance on the importance of VM activities in
building projects. Therefore, this paper aims to evaluate the application of VM and explore its activities
in building projects in developing countries. For this to happen, mixed-method research is proposed
for the first time, to explore VM activities in the Egyptian construction industry. The results from this
study will be useful to assist decision-makers in succeeding in their building projects by eliminating
unwanted costs and enhancing sustainability by implementing VM. As such, the results could be a
game-changer in building projects—not only in Egypt but also in developed nations where buildings
projects are implemented through a similar style and procedure [34].

2. VM and the Sustainable Built Environment Industries in Previous Studies

The subject of sustainability has been stressed by existing studies [35]. Transforming strategic
sustainability targets and strategies procedures for projects is a complicated procedure [36] and a
balance is essential among the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability [35,37].
The emergence of sustainability in the building industry has led to a search for practical ways to infuse
this concept into existing working environments [21]. The need for sustainable improvement and the
innovative corporate social responsibility ethic implemented through companies are drivers that could
also encourage the adoption of VM at the primary strategic phases of building projects [38]. VM is an
organized and analytical procedure designed to improve value for money by delivering the required
functions of projects at the least cost while also paying attention to sustainability requirements [39].
Contemporary viewpoints, however, indicate a more significant role for VM in the identification,
explanation, and confirmation of customer expectations and priorities early in the procurement
stage [40]. This view aligns VM typically to the project briefing phase [41], but it is not clear how these
are understood by professionals in the built environment.
The VM practice focuses on organized workshops from 4-hours (half a day) to 5 days [42].
The modifications in VM workshop days can be affected by factors such as the VM scope (i.e., size and
system of the project, the extent to be objective for VM), and the VM stages/phases to be adopted.
The methodological approach differs, for example, the US value engineers society (SAVE), highlights a
three-step methodology “pre-study, value study, and post-study”. The value study aims to implement six
phases of the workshop, that is, information phase; function analysis phase; creative phase; evaluation
phase; development phase; and presentation phase [22]. However, of these six phases, information,
development, and presentation phases could be performed outside the workshop more efficiently
and virtually [40]. While sustainability might not be regularly used in VM studies, sustainability
dimensions such as a healthy indoor environment, minimization of waste, energy efficiency, aesthetic
influences, user comfort, air and quality of water, and low life-cycle costs are regularly considered [43].
Sustainability thoughts can differ from one VM study to another because of the owners’ distinctive
objectives, the obligation to construction and execution viewpoints, awareness of the VM team members,
and time available for the study [43]. For instance, sustainability principles have been adopted in
many UK developments as part of a value management study, such as a sustainable building project
in Crianlarich, Startfilan [44]; sustainable residential buildings and services in Stirlingshire; and the
Katrine Water Project at Loch Katrine, Scotland [45]. Hayles [46] highlighted that, by encouraging
major clients to implement VM concepts, a sustainable procedure to building decision making could
be achieved. Al-Yousefi [47] revealed many advantages of handling VM as a framework to encourage
and launch sustainability ideologies, such as increasing the effective use of tools and resources,
enhancing applications and operational maintenance. Kelly et al. [48] concluded that commitment
of multi-disciplinary stakeholder members, organized and formal VM study, sustainable concepts
adoption as project objectives and focus on project cost delivery encourages the combination of VM
with sustainability. Therefore, adopting sustainability via VM is feasible and advisable [49].
In the past three decades, substantial work has been carried out in VM adoption in the construction
industry. However, there is a lack of studies comparing VM’s current practice and application by the

259
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

built environment stakeholders; especially in developing countries like Egypt. This study, therefore,
explores this gap. The aim of this study therefore is to examine VM activities’ understanding and current
practice in the built environment with a view to achieving sustainable delivery of building projects.

3. Research Methods
The aim of this research is to enhance the sustainable delivery of building projects in the Egyptian
construction industry through the adoption of VM. However, this paper is part of bigger research aimed
at examining the impact of VM on the overall success of construction projects. The paper explores
necessary VM activities require for sustainable delivery of construction projects through EFA analysis.
The study adopted exploratory sequential mixed-method research. A mixed-method study was adopted
with a view to enhancing the findings of the study for appropriate discussion. [50]. It is confirmed that
using mixed methods to explore the same issue will help discover many recurrent patterns or consistent
correlations between variables. Figure 1, adopted from Buniya et al. [51], shows the research process
for the study. The study commenced with a critical review of previous studies and then qualitative
research was performed by interviewing fifteen specialists from the Egyptian construction industry
to refine selected activities obtained through previous studies. Validity and reliability tests were
thereafter carried out; findings were also discussed while various conclusions and recommendations
were discussed. These items are explained in detail in the subsequent sections of the paper. For instance,
Section 2 discusses relevant literature while Section 4.1 explains the qualitative aspect of the study
where the questionnaire was adopted. The sections for each of the research process items are indicated
in Figure 1.

/LWHUDWXUHUHYLHZ
6HFWLRQ

4XDOLWDWLYHVWXG\ 4XDQWLWDWLYHVWXG\ &RQVWUXFWYDOLGLW\DQDO\VLV

6HPLVWUXFWXUHGLQWHUYLHZ 4XHVWLRQQDLUHVXUYH\ 6HFWLRQ
6HFWLRQ 6HFWLRQ

5HOLDELOLW\DQDO\VLV
6HFWLRQ

5HVXOWVDQGFRQFOXVLRQV
6HFWLRQV WR

Figure 1. Research flowchart.

4. Research Process

4.1. Qualitative Study (Semi-Structured Interview)

VM measurement instrument adopted for the study was drawn from several studies in the
area of VM adoption and its activities in the construction industry. A qualitative approach through
15 semi-structured interviews was undertaken with industry specialists to understand the activities
that may influence VM implementation in building projects through a purposive sampling approach.
This approach allows researchers to achieve the research objectives and control the variation levels

260
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

between interviewees [52]. Additionally, while 15 interviews can appear to be moderate samples,
Mason [53] reports that the sample size is irrelevant in qualitative research because its value is based on
data quality. Many studies agreed that from ten to sixteen interviews were considered adequate [33,54].
In light of the different positions played in building projects, the interviewees’ profiles indicated
that they possess the required skills from the required organizations to contribute adequately to the
study. Furthermore, as shown in Table 1, there is a fair representation of various individuals eligible to
be members of the construction value management team. This implies that the interviewees possess
the required knowledge and experience to provide meaningful and adequate information for the
study [55]. This study adopted the abductive approach, a new approach currently becoming popular
among modern researchers [56]. This technique uses previous studies to establish a theoretical basis
from which a research methodology and analysis can be developed [57]. In other words, if issues can
be described as a set of literature proposals, the definition of a framework is similar to the hypothetical
deductive concept [56].

Table 1. Semi-structured interviewees’ profile.

No. Position Education Experience Subdivision Organization

1 Director Ph.D. 30 Private Contractor
2 Project manager/Professor Ph.D. 28 Government Owner
3 Senior Quantity surveyor M.Sc. 20 Government Contractor
4 Senior director B.Sc. 24 Private Owner
Principle Independent
5 Ph.D. 40 Consultant
Consultant/Professor Consultant
Senior project
Independent
6 manager/Associate Ph.D. 30 Consultant
Consultant
Professor
Independent
7 President/Professor Ph.D. 35 Consultant
Consultant
8 Architect M.Sc. 15 Government Owner
Civil engineer/Associate Independent
9 Ph.D. 28 Consultant
Professor Consultant
Independent
10 Civil engineer M.Sc. 12 Consultant
Consultant
11 Quantity surveyor B.Sc. 9 Private Owner
Independent
12 Associate Principle M.Sc. 25 Consultant
Consultant
Architect/Associate
13 Ph.D. 22 Private sector Contractor
Professor
14 Cost manager M.Sc. 15 Private Contractor
15 Civil engineer B.Sc. 10 Government Owner

Data analysis is to test the framework, enrich it and possibly extend it [57]. In the current study,
existing literature was used to develop theoretical frameworks (VM activities) to design new ideas and
take advantage of the necessary operating principles to evaluate the existing concepts. The interviews
that follow enrich the framework and extend it. More so, the abduction approach was followed so that
the evidence and current theories could be re-examined and analyzed in a local context. Consequently,
VM activities were modified and categorized.

4.2. Quantitative Study (Questionnaire Survey)

To validate VM’s categorizations and its activities obtained from the semi-structured interview,
a pilot study was subsequently adopted before the main study, poised to examine the phases of VM
and its activities using a questionnaire survey. This questionnaire survey helped to evaluate the
following aspects: (1) Behaviors, opinions, and organizational norms, as well as (2) The link among
various variables, primarily cause-and-effect relationships [58]. The questionnaire was subjected to
a pilot test as suggested by Fellows and Liu [59] to check the questionnaire’s intelligibility, ease of

261
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

response, and clearness as well as to determine the required time for the survey. The pilot study
focused on the perceptions and involvement of developers, consultants, and clients in the delivery of
construction projects.

4.2.1. Construct Validity Analysis

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) techniques are
normally used for factor analysis. In this study, CFA was used for evaluating the structure underlying
the adopted variables with a view to properly test the proposed hypotheses. On the other hand,
EFA was used to gather information about the relationship among variables and reduce the variables
into a few underlying structures. It is one of the functions built into the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) [60].
In the current study, the main multivariate analysis method, that is, EFA, was employed to explore
the primary constructs of VM phases after categorizing the same from the interviews. It was used to
assess the constructs’ validity by evaluating the adequacy of the measurement items of individual
constructs (i.e., measurement models) regarding their un-dimensionality, reliability, and validity. It is
important to note that Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was selected over Principal Axis Factoring
(PAF), image factoring, maximum probability, and alpha factoring since PCA is more accurate and
less conceptually complex [61]. PCA is advocated when there is no prior theory or model and when
preliminary solutions are found in EFA [60]. Thompson [62] reported that, in many statistical programs,
PCA is the default form and is thus most widely used in EFA. The varimax rotation method was
preferred over the direct oblimin or Promax because varimax’s rotation attempts to optimize load
dispersion between variables. Varimax is also suitable for simple factor analysis and is an excellent
general approach that simplifies the clarification of factors [63]. More so, the number of participants
can be used as a representative sample within acceptable ranges [64]. The 21 variables as well as
200 participants used in the current study, are considered suitable for factor analysis. It is vital to
highlight that the sample size and methodology adopted for this research is similar to the study by
Kim et al. [65] with 100participants; Luvara and Mwemezi [66] with 231 participants; and Shen and
Liu [67] with 200 participants.

4.2.2. Reliability Analysis

A research method’s validity and reliability are essential and must be taken into account to cover
and ensure accurate results are obtained [68]. However, face and content validity are two traditional
validity measures used to assess the extent to which the research instrument elements are significant
and are reflective of a targeted research structure [69]. Twelve research experts from both the academic
and the building sector were randomly chosen to validate the research instrument. According to Sushil
and Verma [70], face validity is evaluated by having experts check the contents of the test to ensure that
the items and questions are adequate. Furthermore, Cronbach’s α test was used to check the research
instrument’s reliability.

5. Data Collection

5.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

The contributors were selected according to their years of practice, experience, education,
and type of organization, as outlined in Table 1. Information in Table 1 also indicates that the
respondents possess extensive knowledge of the construction industry.
Each interview lasted approximately 40–90 min and was recorded with the permission of the
interviewee. The research followed a semi-structured interview method for the interviewees to stay
concentrated and focused on VM activities [71]. The confirmation and checking procedures were
undertaken between iterative interviews and data analysis [72]. This combined process is like the
participation checks and validation as noted and adopted in the previous studies [71].

262
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

The interview method consisted of a variety of open questions in accordance with the study’s
objectives. The instrument of the interview was divided into four sections, that is, background
information about the experts, knowledge, application and implementation of VM in the organizations,
VM activities in the construction and building projects, benefits of implementing VM in the construction
industry and factors affecting the adoption of VM for project sustainability.
To analyze the interview transcripts, a content analysis technique was used. Transcription is
considered the first step toward the descriptive process of the results in which the interview contents
are recalled and transformed into text [73]. As a result, interviewed experts argued that a more formal
system should guide the implementation of the VM in projects and categorized VM phases activities
under five phases, as shown in Table 2. Moreover, several activities were modified, and three activities
were added to the list, as indicated in Table 2. The updated and added activities were used to develop
the questionnaire.

5.2. Questionnaire Survey

Following the interview with experts, a pilot study via EFA analysis was conducted to check the
new constructs as obtained from the interview sessions, with a view to possibly modify the content
and design of the main questionnaire.
For this research, a stratified sampling method of the three major building boundaries in Giza and
Cairo was adopted. Sharma [74] approved that the significant benefits of stratified sampling are as
follows: (1) decreasing the biases in the choosing of the sample cases, which indicates that the sample
will have a highly representative description of the population under study; (2) allow simplification of
samples to the population (i.e., statistical inferences), since the selected cases are chosen based on a
probabilistic approach, and this is a significant benefit because the generalization appears externally
valid; and (3) to ensure that enough sampling points are used to support the independent study of all
strata. As a result, a pre-qualification analysis with the various organizations was performed through
telephone calls. Over 280 companies were generated in the screening study, but only 215 companies
agreed to participate. This test also reviewed positions, addresses, and assurances that the companies
selected have reached their five-year survival level. The selected companies are with 9 to 250 staff,
self-employed, non-foreign corporations and they were established between 1994 and 2010. This is to
overcome any impact from the parent group’s international policy [75].
For the number of samples required for EFA analysis, there is no consensus among previous studies
of a larger survey has been recommended [64,76]. Furthermore, the factor analysis is acceptable for
20–50 elements as factors are properly analyzed when the number of elements is within this number [77].
However, much literature has found that fewer variables may be studied if the sample size is large
enough [29,78]. Consequently, in this study, 200 questionnaires were distributed but only 150 were
returned filled and fit for analysis, this represents about 75%, which is well within acceptable level [64].
Some of the observations from the pilot study include improper use of dot lines, inaccurate counting
of variables, spelling errors, and orthographic errors. Such views, observations, recommendations,
and corrections were reported and included in the final draft of the final survey instruments.
The first section of the data collection was to collect demographic information of respondents
and their projects. In the second section, VM adoption activities were rating using a 5-point Likert
scale with one = very low, two = low, three = average four = high, and, five = very high as adopted
in similar studies regarding the implementation of VM [79,80]. The activities identified from the
literature review and the expert interviews are listed in Table 2. Finally, for the Egyptian building
projects, 21 possible VM adoption activities were identified; hence, the questionnaire was validated on
a face-to-face basis. The Cronbach α analysis was also used to evaluate the research tool’s reliability,
following EFA’s generation.

263
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

Table 2. Factors and associated literature.

Group Names Code Activity Name References

VM.IP1 Carry out a site visit [81]
VM.IP2 Collect related historical information on the [82]
proposed project
VM.IP3 Establish the time period and scope of the project [81]
Information phase
VM.IP4 Involve stakeholders in the initial stage of the project; [83]
VM.IP5 Involve and allocate duties to construction specialists [81]
at the initial stage of the project;
VM.IP6 Clarify relevant details and limitations of the project [82]
VM.IP7 Share project knowledge between professionals [83]
VM.IP8 Identify the project’s high-cost areas [84]
VM.FP1 Make client express the scale and predictions of the [84]
project explicitly
Function phase
VM.FP2 Presentation by stakeholders of project restrictions [83]
VM.FP3 Express and understand the goals and roles [81]
of the project
VM.FP4 Create and identify functions with their related costs [82]
into essential and secondary objects
VM.EP1 Estimate the cost of each alternate life cycle Interview
Evaluation phase VM.EP2 Assess brainstormed alternatives to fulfill the [84]
desired functions
VM.EP3 Investigate the alternative assessment criterion Interview
VM.CP1 Brainstorm on solutions and concepts to accomplish [82]
Creativity phase the desired functions and costs.
VM.CP2 Categorize brainstormed session alternatives and [82]
suggestions into realistically appropriate to be adopted
VM.CP3 Defining the project procurement and contract [84]
strategy approach
VM.DP1 Establish a short-term alternative action plan [84]
Development/presentation
VM.DP2 Meet and request a review of the action plan [82]
phase
VM.DP3 Track a VM output action plan Interview

6. Results and Findings

6.1. Respondents’ Characteristics and Demographic Profiles

The authors classified the participants in this research based on their years of work experience,
professionalism, present positions, level of education, and organizational function, as shown in Table 3.
Regarding the profession of respondents, civil engineers accounted for the highest number (30.7%),
followed by Architect (26.7%) while the least are Quantity Surveyors. Findings of the present position
indicated that the Site Engineer had the maximum frequency (36.0%) followed by the Manager (30.0%),
while the least frequency was observed for the director (6.0%). For the organization, 38% are from
clients’ organizations followed by contractors and consultants. For respondent’s qualifications, 10.7%,
47.3%, and 23.3% are Bachelor, Master, and Ph.D. degree holders respectively. Table 3 also shows that
around 18.7% of respondents had worked from one year to less than five years. Respondents with
work experience ranging from 5 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years, and more than 25 years were approximately
16.0%, 27.3% and 15.3% respectively. This indicates that the participants in this study are experienced
to provide the required information.

264
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

Table 3. Demographic characteristic frequency distribution.

Variable Characteristics Number of Respondents (%)

Less than five 28 18.7
5–10 24 16.0
Work experience (Years) 11–15 41 27.3
16–25 34 22.7
More than 25 23 15.3
Architect 40 26.7
Civil Engineer 46 30.7
Professional field Electrical Engineer 28 18.7
Mechanical Engineer 24 16.0
Quantity surveying 12 8.0
Director 9 6.0
Senior Manager 14 9.3
Current position Manager 45 30.0
Design Engineer 28 18.7
Site Engineer 54 36.0
Diploma 9 6.0
Bachelor’s degree 16 10.7
Educational level M.Sc. 71 47.3
Ph.D. 35 23.3
Others 28 18.7
Client 57 38.0
Organization function Consultant 43 28.7
Contractor 50 33.3
VM workshop adopting and Yes 22 14.7
attending No 128 85.3
Yes 12 8.0
Formal training on VM
No 138 92.0
Totally Familiar 2 1.3
Familiar 94 62.7
Awareness
Moderately familiar 28 18.7
Not familiar 10 6.7
Technique 16 10.7
Perception A concept 68 45.3
A profession 66 44.0

6.2. Level of Awareness and Implementation of VM in the Egyptian Construction Industry

This research examined participants’ understanding and awareness of the VM method
implementation, as showed in Table 3. Observation of the result illustrates that 45.3% of respondents
considered the perception of value management or value engineering as a concept while 44.0% of the
respondents considered it as a profession. This finding is consistent with the finding of awareness of
VM or value engineering where 62.7% of the respondents were familiar and 1.3% were totally familiar
with the practice of VM. In general, the respondents had moderate VM awareness, with a knowledge
level of 64.7%, slightly higher than the 50% average, which indicates an adequate awareness level
between stakeholders. On the other hand, most of the respondents (about 85.3%) did not attend a VM
workshop or received a formal VM workshop, 92.0% did not receive any VM training in respect to
adopting and participating in VM workshops. This implies that these corporations did not adopt the
VM. Most companies investigated reported that they do not use VM because of a variety of reasons
like lack of cost and low level of awareness.

6.3. EFA for VM Implementation Activities

This study’s primary aim is to explore the VM activities in the building projects, and this was
achieved through EFA analysis. However, the test of data normality is vital before launching the EFA
study. In the current study, the normality of data was measured as an elementary assumption, and the

265
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

results of the normality test for VM activities are shown in Table 4. Byrne [85] concluded that if the
kurtosis result is between −7 to +7 and skewness results are between −2 to +2, the data are regarded as
normal. As shown in Table 4, the skewness ranged from −1.51 to −0.68, and the kurtosis ranged from
0.05 to 1.66, which indicates that all variables are normally distributed.

Table 4. Result of Normality Test.

Variable Skewness Std. Error Kurtosis Std. Error

Information phase −1.51 0.17 1.66 0.33
Function phase −1.15 0.17 0.76 0.33
Evaluation phase −0.86 0.17 0.36 0.33
Creativity phase −0.90 0.17 0.19 0.33
Development and presentation phase −0.68 0.17 0.05 0.33

EFA was used to evaluate the structure of the factor across twenty-one VM implementation
activities. Many well-known constraints for the factorability of a connection were used. KMO was
adopted to assess factor homogeneity and is popularly adopted to evaluate whether the variables’
partial correlations are minimum [86]. Table 5 illustrates that the sampling adequacy measure of
KMO was 0.755, which is exceeding the suggested value of 0.6, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was
significant (x2 (210) = 1204.837, p < 0.05) [64,87,88].

Table 5. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test result related to value management (VM) activities.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.755
Approx. Chi-Square 1254.261
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Df 210
Sig. 0.000

The anti-image correlation matrix diagonals were just above 0.5 indicating that all the elements
can be included in the factor analysis. Initial communalities were meant to assess the variance in
every activity reflected by all components, and the slight values (<0.3) show variables that do not
appropriately fit with the factor solution. Consequently, the results here show that every part of the
initial communities exceeded the threshold, and all loadings were more than 0.5 as indicated in Table 6.

Table 6. Communalities of VM activities.

Item Communalities Item Communalities

VM.IP1 0.626 VM.FP4 0.731
VM.IP2 0.700 VM.EP1 0.728
VM.IP3 0.416 VM.EP2 0.698
VM.IP4 0.669 VM.EP3 0.758
VM.IP5 0.790 VM.CP1 0.694
VM.IP6 0.630 VM.CP2 0.714
VM.IP7 0.647 VM.CP3 0.763
VM.IP8 0.483 VM.DP1 0.698
VM.FP1 0.670 VM.DP2 0.660
VM.FP2 0.768 VM.DP3 0.715
VM.FP3 0.723

The findings of the EFA for VM activities resulted in only six factors with values greater than
1 for eigenvalues with a total variance of 68.03%. Findings from Varimax rotation demonstrated
that 17.66% of the variance was explained by the first factor (information phase) and 13.18% of the
variance by the second factor (function phase). The third component contained another subscale

266
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

called the evaluation phase, which explained 11.04% of the variance, followed by component four
(creativity phase), which explained 10.25% of the total variance. The fifth component, which relates
to the development and presentation phase, was able to explain 9.75% of the total variance. It is
important to note that just one item (VM.IP5) was eliminated. It was included as the last component
and initially part of the information phase. Therefore, for this study, only five extraction components
were found adequate. Pallant [87], therefore, proposed that the screen plot and matrix should be
analyzed objectively to assess the components (factors) that are extracted and determined. A shift
(or Elbow) in plot shape is detected when examining the screen plot, and only sections above this level
are kept. Figure 2 further reveals that the six aspects are modified.

Figure 2. Scree plot result for VM activities components.

6.4. Reliability Analysis

For the factors extracted through EFA, the reliability statistics were determined. Table 7 indicates
the results. The value of the Cronbach alpha becomes more acceptable as it tends towards 1.0 [89]
Consequently as shown in Table 7, all VM activities have appropriate reliability since alpha Cronbach
levels are greater than 0.6 [61].

Table 7. Reliability statistics for extracted factors (Cronbach’s alpha).

Factor (VM Phases) No. of Variables Cronbach’s Alpha

Information Phase 7 0.827
Function Phase 4 0.835
Creativity Phase 3 0.771
Evaluation Phase 3 0.799
Development and Presentation Phases 3 0.620

7. Discussion
Building projects impact the economy, society, and the environment over their whole life cycles [90],
hence the link with sustainability. To accomplish the building project sustainability, there is a need for
techniques that provide a clear vision of the projects’ situation and realize other project objectives [10].
VM has been recognized as having the possibility to incorporate sustainability for building projects
because it utilizes various knowledge resources, significant procedures, facilitated environment,
strategic timing, and stakeholders and professional disciplines [49]. However, studies on the
implementation of VM have focused on factors influencing the effective implementation of VM.
Nevertheless, no study has measured or assessed the activities and elements that encourage the
adoption of VM for sustainable building projects [91], particularly in Egypt.

267
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

7.1. Identify the Level of VM Awareness

Awareness of VM and its processing in construction projects significantly influence top
management’s decision to implement VM. Implementing VM is a complex activity requiring numerous
details from different parties, but knowledge of the process can help overcome implementation
challenges. From this study, it is evident that 64% of the respondents have adequate knowledge of
VM, which means that they have a moderate amount of knowledge regarding VM. This research is
contrary to the observation of Khodeir and El Ghandour [15] that about 51.6% of their respondents have
light-sized knowledge of VM. The reasons can be due to the difference between the findings of both
studies. Khodeir and El Ghandour [15] only covered thirty-five participants, the current study examines
the topic more widely by assessing building experts’ knowledge and collecting 150 questionnaires in
the country’s two largest regions (Cairo and Giza). Therefore, the higher the number of people covered,
the greater the chances of more professionals that are aware of the subject.

7.2. Factor Analysis Results

Five phases of VM in Egyptian building projects were extracted through EFA. The activities executed
are extracted under information, function, creativity, evaluation, and development/presentation phases.
This finding did not match with the study of Tanko et al. [92] which was carried out in the Nigerian
construction industry. Their findings show that the VM is extracted under three phases, that is,
information/function phase, creativity/evaluation and development/presentation phase. These findings
necessitate a need to enhance the application of VM in developing countries since the professionals
in those countries did not consider VM phases according to VM standard generated by SAVE [22].
The extracted phases in this research are hereby discussed:

7.2.1. Information Phase

The first principal component is the information phase, which contains seven items, and accounts
for 17.66% of the variance explained. This includes activities such as clarify project background
information and constraints (0.769), involving clients and stakeholders at the early phase of the project
(0.764), site visitation (0.732), share project information between stakeholders and professionals, identify
high-cost areas of the project (0.699), involving and assigning duties to construction professionals
at the early phase of the project (0.672), defining the time frame and scope of the project (0.612),
collecting related background information on the suggested project (0.600). It is crucial for the exercise
of VM that the information phase supports and embraces the adoption of VM. Every VM analysis
consists of three types of contributors: decision-makers (owners or owners’ representatives), VM team
leader (facilitators), and team members [93]. At this stage of the workshop, information sharing is
vital, and clients and end-users should obviously and explicitly state the scope, aims, requirements,
and anticipations of their planned projects. The responsibility played by every member can provide
positively towards the improvement of sustainability [94]. Methods for procurement, duration of
projects, environment, and performance are also set out here by these participants. Furthermore,
numerous green alternatives were combined into the early design phase in the information phase [49],
and clients are expected to inform their objectives. Leung and Liu [95] reported that project objectives
influence the VM participants’ behavior and the outcome. Additionally, the VM team leader holds a
strategic plan to enhance sustainability knowledge and awareness [96]. Communication among clients
and VM facilitators increases the chance to motivate owners to commit to sustainability [94].
Consequently, details and information on the context, design, projected costs, and limitations of
the project are provided [97]. An inquiry by Mohamad Ramly and Shen [84] revealed that, at this point,
construction workers, such as the facilitator’s team, provided essential information on their fields.
However, different participants may also have identified limitations to their project [98].

268
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

7.2.2. Function Phase

The second principal component, which is the function phase comprised four items and accounted
for 13.178% of the variance explained. It includes activities such as presenting project restrictions and
limitations to stakeholders (0.849), creating and classifying functions/items as basic and secondary
items with their associated costs (0.812), expressing and understanding the aims and functions of the
project (0.802), making the client express clearly the scope and anticipations of the project (0.710). It is
important to note that the most critical part of this phase is a logical approach that defines and fulfills
the criteria, needs, aims, and anticipated goals of the undertaking. Moreover, four variables for the
function phase, namely, mission, space, elements, and shape, will be investigated [99]. Regarding the
task, the phase is concentrated on how the sponsor, owner, client, and other main parties to the project
primarily view or distinguish a particular task [100]. This step aims to create, identify, and categorize
primary and secondary functions [84]. Team members are encouraged during this phase to write
down the buildings’ functions, which can still be applicable for the next 50 years [90]. The basic and
secondary functions with their associated costs are defined and categorized in this way in order to
comprehend the sustainable aspects of the project. In the hierarchical function structure known as the
functional tree diagram, project functions are defined, analyzed, and the main objective of the process
is to recognize the project through the project functions [82]. Furthermore, through this diagram, the
critical building objectives and functions established by the owner have been involved in this stage,
and the sustainability of the building might itself be an essential aim and function [90]. Sustainability
dimensions would be an essential element of the project’s aims and functions [49]. Additionally,
the study demonstrated that the dimensions of sustainability, such as user comfort, environmental
influence and impact, accessibility, society, and life cycle costs, are integrated in the VM decision
matrix [42].

7.2.3. Evaluation Phase

The third principal component is the phase of evaluation, which consists of three items, and
accounts for 10.253% of the variance explained. It consists of activities such as estimating the total
life-cycle cost of each alternative (0.815), investigating the criteria for assessing alternatives (0.778),
and evaluating brainstormed alternatives to achieve the desired functions/elements (0.765). Therefore,
the VM team must be interdisciplinary in assessing all alternatives during this VM workshop phase
to achieve the project’s sustainable objective. At this stage, the proposals made are analyzed and
evaluated for each of the suggestions and ideas identified in the previous stage (creative stage).
A review, assessment, and short-listing are carried out at this stage and to examine less promising
ideas, it is necessary to assess each idea against functional requirements [101]. This is supported by the
conclusion of Mohamad Ramly and Shen [84] that further testing of proposals and suggestions is best
performed to determine how to achieve the project’s desired goals and sustainable objectives.

7.2.4. Creativity Phase

The fourth principal component is the creativity phase. It consists of three items and accounts
for 11.041% of the total variance. It includes: creating brainstorm alternatives and ideas to achieve
the desired functions/elements and related costs (0.801); description of the procurement and contract
strategy of the project (0.811) and categorizing the alternatives from the brainstormed session as feasible
to be adopted (0.797). It could be noted that ideas are produced and created during the creative stage
to fulfill the necessary and preferred functions of a practical tree structure. The members of the VM
Workshop team investigate, explore, generates, and tests alternative methods and ways in which tasks
are performed throughout these processes [102]. Innovative approaches and techniques, including
brainstorming, Synectic, and side thinking, are being applied at this level. The VM facilitator must
create a positive environment by ensuring that criticism and repression among VM team members
are not possible. Through the creativity phase, the team member can have an excellent opportunity

269
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

to achieve their objective by enhancing innovation ideas. Innovation is one of the highest drivers
that could be sustained by the practical approach to improve resource [103]. Moreover, economic and
investment sustainability must not be disconnected from community and environmental sustainability
in recommending alternatives, solutions, and ideas [90].

7.2.5. Development and Presentation Phase

The final primary component, which comprises three items is the development and presentation
phase. It is not surprising that the major activity of the phase as obtained from the EFA analysis is that
Egypt’s professionals did not comply with the VM standards. This combined phase represents 9.748%
of the variance explained. It includes activities such as the generate an action plan on short-listed
alternatives (0.811), the follow-up of an action plan on VM output (0.786), and the holding and
presentation of an action plan review meeting (0.783), The members of the VM team are responsible
for generating short-listed proposals and suggestions. The team preparations, manufacturers,
and producers are sketches, descriptions/materials, drawings, specifications, and details as structured
VM proposals. Each brief concept is regarded as a feasible, practical, and realistic solution. This step
deals with all the drawbacks, benefits, and potential of the concepts and ideas in the guidelines,
estimates, and cost of life-cycles measurements. Moreover, at this point, the strategic plan involves
each part or function of the development phase. The finding is supported by Oke and Aigbavboa [100]
where the development phase was noted to be a crucial step of the VM study and that consideration
should be given to ensure that the development and presentation phases are carefully investigated
and considered. On the other hand, some authors recommended presentation as the last step of VM.
However, this phase’s purpose is to send these suggestions to the body that authorized the study as a
way of minimalist-feedback [100].

7.3. VM Activities Implementation for Building Sustainable Success

Recent building developments have brought more effective and sustainable methods, specialized
techniques, and materials [104]. Building direction in the construction industry requires substantial
and sustainable development [105]. However, measuring sustainability and performance during
usage is becoming increasingly relevant [106]. The strategies to incorporate the concept of sustainable
development must be established [107]. Moreover, VM can perform an effective method for achieving
building sustainability. This study evaluated VM activities through EFA analysis to suggest VM
implementation activities and stages, which can lead to sustainable delivery of building projects.
VM study allowed sustainability principles to be included in the conceptual and initial design
phases [38]. Through VM study, alternatives are anticipated to promote a healthy and safe ecosystem
for the residents [108]. Additionally, VM offers multidisciplinary professionals’ chances to focus
on issues and matters regarding community, society and the environment [33,90] and effectively
enhance sustainability concepts during the life cycle of building projects [90]. The conventional
way of considering project success is the so-called iron-triangle of time, cost, and quality, which are
frequently reviled in the late decades [109]. Thus, by implementing VM, building companies can
balance time, expense, and quality as VM reduces costs, but not at the sacrifice of benefits [110].
Kelly and Male [111] suggested that time measured within the sustainable value system is part of
the project’s success, and VM can achieve the optimum project time. For instance, in the roadway
field, Atabay and Galipogullari [112] used VM as a sustainable tool for saving around 12 months
of project time. These results figures amount to 6% of the total budget and 17% of the schedule.
Not surprising that, in the marine construction field, Tang and Bittner [113] confirmed that VM uses
as a useful technique for improving the quality. Moreover, cost and financial sustainability can be
targeted in building projects by adopting VM. Lin et al. [114] said that VM is commonly used as a
supportive method to address challenges, such as limited financial resources and strict planning in the
building industry, as financial analysis represents the primary method for evaluating a company’s
sustainable improvement and value creation [115]. VM provides sustainability to be included in a

270
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

construction project [21,116]. In the sustainability sense of construction firms, it was found that they face
several obstacles as they mature and have a positive social, environmental and economic impact [117].
These firms should also search for swift and new means of sustaining customer confidence [107].
The proposed VM activities give these companies practitioners the opportunity to take a good decision
for achieving their company’s success. These decisions are able to have a long-term effect on corporate
practices [118]. Moreover, VM activities could be applied to the extent of traditional capital, operating
costs, and the project’s duration to expose customer value systems. These companies can only pay
attention to sustainability aspects if the value created exceeds the damage caused [119]. Achievements
of success by enterprises and their competence to enhance company value over a long time depend
on having an effective business model [120], and this model can be achieved through the adoption of
VM activities.

8. Conclusions
Construction projects, especially in developing countries like Egypt, are characterized by low
quality and are not delivered in accordance with sustainable principles. This research showed that
VM is a vital option to address this threat. It was hypothesized that the VM activities implementation
is crucial for building professionals to achieve their sustainable goals. To examine this hypothesis,
mixed methods research was conducted through a semi-structured interview of fifteen experts and
a questionnaire survey. The study collectively deduced that the level of implementation of VM
in building projects is relatively poor. The study also showed that building participants in Egypt
have reasonable awareness (67.7 percent), and the majority of participants viewed VM as a concept.
This indicates that the challenge of VM in the Egyptian construction industry is not of awareness but
that of adoption. From the questionnaire analysis through EFA, the study shows that information;
function, creativity, evaluation, and development/presentation phases are classified as five phases
of VM adoption in Egyptian building projects The study investigated the new activities generated
by the experts through the adoption of a semi-structured interview, which was not mentioned in
the previous studies. These include estimating total life-cycle costs for each alternative, research
evaluation criteria for alternatives and follow up an action plan for VM output. The EFA analysis
also leads to the removal of one activity, that is, involve and assign responsibilities to construction
professionals at the initial stage of the project. To this end, VM activities are essential for the
sustainable delivery of building projects. The study results can guide policymakers and top managers
in building projects to systematically understand the relative importance of VM activities and efficient
subsequent implementation. Furthermore, the study can support developing countries to consider VM
implementation for achieving their overall sustainable success.

Author Contributions: A.F.K. initiated the research project, carried out the mixed methods empirical research,
and drafted the manuscript. I.O. supervised the project and provided feedback on the manuscript drafts. A.E.O.
supervised the project and provided feedback on the manuscript drafts. N.C. provided feedback on the manuscript
drafts. M.K.B. provided feedback on the manuscript drafts. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their utmost gratitude to FRGS grant Ministry of Higher
Education Malaysia for supporting this research and Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Seri Iskandar,
Perak, Malaysia.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

271
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

MDPI Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

VM Value Management
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
GHG Green House Gas emissions
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PAF Principal Axis Factoring

References
1. Sbci, U. Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision-Makers; United Nations Environmental Programme,
Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative: Paris, France, 2009; pp. 1–62.
2. DoE, U. Energy Efficiency Trends in Residential and Commercial Buildings; US Department of Energy: Washington,
DC, USA, 2008. Available online: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/bt_
stateindustry.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2020).
3. Atanasiu, B.; Attia, S. Principles for nearly zero-energy buildings: Paving the way for effective implementation
of policy requirements. In Principles for Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings: Paving the Way for Effective Implementation
of Policy Requirements; Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE): Brussels, Belgium, 2011; p. 124.
4. Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S.; Ihtiyar, A.; Bakar, N.F.S.A.; Darko, A. A partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) of barriers to sustainable construction in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 564–572. [CrossRef]
5. Yaseen, Z.M.; Ali, Z.H.; Salih, S.Q.; Al-Ansari, N. Prediction of risk delay in construction projects using a
hybrid artificial intelligence model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514. [CrossRef]
6. Mousa, A. A Business approach for transformation to sustainable construction: An implementation on a
developing country. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 9–19. [CrossRef]
7. Fang, Z.; Gao, X.; Sun, C. Do financial development, urbanization and trade affect environmental quality?
Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 120892. [CrossRef]
8. Kissi, E.; Boateng, E.; Adjei-Kumi, T. Strategies for implementing value management in the construction
industry of Ghana. In Proceedings of the DII-2015 Conference on Infrastructure Development and Investment
Strategies for Africa, Livingstone, Zambia, 16–18 September 2015; pp. 255–267.
9. Adeyemi, L.A.; Idoko, M. Developing Local Capacity For Project Management–Key To Social And Business
Transformation In Developing Countries. In Proceedings of the PMI® Global Congress 2008—EMEA,
St. Julian’s, Malta, 19–21 May 2008; Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2008.
10. Maceika, A.; Bugajev, A.; Šostak, O.R. The Modelling of Roof Installation Projects Using Decision Trees and
the AHP Method. Sustainability 2020, 12, 59. [CrossRef]
11. Jekale, W. Performance for Public Construction Projects in Developing Countries: Federal Road and Educational
Building Projects in Ethiopia; Norwegian University of Science & Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 2004.
12. Barakat, M.S.; Naayem, J.H.; Baba, S.S.; Kanso, F.A.; Borgi, S.F.; Arabian, G.H.; Nahlawi, F.N. Egypt Economic
Report: Between the Recovery of the Domestic Economy and the Burden of External Sector Challenges.
Available online: http://www.bankaudigroup.com (accessed on 28 October 2020).
13. Soliman, M.M.A.I. Risk Management in International Construction Joint Ventures in Egypt. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 2014.
14. Luo, P.; Sun, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, S.; Lyu, J.; Zhou, M.; Nakagami, K.; Takara, K.; Nover, D. Historical
assessment and future sustainability challenges of Egyptian water resources management. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 263, 121154. [CrossRef]
15. Khodeir, L.M.; El Ghandour, A. Examining the role of value management in controlling cost overrun
[application on residential construction projects in Egypt]. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2019, 10, 471–479. [CrossRef]
16. Ministry of Housing. Urban Facilities and Facilities; Ministry of Housing, Utilities & Urban Communities:
Cairo, Egypt, 1999.

272
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

17. Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M.; Agnelli, S.; Al-Athel, S.; Chidzero, B. Our Common Future; Butterworth
Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1987; Volume 8.
18. Kibert, C. Final Session of First International Conference of CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction; University of
Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1994.
19. Hill, R.C.; Bowen, P.A. Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework for attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ.
1997, 15, 223–239. [CrossRef]
20. Wolstenholme, A.; Austin, S.A.; Bairstow, M.; Blumenthal, A.; Lorimer, J.; McGuckin, S.; Rhys Jones, S.;
Ward, D.; Whysall, D.; Le Grand, Z. Never Waste a Good Crisis: A Review of Progress Since Rethinking Construction
and Thoughts for Our Future; Constructing Excellence: London, UK, 2009.
21. Abidin, N.Z.; Pasquire, C.L. Revolutionize value management: A mode towards sustainability. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 275–282. [CrossRef]
22. SAVE. Value Methodology Standard; SAVE Inteernational: Mount Royal, NJ, USA, 2007.
23. Shen, Q. A Knowledge Based Structure for Implementing Value Management in the Design of Office Buildings;
University of Salford: Greater Manchester, UK, 1993.
24. Thiry, M. Value Management Practice. Newtown Square, PA: Project; Management Institute: Newtown Square,
PA, USA, 1997.
25. Al-Saleh, Y.M.; Taleb, H.M. The integration of sustainability within value management practices: A study of
experienced value managers in the GCC countries. Proj. Manag. J. 2010, 41, 50–59. [CrossRef]
26. Parker, D.E. Value Engineering Theory, rev. ed.; The Lawrence D. Miles Value Foundation: Washington, DC,
USA, 1998.
27. Alattyih, W.; Haider, H.; Boussabaine, H. Development of Value Creation Drivers for Sustainable Design of
Green Buildings in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5867. [CrossRef]
28. Rosłon, J.; Ksia˛żek-Nowak, M.; Nowak, P. Schedules Optimization with the Use of Value Engineering and
NPV Maximization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7454. [CrossRef]
29. Kim, S.-Y.; Lee, Y.-S.; Nguyen, V.T. Barriers to applying value management in the Vietnamese construction
industry. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2016, 21, 55. [CrossRef]
30. Abdelghany, M.; Rachwan, R.; Abotaleb, I.; Albughdadi, A. Value engineering applications to improve value
in residential projects. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference–Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Edmonton, AB, Canada, 27–30 May 2015; pp. 27–30.
31. Aboelmaged, M. The drivers of sustainable manufacturing practices in Egyptian SMEs and their impact on
competitive capabilities: A PLS-SEM model. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 207–221. [CrossRef]
32. Daoud, A.O.; Othman, A.; Robinson, H.; Bayati, A. Towards a green materials procurement: Investigating the
Egyptian green pyramid rating system. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Green Heritage Conference,
Porto, Italy, 10–12 October 2019.
33. Othman, I.; Kineber, A.; Oke, A.; Khalil, N.; Buniya, M. Drivers of Value Management Implementation in
Building Projects in Developing Countries. J. Phys. 2020, 1529, 042083.
34. Aghimien, D.O.; Oke, A.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O. Barriers to the adoption of value management in developing
countries. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 818–834. [CrossRef]
35. Oke, A.; Aghimien, D.; Olatunji, S. Implementation of value management as an economic sustainability tool
for building construction in Nigeria. Int. J. Manag. Value Supply Chain. 2015, 6, 55–64.
36. Aarseth, W.; Ahola, T.; Aaltonen, K.; Økland, A.; Andersen, B. Project sustainability strategies: A systematic
literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1071–1083. [CrossRef]
37. Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey
exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1084–1102. [CrossRef]
38. Fewings, P.; Henjewele, C. Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
39. Australia, S. Australian Standard: Value Management (AS 4183-2007); Council of Standards Australia: Sydney,
Australia, 2007.
40. Bowen, P.A.; Edwards, P.J.; Cattell, K. Value management practice in South Africa: The built environment
professions compared. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 1039–1057. [CrossRef]
41. Ann, T.; Shen, Q.; Kelly, J.; Hunter, K. An empirical study of the variables affecting construction project
briefing/architectural programming. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 198–212.
42. Kelly, J.; Male, S. Value Management in Design and Construction; Routledge: London, UK, 2003.

273
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

43. Abidin, N.Z.; Pasquire, C.L. Delivering sustainability through value management. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
2005, 12, 168–180. [CrossRef]
44. Scotland, B. Report on Value Management Workshops for Community Self Build Scotland, BRE Scotland.
Available online: http://goo.gl/rHv5WB (accessed on 10 December 2013).
45. Stephenson, M. How Can Value Engineering Be Used to Enhance the Sustainability of Major Engineering
Developments? Master’s Thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2003.
46. Hayles, C. The role of value management in the construction of sustainable communities. Value Manag. 2004,
10, 15–19.
47. Al-Yousefi, A.S. The synergy between value engineering and sustainable construction. In Proceedings of the
CTBUH 8th World Congress, Dubai, UAE, 3–5 March 2008; pp. 3–5.
48. Kelly, J.; Male, S.; Graham, D. Value Managent of Construction Project; Blackwell: London, UK, 2004.
49. Phillips, M.R. Towards sustainability and consensus through value management: Case study. Managing
Sustainable Values. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Institute of Value Management,
Hong Kong, China, 6–7 May 2009.
50. Davis, D.F.; Golicic, S.L.; Boerstler, C.N. Benefits and challenges of conducting multiple methods research in
marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 467–479. [CrossRef]
51. Buniya, M.K.; Othman, I.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Kineber, A.F.; Mussi, E.; Ahmad, H. Barriers to safety program
implementation in the construction industry. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020. [CrossRef]
52. Bazeley, P. The evolution of a project involving an integrated analysis of structured qualitative and quantitative
data: From N3 to NVivo. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2002, 5, 229–243. [CrossRef]
53. Mason, M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung
Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2010, 11, 3.
54. Othman, I.; Kamil, M.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Alnsour, M.; Kineber, A.F. Critical success factors influencing
construction safety program implementation in developing countries. In Proceedings of the 2nd Joint
International Conference on Emerging Computing Technology and Sports (JICETS) 2019, Bandung, Indonesia,
25–27 November 2019; p. 042079.
55. Ochieng, E.G.; Price, A.D. Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project
teams: The case of Kenya and UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 449–460. [CrossRef]
56. Haig, B.D. An abductive theory of scientific method. In Method Matters in Psychology; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 35–64.
57. Dubois, A.; Gadde, L.-E. Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. J. Bus. Res. 2002,
55, 553–560. [CrossRef]
58. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed.; Pearson: Harlow, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 2012.
59. Fellows, R.F.; Liu, A.M. Research Methods for Construction; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
60. Williams, B.; Onsman, A.; Brown, T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Aust. J. Paramed.
2010, 8. [CrossRef]
61. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
62. Thompson, B. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications; American
Psychological Associatio: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
63. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting
the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7.
64. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Ullman, J.B. Using Multivariate Statistics; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2007;
Volume 5.
65. Kim, T.-H.; Lee, H.W.; Hong, S.-W. Value engineering for roadway expansion project over deep thick soft
soils. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 05015014. [CrossRef]
66. Luvara, V.G.; Mwemezi, B. Obstacles against value management practice in building projects of Dar es
Salaam Tanzania. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 6, 13–21.
67. Shen, Q.; Liu, G. Critical success factors for value management studies in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2003, 129, 485–491. [CrossRef]
68. Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques; New Age International: Delhi, India, 2004.

274
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

69. Adedokun, O.A.; Ibironke, O.T.; Olanipekun, A.O. Vulnerability of motivation schemes in enhancing site
workers productivity for construction industry’s sustainability in Nigeria. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol.
2013, 4, 21–30.
70. Sushil, S.; Verma, N. Questionnaire validation made easy. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2010, 46, 172–178.
71. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R. Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in the construction
industry: A qualitative study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2016, 32, 134–157. [CrossRef]
72. Kavishe, N.; Chileshe, N. Identifying project management practices and principles for Public–Private
partnerships in housing projects: The case of Tanzania. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4609. [CrossRef]
73. King, N.; Horrocks, C.; Brooks, J. Interviews in Qualitative Research; SAGE Publications Limited: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA, 2018.
74. Sharma, G. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2017, 3, 749–752.
75. Ripollés, M.; Blesa, A. International new ventures as “small multinationals”: The importance of marketing
capabilities. J. World Bus. 2012, 47, 277–287. [CrossRef]
76. Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Guide; Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2005.
77. Shen, Q. Value management in Hong Kong’s construction industry: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the
SAVE International Conference Proceeding, Hong Kong, China, 16 December 1997; pp. 260–265.
78. Ahadzie, D.; Proverbs, D.; Olomolaiye, P. Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in
developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 675–687. [CrossRef]
79. Al-Yami, A.M. An Integrated Approach to Value Management and Sustainable Construction during Strategic
Briefing in Saudi Construction Projects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, 2008.
80. Lai, N.K. Value Management in Construction Industry. Master’s Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 2006.
81. SAVE. Value Managemen; SAVE: Dayton, OH, USA, 2008.
82. Jaapar, A.; Maznan, N.A.; Zawawi, M. Implementation of value management in public projects. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2012, 68, 77–86. [CrossRef]
83. Hwang, B.-G.; Zhao, X.; Toh, L.P. Risk management in small construction projects in Singapore: Status,
barriers and impact. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 116–124. [CrossRef]
84. Mohamad Ramly, Z.; Shen, G.Q. Value management in Malaysia: Past, present and future. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Value Engineering and Management ‘Innovation in Value Methodology’,
Hong Kong, China, 6–7 December 2012; pp. 105–110.
85. Byrne, B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed.;
Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
86. Sharma, S. Applied Multivariate Techniques; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
87. Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual, 3rd ed.; McGrath Hill: Berkshire, UK, 2007; Volume 15.
88. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53. [CrossRef]
89. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
90. Yu, A.T.W.; Javed, A.A.; Lam, T.I.; Shen, G.Q.; Sun, M. Integrating value management into sustainable
construction projects in Hong Kong. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 1475–1500. [CrossRef]
91. Tanko, B.L.; Abdullah, F.; Ramly, Z.M.; Enegbuma, W.I. An implementation framework of value management
in the Nigerian construction industry. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018, 8, 305–319. [CrossRef]
92. Tanko, B.L.; Abdullah, F.; Ramly, Z.M.; Enegbuma, W.I. Confirmatory factor analysis of value management
current practice in the Nigerian construction industry. Pernabit Akademia Baru J. Adv. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng.
Technol. 2017, 9, 32–41.
93. British Standard EN 12973. Available online: http://bsonline.techindex.co.uk (accessed on 28 October 2020).
94. Zainul-Abidin, N. Achieving sustainability through value management: A passing opportunity? Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 2008, 8, 79–91. [CrossRef]
95. Leung, M.; Liu, A.M. Developing a value management model–by value-goal system approach. In Proceedings
of the 14th Annual Conference of Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM 98),
Reading, UK, 9–11 September 1998; pp. 496–505.
96. Dallas, M. Revolutionising the Way We Build, Managing Sustainable Values. In Proceedings of the
International Conference of the Institute of Value Management, Hong Kong, China, 6–7 May 1999; pp. 6–7.
97. Chougule, A.; Gupta, A.; Patil, S. Application of value engineering technique to A residential Building–Case
study. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Eng. IJIRAE 2014, 1.

275
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9143

98. Chen, W.T.; Liao, S.L. A job-plan based performance evaluation for construction value engineering study.
J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2010, 33, 317–333. [CrossRef]
99. Kelly, J.; Male, S.; Graham, D. Value Management of Construction Projects; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 2014.
100. Oke, A.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O. Sustainable Value Management for Construction Projects; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2017.
101. Kam Shadan, P. Construction Project Management Handbook; Federal Transit Administration: Washington, DC,
USA, 2012; Volume 14, p. 2016.
102. Liu, G. A framework for Implementing Value Management in China’s Construction Industry. Ph.D. Thesis,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China, 2003.
103. Munyasya, B.M.; Chileshe, N. Towards sustainable infrastructure development: Drivers, barriers, strategies,
and coping mechanisms. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4341. [CrossRef]
104. Švajlenka, J.; Kozlovská, M. Perception of user criteria in the context of sustainability of modern methods of
construction based on wood. Sustainability 2018, 10, 116. [CrossRef]
105. Švajlenka, J.; Kozlovská, M.; Pošiváková, T. Analysis of selected building constructions used in industrial
construction in terms of sustainability benefits. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4394. [CrossRef]
106. Švajlenka, J.; Kozlovská, M. Evaluation of the efficiency and sustainability of timber-based construction.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120835. [CrossRef]
107. Spychalska-Wojtkiewicz, M. The Relation between Sustainable Development Trends and Customer Value
Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5496. [CrossRef]
108. Yates, A.; Yates, A. Sustainable Buildings: Benefits for Designers; Building Research Establishment: London,
UK, 2003.
109. Lu, P.; Guo, S.; Qian, L.; He, P.; Xu, X. The effectiveness of contractual and relational governances in
construction projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 212–222. [CrossRef]
110. Dallas, M.F. Value and Risk Management: A Guide to Best Practice; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
111. Kelly, J.; Male, S. A Technique for Understanding the Customer’s Project Value Criteria. In Proceedings of
Proceedings of the Society of American Value Engineers Conference, Denver, Colorado, 5–8 May 2002.
112. Atabay, S.; Galipogullari, N. Application of value engineering in construction projects. J. Traffic Transp. Eng.
2013, 1, 39–48.
113. Tang, P.; Bittner, R.B. Use of value engineering to develop creative design solutions for marine construction
projects. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19, 129–136. [CrossRef]
114. Lin, G.; Shen, G.Q.; Sun, M.; Kelly, J. Identification of key performance indicators for measuring the performance
of value management studies in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 698–706. [CrossRef]
115. Kaczmarek, J. The Mechanisms of Creating Value vs. Financial Security of Going Concern—Sustainable
Management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2278. [CrossRef]
116. Zainul-Abidin, N.; Pasquire, C. Moving towards sustainability through value management. In Proceedings
of the Joint International Symposium of CIB Working Commissions W55 and W107, Singapore, 22–24 October
2003; Volume 2, pp. 258–268.
117. Lee, W.J.; Mwebaza, R. The Role of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as a Climate Technology
and Innovation Matchmaker for Developing Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7956. [CrossRef]
118. Obiora, S.C.; Bamisile, O.; Opoku-Mensah, E.; Kofi Frimpong, A.N. Impact of Banking and Financial
Systems on Environmental Sustainability: An Overarching Study of Developing, Emerging, and Developed
Economies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8074. [CrossRef]
119. Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Sustainable value added—measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond
eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 173–187. [CrossRef]
120. Jabłoński, A.; Jabłoński, M. Research on business models in their life cycle. Sustainability 2016, 8, 430. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

276
sustainability

Article
Application of Hybrid SWARA–BIM in Reducing
Reworks of Building Construction Projects from the
Perspective of Time
Hamidreza Khalesi 1 , Amirhossein Balali 1 , Alireza Valipour 1, *, Jurgita Antucheviciene 2 ,
Darius Migilinskas 2 and Viaceslav Zigmund 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz 5-71993, Iran;
[email protected] (H.K.); [email protected] (A.B.)
2 Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
10221 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] (J.A.); [email protected] (D.M.);
[email protected] (V.Z.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +98-9177914214

Received: 29 September 2020; Accepted: 24 October 2020; Published: 27 October 2020

Abstract: One of the major issues of the construction industry has been the “reworks” that affect
the time, quality, and cost of projects. Therefore, reworks and the ineffective use of site resources
and materials will always result in significant losses on projects. The development of information
technology has led to the widespread use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) to enhance the
delivery of more sustainable building construction projects. The purpose of this study is to combine
the Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) method and BIM technologies to identify
and reduce time delays caused by reworks in construction projects. Firstly, 49 rework causes in
residential buildings were identified and ranked. Then, BIM was generated and compared to the
initial model. It was observed that working hours were reduced by 4.6%. Moreover, using an Earned
Value Management (EVM) system, a 0.06 increase in Schedule Performance Index (SPI) factor was
illustrated. Results obtained by this study provide an effective step in reducing a project’s time in the
construction industry.

Keywords: rework causes; BIM; SWARA method; time; project success

1. Introduction
Rework is regarded as a serious issue for construction industry projects [1]. Cost, schedule,
performance, and productivity of construction projects are influenced by reworks [2]. Cost and
schedule overruns often occur due to rework in construction projects [2,3]. According to previous
studies, rework costs range from 5% to 20% in major civil engineering projects [4,5]. To manage rework,
its roots and causes must be identified first [1,6]. Many studies have been conducted to identify such
causes [1,6–10]. It is essential to reduce rework due to severe potential consequences. Thus, managers
are highly recommended to identify factors which result in rework in the planning phase of projects [1].
There have been various definitions of rework given by different researchers. According to
Josephson et al. (2002), rework is defined as dispensable output resulting due to mistakes during
the construction project [7]. Love (2002) defines rework as an event or process which is caused due
to quality accidents, unqualified quality problems, deviations, or faults [11]. Ye et al. (2015) define
rework as redoing a process which has already been done, to satisfy the functional requirements of
the project [2]. Forcada et al. (2017) mention that any additional work that has resulted from order
changes, design errors and scope changes must also be regarded as rework [12]. Many researchers
have attempted to identify factors of rework. It is crucial to analyze all factors and to use appropriate

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927; doi:10.3390/su12218927 277 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

decision-making tools for clients and construction project managers. Research has shown strong
attention to these complex management issues to improve the productivity of projects in the construction
industry. Most of the researchers are focused on the identification of risk processes and factors to
support managers and decision-makers in identifying problems for efficient risk management [13].
According to Hwang et al. (2019), these factors in the construction projects can generally be put
into six groups including “Contractor”, “Subcontractor”, “Supplier”, “Manufacturer”, “Designer” and
“Client” [1]. Fayek et al. (2003) developed a fishbone diagram to illustrate the actual and potential
causes of rework. They concluded that “Poor workmanship of prefabricated material”, “Lack of
inspection”, and “Consistency not insured before issued for construction” are the major reasons for
rework [6]. Rework can affect a projects’ performance [1], thus, it seems necessary to identify and
prevent them.
There have been various definitions for Building Information Modelling (BIM). For instance,
Penttilä (2006) defines BIM as

“A set of interrelating policies, processes and technologies that generate a systematic approach
to managing the critical information for building design and project data in digital format
throughout the life cycle of a building” [14].

The U.S. National BIM Standard also defines BIM as

“A shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for
decisions during its life-cycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to demolition” [15].

Most importantly in the use of BIM technologies for construction projects is to have reliable
information at any construction project implementation stage and to make correct decisions [16].
There are different dimensions in BIM which are used in construction projects according to the
complexity and requirements of such projects. The dimensions in BIM are known as 3D, 4D, 5D,
6D and 7D [17]. The third dimension of BIM (3D) represents the three geographical dimensions of a
structure, commonly known as x, y, and z, which stand for length, width, and height of a structure,
respectively [13,17–19]. The fourth dimension of BIM (4D) adds time and scheduling to the 3D BIM by
simulating the construction process, which enables the project to be visualized at any point in time [19].
The fifth dimension of BIM (5D) integrates the 4D BIM and the project costs. This way, changes of the
economic situation of a project can be observed at any phase of the construction project, which is a
valuable feature, especially for an estimation of the initial budget forecast [20] and for the management
of actual expenses. The sixth dimension of BIM (6D) considers sustainability, and more specifically
energy, by estimating energy consumption in all phases of the project. The last dimension (7D) adds
a facility management feature for a structure including its status, technical specifications, warranty
information, and maintenance/operation manuals for owners and managers [17].
Using BIM technologies in construction has numerous positive effects [21]. For example,
probable construction clashes can be identified and prevented using the model [22]. According to other
studies, the overall performance of a project and project information management can be improved
dramatically by using BIM besides other strategic innovations [23,24]. Non-value adding activities and
their resulting wastes can be investigated in BIM-based project delivery [25]. The impact of various
factors on delays can also be analyzed using BIM [26]. It is necessary to emphasize, that the use of
BIM technologies is not limited with the construction of new buildings but can also be used in the
reconstruction of heritage buildings. There are different ways of using BIM, and this effective support
is not limited to the 3D modelling, but also uses photogrammetry, 3D scanning and other tools for
existing buildings [27].
Lu et al. (2018) illustrated that construction errors on site can be decreased by sharing design
information with site workers [28]. Decreasing the causes of rework, including design errors and
defects, has been an aim for many researchers. For instance, Kwon et al. (2014) explored a defective
management system by integrating BIM, image-machining and augmented reality to automatically

278
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

identify and omit defects [29]. Moreover, according to different research, defect data were proposed to
be shared using a BIM-integrated network [30]. Bryde et al. (2013) investigated the advantages and
disadvantages of BIM use in projects and concluded that the advantages of using BIM are much greater
in comparison to its drawbacks, challenges, and limitations [16,31]. However, the direct use of BIM
technologies in reducing rework needs more investigation.
This paper aimed to reduce rework in the construction projects from the perspective of time using
Building Information Modelling (BIM). As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, most of the research
focuses on investigating the effect of BIM technologies on reducing rework. Thus, the consequences
of using BIM technologies in a projects’ schedule is considered as a gap in the body of knowledge.
The novelty of this paper is that time effects of reworks are specifically investigated by using BIM
technologies. A Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) method was employed to
weigh and rank the identified rework factors. Autodesk Revit software and Autodesk Navisworks
software were used as the BIM tools in order to evaluate the benefits of using BIM in comparison to the
traditional method, using the most important identified rework causes that are able to be simulated in
BIM. Status-Curves (S-Curves) and an Earned Value Management (EVM) system were also used to
calculate factors which illustrated the improvement of using BIM technologies. The findings of this
study will illustrate the benefits of combining one of the decision-making tools, the SWARA method,
with BIM technologies in order to identify and decrease reworks, and consequently their effects on the
construction industry projects, and to ultimately enhance projects’ sustainability.

2. Research Methodology
At first, rework causes in building construction projects were identified using literature including
books, papers, documents, and online databases, as well as asking expert’s opinions and also conducting
field investigations. In this process, factors which had the most effect on increasing the projects’ time
(fourth dimension) were identified and ranked by the SWARA method. These causes were then
illustrated on a fishbone diagram.
In the second stage, a building was selected as a case study and analyzed in terms of construction
time using two different scenarios. The first scenario analyzed the construction process using the
traditional system. On the other hand, the second scenario analyzed the abovementioned process
according to BIM, in which clashes and therefore reworks could be diagnosed and managed at the
beginning of the project.
In the next stage, the effects of utilizing BIM technologies on reducing reworks were investigated
by comparing the two abovementioned scenarios in the previous stage. To do so, construction times of
both scenarios were analyzed using S-Curves in Microsoft Project Software, and the effects of using
BIM on reducing delays in the construction time were investigated.
Finally, the last stage focused on analyzing the benefits of using BIM technologies on reducing
delays in the construction project by using the EVM system. These stages are demonstrated in Figure 1.

279
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Figure 1. Research methodology.

2.1. Questionnaire
In the current study, a questionnaire was designed to weigh and rank rework causes. Designing the
abovementioned questionnaire was conducted carefully, and experts played a significant role in making
the final version. The final questionnaire included three sections. In the first section, there were
some questions regarding general information such as occupational experience. In the second section,
respondents were asked to weigh rework causes by considering the identified selection criteria.
To attain this goal, a 5-point Likert scale was used in which 1 was the least importance, while 5 was
defined as the most importance. Lastly, in the third part of the questionnaire, respondents were
asked to mention any other rework causes or points about the topic. The information gained by this
questionnaire was then analyzed by the SWARA method.
Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient calculated to check internal consistency. Therefore, it was a
suitable coefficient to illustrate the reliability of the questionnaires. Cronbach’s alpha values range
from 0 to 1, where 0 means that all items are independent, while 1 means that items are perfectly
correlated [32]. In this range, in terms of reliability, values above 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 are considered
excellent, good, acceptable, questionable, and poor, respectively. Therefore, values below 0.5 are
regarded as unacceptable [33,34]. There are two ways to calculate Cronbach’s alpha. It can be calculated
manually, according to the formula below [32]:

j S2j
α= (1 − 2 ) (1)
j−1 S

280
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

where the number of items, variance of the jth criteria and variance of the total score are shown by j, S2j
and S2 , respectively. The second way to calculate Cronbach’s alpha is by using software programs
such as SPSS. Due to the complexity and difficulty of manual calculations, this way is usually preferred.
In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was computed using SPSS software.

2.2. SWARA (Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) Method

Various Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods can be used in different cases,
for example, they can be used for efficient application based on sustainability assessment tool
efficiency, cost analysis and renewable energy evaluation [35,36]. Keršuliene et al. introduced the
SWARA method in 2010 [37], and, in comparison to the other MCDM methods, SWARA is easier to
employ in decision-making problems due to its understandable concept and analysis procedure [38].
The SWARA method is usually used for weighing decision criteria, which are the basis of assessing
and prioritizing various alternatives [36]. To do so, knowledge, experience and opinions of experts
are considered [39]. SWARA has been used in different topics by numerous researchers. For instance,
the SWARA method was selected in an Iranian study to assess selection criteria for choosing the best
passive energy reduction measures in Iran [40]. Balki et al. (2020) determined optimal operating
parameters in Turkey and criteria were weighed using the SWARA method [38]. Rani et al. (2020)
provided Solar Panel Selection [41], while Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi et al. (2020) ranked failures in
Solar Panel Systems using the abovementioned method [42]. Akcan et al. (2019) aimed to reduce
ecological risk factors by evaluating green suppliers and employed the SWARA method as a part of this
evaluation [43]. Zarbakhshnia et al. (2018) evaluated and selected sustainable reverse logistic providers
and used the abovementioned method in their analysis [44]. Chalekaee et al. (2019) applied SWARA
when analyzing construction delay change response problems [45]. Morkunaite et al. (2019) evaluated
the significance of criteria in contractor selections for the refurbishment of heritage buildings [46].
There is a lot more research which has utilized the SWARA method [47–58].
In this study, SWARA was used to weigh rework causes using the questionnaire. The procedure
of using the SWARA method is illustrated below:

A. Selection criteria are identified and considered.

B. The abovementioned criteria are prioritized using experts’ attitudes and then they are sorted
from the most important to the least important.
C. Each criterion is compared to the upper criteria and the comparative average value of importance,
s j , is calculated.
D. Comparative importance (k j ) is computed as follows:

1 j=1
kj = (2)
sj + 1 j>1

E. Recalculated weights (q j ) are obtained using the formula below:

⎧
⎪
⎪ j=1
⎨ 1q
qj = ⎪
⎪ j−1 (3)
⎩ kj j>1

F. Final weights (w j ) are calculated as follows:

qj
w j = n (4)
m=1 qm

281
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

2.3. Case Study

Shiraz is one of the cities in Fars province, Iran, which is located in the southwest of the country.
It is surrounded by various mountains and has a temperate climate [59]. A building which is located
in Shiraz was considered as a case study for this research. The building is a 4-story steel structure in
the western section of Shiraz, with an infrastructure area of 1100 square meters.

2.4. Formation of the BIM Output

Three kinds of BIM software were used as the key tools of this study. To model the case
study building’s elements, Autodesk Revit software and Autodesk Navisworks software were
used. Autodesk Navisworks software and Microsoft Project software were also applied in the
time management section of the research. Details about the usage of BIM software are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Building Information Modelling (BIM) software used in the process of modelling.

Stage BIM Software

Initial idea modelling Autodesk Revit Architecture
Identifying the ability to build the idea Autodesk Navisworks Manage
Modelling of the structure Autodesk Revit Structure
Modelling the electrical and mechanical installation Autodesk Revit MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing)
Identifying architectural and structural clashes Autodesk Navisworks Manage
Identifying the change of results Autodesk Revit Architecture and Structure
Identifying the construction schedule Autodesk Navisworks Manage and Microsoft Project

2.4.1. Modelling the Architectural and Structural Information of the Building

Architectural and installation information of the building was modelled as follows:

• Step 1: Introducing the number of stories, as well as the height of each story according to the
architectural plans.
• Step 2: Introducing and modelling the major elements of the building such as walls, roofs,
and stairs.
• Step 3: Introducing and modelling the minor elements of the building such as doors and windows.
• Step 4: Adding supplementary details of the building such as stepped ceilings and parapets.
• Step 5: Modelling the building’s risers and ducts, where installation components are located.
• Structural information of the building was modelled as follows:
• Step 1: Introducing the number of stories, as well as the height of each story according to the
structural plans.
• Step 2: Introducing and modelling the major elements of the building such as the foundation,
columns, and beams.
• Step 3: Modelling lateral bracing system.
• Step 4: Introducing and adding roofs and diaphragms.
• Step 5: Adding supplementary details such as roofs and connections.

2.4.2. Integrating and Simulating the Construction Process

In this study, Autodesk Revit was used in different parts. Autodesk provides the ability to
integrate between the three versions of Revit, including Revit Architecture, Revit Structure and Revit
MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) [60].

282
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

2.5. Data Extraction of the Traditional and BIM Methods

2.5.1. Traditional Method

In this part of the study, the abovementioned building case study was considered. All the
construction documents of the buildings were investigated carefully to obtain reworks and gain the
total construction time of the project.

2.5.2. BIM Method

As mentioned in the previous section, all the elements of the building were modelled in the BIM
tools. Thus, all the clashes and reworks were identified and prevented at the beginning. This way,
a massive amount of time and budget was saved.

2.6. Investigating the Ability of BIM Tools in the Identification of Clashes and Reworks

2.6.1. Automatic Identification of Errors Within the Process of Modelling

Using Autodesk Revit software, all the errors including clashes between architectural,
structural and installation elements of the building were identified automatically, and a solution was
given by the software. This feature gives engineers the ability to observe and prevent a large number
of clashes and reworks at the initial level. Figure 2 illustrates one of the clashes that was identified by
the software.

Figure 2. Automatic identification of errors within the modelling process.

2.6.2. Identification of Errors after the Process of Modelling

In this stage, BIM outputs and simulations were integrated, and all the clashes and errors were
checked again using Autodesk Navisworks software. Data were imported directly from Autodesk
Revit to Autodesk Navisworks. After this step, the probability of any clashes occurring during the
construction process becomes almost zero. One of the identified clashes after the process of modelling
is shown in Figure 3.

283
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Figure 3. Identification of errors after the modelling process.

2.7. Earned Value Management (EVM)

The Earned Value Management (EVM) method is used to measure time, cost, and scope,
for predicting the performance of projects [61,62]. The EVM method can consider the time passed
as well as the cost, for calculating the value of work done [63]. In this stage, the aim was to observe
the benefits of using BIM technologies in reducing delays in construction of the building. Thus,
the procedure of this observation is illustrated as follows:
A. Calculating the Schedule Variance (SV) as follows:

SV = EV − PV (5)

where EV and PV stand for Earned Value (budgeted cost of work performed) and Actual Cost
(actual cost of work performed), respectively.
B. Calculation of Schedule Performance Index (SPI):

SPI = EV/PV (6)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Analyzing the Sample Size

135 experts who have been involved in various sectors of the construction industry, including
both private and governmental sectors, were the selected sample size of this study. In order to identify
a sufficient number of respondents, Cochran’s sample size formula was used. This formula is shown
below [64]:
Nt2 pq
n= (7)
Nd2 + t2 pq

284
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

where n, N, t, p, q and d stand for the sample size, population, confidence level value, probability of
success, probability of failure and acceptable margin of error, respectively. In order to gain the required
number of respondents, N, t, p, q and d were considered to be 135, 1.96, 0.5, 0.5 and 0.05, respectively.
Therefore, n was computed as follows:

135 ∗ 1.962 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 0.5

= = 99.89.
135 ∗ 0.052 + 1.962 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 0.5

Therefore, at least 100 respondents were needed to fill the questionnaire out. The abovementioned
135 questionnaires were distributed using the Internet (75 questionnaires) and postal system
(60 questionnaires). 115 questionnaires were returned, which meant an 85.1% return rate: that was
considered to be acceptable. Among the abovementioned returned questionnaires, six of them
were unverified. Therefore, 109 questionnaires were analyzed which was more than required.
Information regarding the questionnaires is shown in Table 2. Information about the experts who
completed the verified questionnaires is illustrated in Table 3.

Table 2. Questionnaires return rate.

Questionnaire Number Percentage

Total distributed 135 100%
Total Returned 115 85.1%
Unreturned 20 14.8%
Unverified returned 6 4.4%
Verified returned 109 80.7%

Table 3. Information about the respondents.

Classification Classification Number Percentage

Construction Engineer 29 26.6%
Technical director 43 39.4%
Working background Project manager 12 11%
Installation engineer 15 13.8%
Employer 10 9.2%
Bachelor 50 45.9%
Qualification Master 36 33%
PhD 23 21.1%
Less than 10 years 27 24.8%
Working Experience Between 10 and 20 years 32 29.3%
More than 20 years 50 45.9%

3.2. Reliability of the Questionnaires

To assess the reliability of the questionnaires, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. Rework causes
were categorized into seven groups according to their properties (Section 3.3). Thus, for each of the
questionnaires, Cronbach’s alpha value was computed separately. This value was calculated in order
to check the reliability of questionnaires, and ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 and 1 stand for complete
independency and complete dependency, respectively [32]. These computed values are demonstrated
in Table 4.

285
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Table 4. Values of Cronbach’s alpha.

Questionnaire Categorization of Rework Causes Number of Rework Causes Cronbach’s Alpha

A Engineering and Reviews 8 0.783
B Implementation of Project 10 0.803
C Material and Equipment Supply 6 0.776
D Human Resource Capability 8 0.803
E Construction Planning and Scheduling 4 0.735
F Leadership and Communication 5 0.721
G Effective External Causes 8 0.758

3.3. Identification and Prioritization of Rework Causes

The first step in this section was identifying rework causes. A comprehensive investigation took
place in various literature resources. Then, experts were interviewed to add any other rework causes
to the identified ones. Information regarding the experts is shown in Table 5. 42 of the identified
causes were extracted from the literature [1,6] and the other factors were introduced by experts. Table 6
illustrates the final categorization of identified rework causes. Figure 4 also shows the abovementioned
causes using a fishbone diagram. In the abovementioned figure, rework causes are separated into seven
different groups including Engineering and Reviews (A), Implementation of Project (B), Material and
Equipment Supply (C), Human Resource Capability (D), Construction Planning and Scheduling (E),
Leadership and Communication (F), Effective External Causes (G). Each category also constitutes
several subsections, which are illustrated in Figure 4.

Table 5. Information regarding experts.

Category Classification Number

Academia 8
Manager 9
Occupation
Contractor 8
Technical expert 12
Male 20
Sex
Female 17
<5 7
Experience 5–10 9
(years) 10–15 10
>15 11

286
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Table 6. Categorization of rework causes.

Categorization of Rework
Rework Causes Sign
Causes
Design Errors A1
Scope Changes A2
Late Design Changes A3
Poor Document Control A4
Engineering and Reviews
Design Changes A5
Poor Supervision and Control A6
Poor Knowledge of Designer A7
Lack of Using Modern Design Tools A8
Lack of Using Modern Implementation Systems B1
Changes in Work Volume B2
Difference among Plans and Operational Specifications B3
Incoherence of Structural Implementations B4
Unspecified Essential Operations B5
Implementation of Project
Lack of Operational Standards B6
Lack of Using Appropriate Appliances B7
Lack of Supervision in Controlling Quality B8
Poor Experience of Contractors B9
Poor Quality of Implementations B10
Non-compliance with Specifications C1
Materials not in the Right Place When Needed C2
Untimely Deliveries C3
Material and Equipment Supply
Structural Non-compliance C4
Poor Quality of Materials C5
Lack of Suppliers’ Information Regarding the Status of
C6
Project
Insufficient Skill Level D1
Lack of Knowledge in Occupational Planning D2
Unclear Instructions to Workers D3
Excessive Overtime D4
Human Resource Capability
Lack of Occupational Security D5
Inadequate Control of Human Resource D6
Lack of Workers’ Responsibility D7
Inadequate Training of Human Resource D8
Unrealistic Schedules E1
Construction Planning and Insufficient Turnover and Commissioning Resourcing E2
Scheduling Late Designer Input E3
Constructability Problems E4
Ineffective Management of Project Team F1
Lack of Operations F2
Leadership and Communication Lack of Safety and QA/QC Commitment F3
Poor Communication F4
Poor Attendance of Stakeholders F5
Governmental Changes in Law G1
Economic Fluctuations G2
Social Contradictions G3
High Cost of Modern Technologies G4
Effective External Causes
Lack of Stakeholders’ Training G5
Physical and Infrastructural Circumstances G6
Geographical Hazards G7
Political Circumstances and Sanctions G8

After identifying the causes of rework, the next step focused on weighing the abovementioned
causes. To do so, experts’ opinions were extracted using a questionnaire. In the questionnaire,
experts were asked to score the importance of causes from 1 to 5, where 1 and 5 meant the least and
most effective, respectively. Mean values of the questionnaires were calculated after the questionnaires
were returned. Then, using the SWARA method, rework causes were weighed and ranked in their
specific groups. As defined above, rework causes were categorized into seven groups. Tables 7–13
show the results of the SWARA method for each group. The most important rework causes are also
demonstrated in Table 14.

287
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

288
Figure 4. Fishbone diagram of rework causes.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Table 7. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Engineering and Reviews” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

A1 — 1 1 0.48925 1
A5 0.902 1.902 0.52576 0.25723 2
A3 0.885 1.885 0.27892 0.13646 3
A8 0.831 1.831 0.15233 0.07453 4
A2 0.752 1.752 0.08695 0.04254 5
A6 0.712 1.712 0.05079 0.02485 6
A7 0.61 1.61 0.03154 0.01543 7
A4 0.585 1.585 0.01990 0.00974 8

Table 8. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Implementation of Project” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

B3 — 1 1 0.48250 1
B10 0.896 1.896 0.52743 0.25448 2
B1 0.865 1.865 0.28280 0.13645 3
B5 0.712 1.712 0.16519 0.07970 4
B7 0.701 1.701 0.09711 0.04686 5
B8 0.618 1.618 0.06002 0.02896 6
B2 0.583 1.583 0.03792 0.01829 7
B6 0.524 1.524 0.02488 0.012000 8
B4 0.512 1.512 0.01645 0.00794 9
B9 0.493 1.493 0.01102 0.00532 10

Table 9. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Material and Equipment Supply” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

C1 — 1 1 0.48299 1
C5 0.884 1.884 0.53079 0.25636 2
C6 0.842 1.842 0.28816 0.13918 3
C2 0.821 1.821 0.15824 0.07643 4
C4 0.697 1.697 0.09325 0.04504 5
C3 0.658 1.658 0.05624 0.02716 6

Table 10. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Human Resource Capability” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

D1 — 1 1 0.48364 1
D3 0.893 1.893 0.52826 0.25549 2
D4 0.823 1.823 0.28978 0.14015 3
D7 0.808 1.808 0.16027 0.07752 4
D5 0.794 1.794 0.08939 0.04321 5
D8 0.769 1.769 0.05050 0.02443 6
D2 0.742 1.742 0.02899 0.01402 7
D6 0.717 1.717 0.01688 0.00817 8

Table 11. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Construction Planning and Scheduling” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

E1 — 1 1 0.493960 1
E2 0.946 1.946 0.51387 0.25383 2
E3 0.873 1.873 0.27436 0.13552 3
E4 0.829 1.829 0.15000 0.07410 4

289
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Table 12. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Leadership and Communication” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

F4 — 1 1 0.47721 1
F5 0.864 1.864 0.53648 0.25602 2
F1 0.822 1.822 0.29445 0.14051 3
F2 0.754 1.754 0.16787 0.08011 4
F3 0.736 1.736 0.09670 0.4615 5

Table 13. Weights of rework causes categorized in the “Effective External Causes” group.

Rework Cause Sj Kj =sj +1 qj wj Rank

G2 — 1 1 046900 1
G8 0.832 1.832 0.54585 0.25600 2
G4 0.768 1.768 0.30874 0.14480 3
G6 0.759 1.759 0.17552 0.08232 4
G1 0.719 1.719 0.10211 0.04789 5
G3 0.624 1.624 0.62870 0.02949 6
G5 0.607 1.607 0.03912 0.01835 7
G7 0.573 1.573 0.02484 0.01167 8

Table 14. The most important rework causes.

Sign Rework Cause

A1 Design Errors
A5 Design Changes
B3 Difference among Plans and Operational Specifications
B10 Poor Quality of Implementations
C1 Non-compliance with Specifications
C5 Poor Quality of Materials
D1 Insufficient Skill Level
D3 Unclear Instructions to Workers
E1 Unrealistic Schedules
E2 Insufficient Turnover and Commissioning Resourcing
F4 Poor Communication
F5 Poor Attendance of Stakeholders
G2 Economic Fluctuations
G8 Political Circumstances and Sanctions

As it is clearly illustrated, the most three crucial rework causes are Design Errors (A1),
Design Changes (A5), and Difference among Plans and Operational Specifications (B3). By considering
the identified rework causes, and specially the most important causes, they will be reduced effectively
or even prevented. Therefore, it can be very useful for different parties of the building industry. Then,
through BIM, these effects were analyzed for the case study building.

3.4. Investigating the Traditional Method of the Case Study Building’s Construction
As it was mentioned in the previous part of the paper, the case study of this project was a 4-story
steel building located in the western section of Shiraz, Iran. Initial documents of the project’s schedule
were investigated carefully to find the predicted construction time. Using a Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS), the project was divided into 25 levels, and the planned construction time was 348 days. However,
after investigating the final documents of project, it was shown that the project had experienced a
176 days delay, and the project was finished after 524 days. Table 15 illustrates the project’s WBS,
anticipated, and implemented construction time.

290
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Table 15. The case study building’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), anticipated, and implemented
construction time.

Anticipated Time Implemented

No. WBS Level
(Days) Time (Days)
1 Delivery of Site 1 1
2 Site Preparation 12 19
3 Implementation of Foundation 26 42
4 Implementation of Building’s Structure 43 99
5 Initial Flooring 46 107
6 Implementation of Stairs’ Foundation 5 9
7 Implementation of Roofs and Internal Walls 84 99
8 Implementation of Stories’ Foundation 33 38
9 Implementation of External Walls 9 11
10 Moving Frames and Doors to their Places 1 2
11 Implementation of Windows 18 24
12 Implementation of Stairs 2 2
13 Flooring the Stories 33 45
14 Moving Electrical Appliances to their Places 2 3
15 Installation 16 34
16 Installation of Frames 13 32
17 Implementing Toilets 1 5
18 Initial Joinery of the Floors 19 36
19 Final Flooring 24 36
20 Installation of Cornices 6 12
21 Final Joinery of the Floors 30 44
22 Installation of Floors’ Appliances 6 12
23 Implementation of Facade 18 43
24 Painting 20 33
25 Delivery of Project 4 7
Total Time 348 524

3.5. Investigating BIM Output of the Case Study Building’s Construction

In this stage, BIM was generated using the initial documents of the project, including the most
important identified rework causes. Thus, many of the errors and rework causes could have been found
and their effects could have been diminished. Various errors were identified during the modelling and
a summary of the errors is illustrated in Table 16.

Table 16. Summary of the identified errors and their effects on schedule.

Delay
No. Error Time Saved Using BIM (Days)
(Days)
1 Interference among Structural and Architectural Elements 16 10
2 Designing Errors 37 20
3 Interference among Structural Elements, Openings, and Installation 13 9

3.6. Investigation and Comparison of Delays between Traditional and BIM Assessments
In this stage, cumulative working times of the project were calculated and S-Curves (Status-Curves)
of the project’s anticipated, actual and BIM output were drawn using Microsoft Project software.
S-Curves showed that the project’s anticipated, actual and BIM cumulative working times were 4336,
6936 and 6617 h, respectively. Results show that the project’s cumulative working time would have
been reduced by 319 h (4.6%) using BIM technologies, which is regarded as a valuable step in reducing
projects’ delays. It is necessary to mention that some delay and rework causes were not able to be
modelled, such as political sanctions or geographical hazards, as they are not predictable. Figure 5
illustrates the S-Curves of the three abovementioned error circumstances. According to Figure 5,
BIM would have reduced the actual time by 319 h, which could be regarded as a great improvement.
Therefore, if BIM was used, the project would have been finished in 6617 h as opposed to 6936 h.

291
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

Figure 5. Status-Curves of the anticipated, actual and BIM cumulative working time.

3.7. Analyzing Time Using the Earned Value Management (EVM) System
To analyze the earned values and the status changes of this study, the parameters SPI and SV for
the actual implementation and BIM output were calculated and are presented in Table 17. As can be
seen, the computed values are still different from the actual values of the case study, although the
results show the advantages of using BIM in a case study model. Moreover, a reduction in the SV value
proves that using BIM would be successful.

Table 17. Earned values for the case study building’s actual implementation and BIM prediction.

No. Mode SV SPI

1 Actual Implementation −0.18 0.83
2 BIM −0.11 0.89

4. Conclusions
This study was conducted to identify rework causes in building construction projects and to
analyze the benefits of using BIM technologies to process and predict them. Firstly, 49 rework
causes were identified and categorized into seven groups including “Engineering and Reviews”,
“Implementation of Project”, “Material and Equipment Supply”, “Human Resource Capability”,
“Construction Planning and Scheduling”, “Leadership and Communication” and “Effective External
Causes”. Then, the SWARA method was employed to weigh and rank the abovementioned rework
causes into their own groups. Results showed that the most important causes in the abovementioned
groups were “Design Errors (A1)”, “Difference among Plans and Operational Specifications (B3)”,
“Non-compliance with Specifications (C1)”, “Insufficient Skill Level (D1)”, “Unrealistic Schedules
(E1)”, “Poor Communication (F4)” and “Economic Fluctuations (G2)”. This was followed by Building
Information Modelling for the selected case study using BIM software. In the next stage, anticipated,
actual and BIM cumulative working times were calculated and illustrated using S-Curves. It was
shown that BIM resulted in a 4.6% decrease in the working time. Finally, an EVM system was
utilized to compute the positive effect of BIM technologies, and showed a 0.06 increase in the SPI
value. The obtained results of this study could be very useful for different parties in the building
industry who live in similar climatic and economic conditions. This study’s method could be valuable
for future studies, and could be very effective in other research as well. One of the limitations of

292
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

this study was that only residential buildings were investigated. Although these results are highly
beneficial for the residential construction sector, it is suggested that other types of buildings should
be investigated in further studies. Prospective future researchers are suggested to investigate other
dimensions of BIM, such as time. The authors suggest using BIM technologies at any stage of the
construction project life cycle, for both new or refurbished buildings, and also recommend its benefits
for sustainable construction.

Author Contributions: H.K.: Methodology, Software, Investigation; A.B.: Conceptualization, Methodology,

Software, Investigation, Writing—Original draft; A.V.: Methodology, Visualization, Validation, Investigation,
Writing—Reviewing and Editing, Supervision; J.A.: Writing-Reviewing and Editing, Supervision; D.M.:
Investigation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, V.Z.: Investigation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to
publish the results.

Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
BIM Building Information Modelling
SWARA Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis
EVM Earned Value Management
SPI Schedule Performance Index
S-Curve Status-Curve
MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
SV Scheduled Variance

References
1. Hwang, B.-G.; Thomas, S.R.; Haas, C.T.; Caldas, C.H. Measuring the impact of rework on construction cost
performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 187–198. [CrossRef]
2. Ye, G.; Jin, Z.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M. Analyzing causes for reworks in construction projects in China.
J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 040140972015. [CrossRef]
3. Love, P.E.; Irani, Z.; Edwards, D.J. A rework reduction model for construction projects. IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 2004, 51, 426–440. [CrossRef]
4. Burati, J.L., Jr.; Farrington, J.J.; Ledbetter, W.B. Causes of quality deviations in design and construction.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 34–49. [CrossRef]
5. Barber, P.; Graves, A.; Hall, M.; Sheath, D.; Tomkins, C. Quality failure costs in civil engineering projects.
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2000, 17, 479–492. [CrossRef]
6. Fayek, A.R.; Dissanayake, M.; Campero, O.; Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA).
Measuring and classifying construction field rework: A pilot study. Res. Rep. 2003. Available online:
https://www.coaa.ab.ca/ (accessed on 22 July 2020).
7. Josephson, P.-E.; Larsson, B.; Li, H. Illustrative benchmarking rework and rework costs in Swedish construction
industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2002, 18, 76–83. [CrossRef]
8. Mastenbroek, Y. Reducing Rework Costs in Construction Projects. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Twente,
Enschede, The Netherlands, 2010.
9. Palaneeswaran, E.; Love, P.E.; Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Ng, T.S. Mapping rework causes and effects using
artificial neural networks. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 450–465. [CrossRef]
10. Love, P.E.; Edwards, D.J.; Watson, H.; Davis, P. Rework in civil infrastructure projects: Determination of cost
predictors. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 275–282. [CrossRef]
11. Love, P.E. Influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs in building construction
projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2002, 128, 18–29. [CrossRef]

293
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

12. Forcada, N.; Gangolells, M.; Casals, M.; Macarulla, M. Factors affecting rework costs in construction. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 040170322017. [CrossRef]
13. Migilinskas, D.; Ustinovičius, L. Methodology of risk and uncertainty management in construction’s
technological and economical problems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Automation
and Robotics in Construction, Vilnius, Lithuania, 26–29 June 2008; pp. 789–795.
14. Penttilä, H. Describing the changes in architectural information technology to understand design complexity
and free-form architectural expression. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2006, 11, 395–408.
15. National Institute of Building Science. National BIM Standard-United States. Available online:
https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/faqs#faq1 (accessed on 3 January 2020).
16. Pavlovskis, M.; Antucheviciene, J.; Migilinskas, D. Assessment of buildings redevelopment possibilities
using MCDM and BIM techniques. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 846–850. [CrossRef]
17. United BIM. What are BIM Dimensions. Available online: https://www.united-bim.com/what-are-bim-
dimensions-3d-4d-5d-6d-7d-bim-explained-definition-benefits/ (accessed on 28 May 2020).
18. Tarar, M.; Dang, D.T.P. Impact of 4D Modeling on Construction Planning Process. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2012.
19. Eastman, C.M.; Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information
Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2011.
20. Kymmell, W. Building Information Modeling: Planning and Managing Construction Projects with 4D CAD and
Simulations; The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
21. Ham, N.; Moon, S.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, J.-J. Economic analysis of design errors in BIM-based high-rise
construction projects: Case study of Haeundae L project. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 05018006.
[CrossRef]
22. Chau, K.; Anson, M.; Zhang, J. Four-dimensional visualization of construction scheduling and site utilization.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 598–606. [CrossRef]
23. Love, P.E.; Edwards, D.J.; Han, S.; Goh, Y.M. Design error reduction: Toward the effective utilization of
building information modeling. Res. Eng. Des. 2011, 22, 173–187. [CrossRef]
24. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W. Building information modelling and project information management framework
for construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 53–75. [CrossRef]
25. Liao, L.; Teo, E.A.L.; Chang, R.; Li, L. Investigating critical non-value adding activities and their resulting
wastes in BIM-based project delivery. Sustainability 2020, 12, 355. [CrossRef]
26. Jang, S.; Lee, G. Impact of organizational factors on delays in BIM-based coordination from a decision-making
view: A case study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 19–30. [CrossRef]
27. Pavlovskis, M.; Migilinskas, D.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kutut, V. Ranking of heritage building conversion
alternatives by applying BIM and MCDM: A case of Sapieha Palace in Vilnius. Symmetry 2019, 11, 973.
[CrossRef]
28. Lu, Q.; Chen, L.; Lee, S.; Zhao, X. Activity theory-based analysis of BIM implementation in building O&M
and first response. Autom. Constr. 2018, 85, 317–332.
29. Kwon, O.-S.; Park, C.-S.; Lim, C.-R. A defect management system for reinforced concrete work utilizing BIM,
image-matching and augmented reality. Autom. Constr. 2014, 46, 74–81. [CrossRef]
30. Lee, D.-Y.; Chi, H.-l.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Park, C.-S. A linked data system framework for sharing construction
defect information using ontologies and BIM environments. Autom. Constr. 2016, 68, 102–113. [CrossRef]
31. Bryde, D.; Broquetas, M.; Volm, J.M. The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 971–980. [CrossRef]
32. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 1997, 314, 572. [CrossRef]
33. George, D. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Study Guide and Reference, 17th ed.; Pearson Education
India: New Delhi, India, 2011.
34. Balali, A.; Valipour, A. Identification and selection of building façade’s smart materials according to
sustainable development goals. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2020, 26, e00213.
35. Vilutienė, T.; Migilinskas, D.; Bružas, A. Holistic approach to assess the sustainability and utility of
refurbishment measures. Procedia Eng. 2015, 122, 137–142. [CrossRef]

294
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

36. Ghenai, C.; Albawab, M.; Bettayeb, M. Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using
multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renew. Energy 2020, 146,
580–597. [CrossRef]
37. Keršuliene, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new
step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010, 11, 243–258. [CrossRef]
38. Mardani, A.; Nilashi, M.; Zakuan, N.; Loganathan, N.; Soheilirad, S.; Saman, M.Z.M.; Ibrahim, O. A systematic
review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy
developments. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 57, 265–292. [CrossRef]
39. Balki, M.K.; Erdoğan, S.; Aydın, S.; Sayin, C. The optimization of engine operating parameters via SWARA
and ARAS hybrid method in a small SI engine using alternative fuels. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120685.
40. Balali, A.; Hakimelahi, A.; Valipour, A. Identification and prioritization of passive energy consumption
optimization measures in the building industry: An Iranian case study. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101239.
[CrossRef]
41. Rani, P.; Mishra, A.R.; Mardani, A.; Cavallaro, F.; Štreimikienė, D.; Khan, S.A.R. Pythagorean Fuzzy
SWARA–VIKOR Framework for Performance Evaluation of Solar Panel Selection. Sustainability 2020, 12,
4278.
42. Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S.; Ab Rahman, M.N.; Raeisi, D.; Osgooei, E.; Jafarzadeh Ghoushji, M. Integrated
Decision-Making Approach Based on SWARA and GRA Methods for the Prioritization of Failures in Solar
Panel Systems under Z-Information. Symmetry 2020, 12, 310. [CrossRef]
43. Akcan, S.; Taş, M.A. Green supplier evaluation with SWARA-TOPSIS integrated method to reduce ecological
risk factors. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 736. [CrossRef]
44. Zarbakhshnia, N.; Soleimani, H.; Ghaderi, H. Sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider evaluation and
selection using fuzzy SWARA and developed fuzzy COPRAS in the presence of risk criteria. Appl. Soft Comput.
2018, 65, 307–319.
45. Chalekaee, A.; Turskis, Z.; Khanzadi, M.; Ghodrati Amiri, G.; Keršulienė, V. A new hybrid MCDM model with
grey numbers for the construction delay change response problem. Sustainability 2019, 11, 776. [CrossRef]
46. Morkunaite, Z.; Bausys, R.; Zavadskas, E.K. Contractor Selection for Sgraffito Decoration of Cultural Heritage
Buildings Using the WASPAS-SVNS Method. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6444. [CrossRef]
47. Akhanova, G.; Nadeem, A.; Kim, J.R.; Azhar, S. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for building
sustainability assessment in Kazakhstan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101842. [CrossRef]
48. Prajapati, H.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics implementation to mitigate
its barriers: A hybrid modified SWARA and WASPAS approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118219. [CrossRef]
49. Valipour, A.; Yahaya, N.; Md Noor, N.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Tamošaitienė, J. Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method
for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: An Iranian case study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017,
23, 524–532. [CrossRef]
50. Maghsoodi, A.I.; Maghsoodi, A.I.; Poursoltan, P.; Antucheviciene, J.; Turskis, Z. Dam construction material
selection by implementing the integrated SWARA–CODAS approach with target-based attributes. Arch. Civ.
Mech. Eng. 2019, 19, 1194–1210. [CrossRef]
51. Jaber, A.Z. Assessment Risk in Construction Projects in Iraq Using COPRAS-SWARA Combined Method.
J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2019, 54. [CrossRef]
52. Alimardani, M.; Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Aghdaie, M.H.; Tamošaitienė, J. A novel hybrid SWARA and
VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 19,
533–548. [CrossRef]
53. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM
approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng.
2018, 18, 32–49. [CrossRef]
54. Karabasevic, D.; Stanujkic, D.; Urosevic, S.; Maksimovic, M. Selection of candidates in the mining industry
based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montan. Slovaca 2015, 20,
116–124.
55. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Pourhossein, M.; Yazdani, M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Evaluating construction projects
of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 357–365.
[CrossRef]

295
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8927

56. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Chatterjee, P. Comparative evaluation of sustainable design based on Step-wise
Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and best worst method (BWM) methods: A perspective on
household furnishing materials. Symmetry 2019, 11, 74. [CrossRef]
57. Valipour, A.; Yahaya, N.; Noor, N.M.; Valipour, I.; Tamošaitienė, J. A SWARA-COPRAS approach to the
allocation of risk in water and sewerage public–private partnership projects in Malaysia. Int. J. Strateg.
Prop. Manag. 2019, 23, 269–283. [CrossRef]
58. Balali, A.; Moehler, R.C.; Valipour, A. Ranking cost overrun factors in the mega hospital construction projects
using Delphi-SWARA method: An Iranian case study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 1–9. [CrossRef]
59. Mohebbi, M.R.; Jashni, A.K.; Dehghani, M.; Hadad, K. Short-Term Prediction of Carbon Monoxide
Concentration Using Artificial Neural Network (NARX) Without Traffic Data: Case Study: Shiraz City.
Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2019, 43, 533–540. [CrossRef]
60. Stine, D.J.; Hanson, J. Autodesk Revit 2019 Architectural Command Reference; SDC Publications: Mission, KS,
USA, 2018.
61. Koke, B.; Moehler, R.C. Earned Green Value Management for Project Management: A systematic review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 180–197. [CrossRef]
62. Bryde, D.; Unterhitzenberger, C.; Joby, R. Conditions of success for earned value analysis in projects. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 474–484. [CrossRef]
63. Fleming, Q.W.; Koppelman, J.M. What’s your project’s real price tag? Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 20.
64. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

296
sustainability

Article
Generalized Resource-Constrained Critical Path
Method to Improve Sustainability in Construction
Project Scheduling
Kyunghwan Kim
Department of Architecture, Konkuk University, 120, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Korea;
[email protected]

Received: 21 September 2020; Accepted: 25 October 2020; Published: 27 October 2020

Abstract: Delays by limited supply of resources are common in many construction projects and
may cause serious monetary disputes between project participants. Since the dispute resolution
may require unnecessary additional time and cost, preventing delays in advance is an important
goal in sustainable construction project management. To prevent delays, a feasible plan must be
implemented, which reflects limited resources and provides reliable activity information. For this
purpose, this study proposes a generalized resource-constrained critical path method (eRCPM).
It consists of three steps to identify resource-dependent activity relationships (resource links) based on
the result of resource-constrained scheduling (RCS) under multiple resource constraints. Compared to
the existing resource-constrained critical path methods, the eRCPM has the advantage of identifying
resource links irrespective of the applied RCS technique because it is based on the result rather than
the RCS process. Further, this study presents a Microsoft (MS) Excel-based half-automated prototype
system that is linked using file export and import functions to both P6 and MS Project software
packages. The detailed process of the eRCPM algorithm and the operation process of the prototype
system are described using an example schedule. Through a case study, it was demonstrated that
eRCPM appropriately identifies the necessary resource links and provides reliable total floats.

Keywords: resource-dependent activity relationship; scheduling; scheduling software; Microsoft

Excel Visual Basic for Applications (MS Excel VBA)

1. Introduction
The critical path method (CPM) is a representative scheduling technique used in construction
project management. It provides important information necessary for managing construction projects
and serves as a basis for analyzing the impact of delays in the construction process [1,2]. However, it has
a limitation in that it assumes an infinite supply of resources available to perform an activity. Resources
such as labor, equipment, and materials are highly limited in many projects, so that efficient resource
allocation is essential for sustainable construction project management [3,4]. Delays are common in
many construction projects and many delays are caused by limited supply of resources [5,6]. To make
up for the delays, additional time and cost may be needed, which tends to cause disputes between
project participants. Since the dispute resolution may require unnecessary additional time and cost,
preventing delays in advance is an important goal in sustainable construction project management.
To prevent delays, a feasible plan must be implemented, which requires reflection of limited resources.
Many resource-constrained scheduling (RCS) techniques, such as the serial method, the parallel
method, etc., have been developed to reflect limited resources to create more feasible schedules [7–10].
However, the RCS technique does not consider resource-dependent activity relationships (resource
links) caused by resource constraints, resulting in loss of important information such as total floats
and the critical path [10–13]. In addition, a regular schedule update to reflect changes during the

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918; doi:10.3390/su12218918 297 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

construction progress can alter the work sequence after the data date, resulting in a plan that is different
from the original [12]. The RCS technique itself alters the work sequence as it plans activities in the
priority order set by the user when resource conflicts occur [7,9]. This work sequence change may make
schedule control challenging after the data date. Analysis of the delay impact in RCS also becomes
more problematic because of the unreliable total floats (also called phantom floats) and work sequence
changes after schedule updates [14–16]. The same challenges occur in Primavera P6 and Microsoft (MS)
Project, which are the two most frequently used scheduling software packages [17,18]. Consequently,
several studies have been conducted to identify resource links considering limited resources [12,19–22].
Woodworth and Shanahan (1988) presents a method of identifying resource links in the RCS
process for the first time among related studies [19]. This method applies the parallel RCS method
and finds resource links based on the resource sequence label stored in an activity and an activity
sequence list stored in a resource type. The case study applies a simple schedule in which one resource
unit is allocated to one activity, so it is not sure whether it is applicable to multiple types of resources.
Bowers (1995) proposes a method of finding resource links based on the resource utilization history
generated in the process of the parallel RCS method [20]. However, the process of finding resource
links is explained too briefly and the applied case study is also simple, so it is not clear if this will work
for multiple resource constraints as well. Lu and Li (2003) presents detailed procedures for finding
resource links by applying the serial RCS method [21]. This method considers multiple resources
by finding resource activity interactions for every resource unit. However, in this process, the CPM
relationships may not be considered, and unnecessary resource links may be identified [23,24]. Kim
and de la Garza (2003) presents a step-by-step process of identifying resource links while applying
the serial method [12]. This method identifies resource links in two steps. The first is to identify
resource links of activities postponed due to resource constraints in the RCS process, and the second is
to determine the additional resource links within the total float range of each activity after RCS. In the
case study, a relatively complex example in which multiple resources have been freely allocated is
applied. Nisar et al. (2013) applies the rank position weight method [25] as an RCS technique [22].
In this method, after applying the RCS method normally, the existing network is reversed, and the
same RCS method is performed once more to identify each activity’s essential time data such as early
times, late times, floats, etc. By comparing these time data of each activity, resource links are identified.
This heuristic process is not only too complicated to apply [24], but also has a limitation that it is only
valid for one resource type.
These previous studies identified resource links in the RCS process and implemented a resource-
constrained critical path method (RCPM) by applying a CPM process that considered the identified
resource links and the existing technological activity relationships. The RCPM techniques used by
these researches suggest methods to identify resource links using a specific technique or algorithm
in the RCS process [23,24]. However, this approach has a limitation in that it is only valid in the
currently applied RCS technique. That is, an RCPM system based on a certain RCS technique does
not work for other RCS techniques. For example, a serial-method-based RCPM system that can be
integrated with P6 is not valid for MS Project (MSP) that applies a parallel method [18]. Conversely,
a parallel-method-based method that can be used in MSP is not effective in P6. Moreover, additional
computer programming is required whenever different activity selection priorities are applied in
RCS [26].
This study proposes a generalized RCPM (eRCPM) technique that can implement RCPM
irrespective of the type of the RCS method applied under multiple resource constraints. In addition,
it presents a half-automated prototype system that is linked using file export and import functions to
both P6 and MSP to verify the validity and scalability of the proposed eRCPM. Since it does not depend
on a specific RCS technique, eRCPM could be easily adopted in other scheduling software currently in
use. This study can contribute not only to efficient project management but also to reduce unnecessary
disputes by providing accurate time information, as eRCPM provides a more feasible schedule by
reflecting resources and properly providing total floats, the critical path, and a stable work sequence.

298
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

2. Review of RCPM

2.1. Overview
This section reviews the process of identifying resource links by applying serial and parallel
techniques [7,8] to the same example, based on the RCPM method proposed by Kim and de la Garza [12].
The method of identifying resource links is applied using the same concept in both RCS methods.
In the RCS process, a resource link is generated when the start time of an activity is delayed owing to
resource constraints or when the newly calculated total float after RCS does not fully exist owing to
resource constraints. The detailed process is described with an example schedule in this section.
The example schedule is presented in Table 1; the maximum available units of resources A (R.A)
and B (R.B) are 5 and 2, respectively. Early start time (EST), late start time (LST), and total float (TF)
after performing CPM are also listed in this table. Figure 1 depicts a time-scaled network bar chart [27]
reflecting this CPM result and indicates that R.A is exceeded in days 1 to 3 and R.B in days 1 to 2.

Table 1. Example Schedule Activity Data.

Resource Usage CPM Output

ID Duration Successors
R.A R.B EST LST TF
A 4 F 2 2 1 5 4
B 5 E 2 0 1 1 0
C 2 F 0 2 1 7 6
D 3 - 3 0 1 8 7
E 3 F 0 1 6 6 0
F 2 - 3 1 9 9 0
Maximum resource units 5 2

Figure 1. Initial schedule showing resource overruns.

During RCS, when resource conflicts occur between activities, the activity with higher priority
is planned first, and the activity with lower priority is delayed until the required resources become
available. The priority can be set in many ways, but in this study, the priority is set in the order of
late start time, total float, and ID of each activity to achieve consistent results. When this criterion is
applied to the CPM result of Table 1, the priority order is B, A, E, C, D, and F, which is applied in the
same manner to both serial and parallel methods.

2.2. Serial RCS

In the serial method, activities are planned sequentially according to the priority. If an activity
cannot be planned because of resource shortage owing to resource usage by already planned activities,
the start time of the activity is delayed until the resources become available. In the example schedule,
activities B, A, and E can be planned as the original CPM schedule, but the start time of activity C
is delayed to day 9 because it cannot be planned on the original day 1 owing to lack of resources.

299
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

This delay of eight days is because planned activity A requires two R.Bs for days 1 to 5, and planned
activity E requires one R.B for days 6 to 8. Activity C can start on day 9 using R.B released after the
completion of activity E. In RCPM, resource links are created as illustrated in Figure 2a by reflecting
this kind of resource-dependent activity relationship. In this study, the relationship by which the
resources released at the end of an activity are immediately used for a subsequent activity without a
time interval is defined as a direct resource link.

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 2. RCPM with serial method: (a) Resource link creation for a delayed activity owing to resource
constraints; (b) RCS result with direct resource links; (c) All identified resource links including indirect
resource links.

Activity D is also delayed to day 5 owing to the limitation of R.A, and it can start by receiving
two R.As that are released at the end of activity A, creating a direct resource link between activities
A and D. The last activity F can start after activity C without a delay, and the final serial RCS result
is depicted in Figure 2b. Based on this result, if CPM is applied reflecting the existing technological
relationship and resource links, the path through activities B, E, C, and F becomes the critical path,
as illustrated in Figure 2b and activities A and D each have total float of five days. However, owing to
resource constraints, activities A and D cannot have all five days of the total float.
Activities D and F cannot proceed simultaneously for the total float range of activity D owing to
the constraints of R.A., and activities A and E cannot proceed simultaneously for the total float range of
activity A owing to the constraints of R.B. To reflect this situation, RCPM identifies additional resource
links between them, as illustrated in Figure 2c. When the resource links identified in this manner are
reflected in CPM, the total floats of activities A and D become one and three days, respectively. In this
study, the relationship identified within the total float range of an activity is defined as an indirect
resource link.

300
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

2.3. Parallel RCS

The parallel method simultaneously or parallelly considers activities that can start in a time unit.
If resource conflicts occur, activities are scheduled according to the activity priority order. Activities
that cannot be scheduled owing to the lack of resources are delayed to the next time unit.
In the example schedule, the activity priority order is B, A, E, C, D, and F, as in the serial method.
In the network conditions depicted in Figure 1, the activities that can be scheduled on the first day are A,
B, C, and D, and they are considered in the order B, A, C, and D according to the priority. As displayed
in Figure 3a, activities B and A can be scheduled to start on the first day. However, activities C and D
cannot start on the first day because of resource constraints; hence, they are delayed to the next day.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. RCPM with parallel method: (a) Day 1 schedule; (b) Day 5 schedule with direct resource links;
(c) All identified direct resource links; (d) All identified resource links including indirect resource links.

Activities that can start on days 2, 3, and 4 are C and D, but each day they are delayed to the next
day owing to resource constraints. On day 5, activities that can start are still C and D, and as activity A
ends on day 4, two R. As and R.Bs are released such that activities C and D can be scheduled to start.
That is, activity A becomes the preceding activity of activities C and D, and direct resource links are
created as illustrated in Figure 3b to reflect this condition. Because all activities that can start on day 5
are planned, the process moves to the next day. By the same process as for activities C and D, activity E
is delayed by one day and can start on day 7, and a direct resource link is created between activities C
and E. Finally, activity F is planned without a delay, as depicted in Figure 3c.
If CPM is performed by additionally reflecting all direct resource links identified in the parallel
method, activities A, C, E, and F become critical, and the total floats of activities B and D are one and
four days, respectively. Activity B can have a one day total float without resource conflict, but activity
D cannot proceed in parallel with activity F owing to R.A restrictions. Reflecting this condition, an

301
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

indirect resource link is created between activities D and F, as illustrated in Figure 3d, and the total
float of activity D becomes two days.

2.4. Need for Improvement

When comparing the results of serial and parallel RCS methods, there may be differences in the
activity sequence, project duration, and identified resource links. Because the processes are different,
individual algorithms and coding processes are required to develop a computer program that executes
RCPM. For example, P6 applying the serial method and MSP applying the parallel method require
individual appropriate programs. Furthermore, there is a burden of executing additional programs
suitable for each method for a new RCS technique that is different from the existing ones. Thus,
this study proposes a generalized RCPM (eRCPM) that can be applied irrespective of the applied
RCS techniques.

3. Generalized Resource-Constrained Critical Path Method

3.1. Overview
The process of identifying resource links in both serial and parallel RCS methods introduced
in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 can be divided into three steps. The first step is to create a direct resource
link. When a delayed activity can be started, a resource link is created with the activity that releases
constrained resources with its completion immediately before the start time of the delayed activity.
The second step is to perform CPM to identify the total float of each activity. At this time, CPM
reflects the direct resource links identified in the first step besides the existing technological activity
relationships. The third step is to create indirect resource links when the total float range of an activity
is not fully available owing to resource conflicts with other activities. The second and third steps
are applied in the same manner for serial and parallel methods and are the same as those applied
in RCPM [12]. Therefore, this study proposes a method to identify direct resource links without
depending on RCS techniques.

3.2. eRCPM Algorithm

Whereas RCPM identifies direct resource links in the process of RCS, eRCPM identifies direct
resource links from the RCS result. For the example mentioned in the previous section, the result of
serial RCS that does not reflect the resource links is depicted in Figure 4a. In this schedule, activities
C and D are the activities whose start time is delayed out of CPM network logic owing to resource
constraints. Activity F is also delayed, but this delay is because of a relationship with activity C,
not because of resource constraints.

(a) (b)

Figure 4. RCS results: (a) Serial method; (b) Parallel method.

302
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

Activity C deferred for lack of one R.B can start on day 9 because one required R.B is released
when activity E ends on day 8. As one R.B is directly transferred from activities E to C, a direct resource
link is required between them. In the same manner, deferred activity D requires a direct resource link
with activity A because it can start on day 5 and activity A releases two R.As with its completion on
day 4. Step 1 process is completed because no more activities are delayed owing to resource constraints.
Subsequently, applying steps 2 and 3 yields the same result as displayed in Figure 2c.
The same eRCPM process can be applied to the RCS result of a parallel method. The result of
parallel RCS of the given example schedule is illustrated in Figure 4b, in which activities delayed out of
CPM logic are activities E, C, and D. Similar to the serial RCS result, it can be noted that direct resource
transfers occur between activities C and E (one R.A), A and C (two R.Bs), and A and D (two R.As).
All direct resource links identified in this manner are the same as those in Figure 3c. Subsequently,
applying steps 2 and 3 yields the same result as depicted in Figure 3d.
As described here, eRCPM proposed in this study can identify the same resource links obtained by
RCPM, based on the RCS result irrespective of the RCS techniques applied. System development based
on this method also has the advantage that the eRCPM algorithm needs to be implemented only once.

4. eRCPM Prototype System

4.1. Overview
This study implements the prototype eRCPM system based on MS Excel, which is widely used
for basic data management in various industries, including construction. Figure 5 shows the system
development environment. As described earlier, the eRCPM system uses the RCS schedule data
exported from P6 or MSP in an Excel format. The eRCPM system, an add-in program implemented
with Excel Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), applies the eRCPM algorithm based on the exported
schedule data to identify resource links and inserts the link information to the relevant Excel sheet.
If the user imports this updated Excel file and executes CPM in P6 or MSP, the CPM output becomes
the eRCPM output, which can consider resource constraints and provide reliable total floats, since the
system has reflected resource links as well as technological activity relationships.

Figure 5. eRCPM system environment.

The main process of the eRCPM system is illustrated in Figure 6. Because the export and import
characteristics of P6 and MSP are different, the eRCPM system requires functions to reflect the difference.
The eRCPM system first checks whether the Excel data belong to P6 or MSP and reads the exported
schedule data accordingly. Based on the data, the system executes the algorithm, step by step, to identify
resource links and inserts resource links to the relevant Excel sheet. P6 or MSP will import this updated
Excel file.

303
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

6WDUW

LGHQWLW\SURMHFW
W\SH37\SH

1 1
37\SH 3 37\SH 063

< <
UHDG3SURMHFW UHDG063SURMHFW
GDWD GDWD

H5&30VWHS (UURU
GLUHFW5/ 0HVVDJH

H5&30VWHS
&30

H5&30VWHS
LQGLUHFW5/

< 1
37\SH 3

DGG5/ WRWKH3
V DGG5/ WRWKH
([FHOILOH 063
V([FHOILOH

(QG

Figure 6. eRCPM system process overview.

4.2. eRCPM Key Processes

Among various processes of the eRCPM system, the following three main steps are explained
in this section: input data processing prior to applying eRCPM, identifying direct resource links,
and identifying indirect resource links.

4.2.1. Input Data Processing

Based on the exported Excel file, after RCS in P6 or MSP, the data necessary for the eRCPM
operation are processed as shown in Figure 7. A brief description of each input data process in the
eRCPM system is as follows.

1. Read ID, original duration (OD), early start time (EST), and early finish time (EFT) of every
activity and store them in an array of activities.
2. Identify the project start and end times.
3. Read the relationship information of each activity and add it to the saved activity in the array of
activities to establish the relationship between activities.
4. Read the ID, name, and maximum supply of every resource type and store them in an array
of resources.
5. Read the amount of resources required for each activity and add them to the saved activity in the
array of activities.

304
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

6. Create a daily resource table in a two-dimensional array according to the type of resource and the
project period and record the demand for each resource for each date based on the time data and
resource demand for each activity.
7. Identify start activities that have no predecessor and finish activities that have no successor and
store their IDs in a separate array to apply forward and backward passes in steps 1 to 3.

Figure 7. Reading and setting input data.

4.2.2. Step 1: Direct Resource Link

In the eRCPM process, after data creation, the same process is applied irrespective of P6 and MSP,
as depicted in Figure 6. The process of identifying a direct resource link in step 1 is demonstrated in
Figure 8a. Initiating from a start activity, a direct resource link is created when a delay occurred owing
to resource constraints while visiting each activity in a forward pass method. When the start time of an
activity in the RCS result is greater than EST of CPM, the activity is considered as a delayed activity
owing to resource constraints.
For example, when the EST of a start activity, which has no predecessor, is greater than 1, that is,
when the start activity is delayed as a result of RCS, a resource link can be obtained by referring to the
values in the daily resource table that contains the total daily resource requirements per resource type
and a list of activity IDs that require these resources. When identifying the resource link, the system
stores the current step, the name of the resource that has caused the constraint, and the predecessor
and the successor IDs of the resource link as a text log of the delayed activity. The forward pass,
as depicted in Figure 8b, is applied as a recursive function and the entire network is searched to identify
the required direct resource links.
Subsequently, the CPM backward pass computes the LST and LFT of each activity, considering
both the technological relationships and the resource links identified in step 1. Based on the updated
LST and LFT, the system calculates the total float of each activity. Because the resource links have been
additionally reflected in the existing CPM relationships, the early times do not change, but the late
times decrease owing to the resource links and the total float of the activity decreases accordingly.

305
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 8. eRCPM processes of steps 1 and 3: (a) step 1; (b) forward pass; (c) step 3; (d) backward pass.

4.2.3. Step 3: Indirect Resource Link

Step 3 of eRCPM identifies indirect resource links by applying the backward pass starting from
finish activities, as illustrated in Figure 8c. Starting from a finished activity, when the total float of
an activity is greater than zero, the daily resource table is checked to determine whether this entire
total float range is available without resource restrictions. When total floats are not fully available
owing to resource constraints from a specific date, an indirect resource link is created by searching
the daily resource table for the activity that starts on that date and has triggering resources. LFT and

306
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

LST should be updated by reflecting the newly identified resource link, and as a result, these values
become smaller, and the total float becomes smaller accordingly.
As illustrated in Figure 8d, the backward pass checks all the activities on the network sequentially
using a recursive function to identify necessary resource links. When a resource link is identified,
the current step, triggered resource name, and predecessor and successor IDs are also stored in the text
log. In this way, all resource links and text logs are created, and these are added to the appropriate
Excel cells according to the format of P6 or MSP using Excel VBA code. P6 or MSP imports this Excel
file and executes CPM to obtain an eRCPM output.

5. eRCPM System Demonstration

5.1. Export from P6 and MSP

The data required for the eRCPM execution are exported from P6 or MSP in an Excel format.
P6 and MSP have different export characteristics, and users can select the specific data they require
during each export process. Table 2 presents the data required to execute eRCPM. The data name
itself makes sense, and certain terms have different expressions but the same properties. The biggest
difference between P6 and MSP is the activity relationship. P6 exports the activity ID as a pair for a
relationship; however, MSP does not export the activity relationships separately. Thus, for MSP data,
the eRCPM system should refer directly to the predecessors and successors among the data of each
activity. The RCPM log of activities is a user-defined text; it is set separately by the user in P6 and MSP
and displays which resource link has been created by which resource at which step, as described earlier.

Table 2. Export data comparison between P6 and MSP.

Resource Assignments
Activities (Tasks) 1 Activity Relationships Resources
(Assignments)
P6 MSP P6 MSP P6 MSP P6 MSP
Activity ID
Predecessor
Activity Name Activity ID
ID Successor
Original Resource ID
Name Relationship
Duration Resource ID Budgeted
Duration Type 2
Planned Start Resource ID Units/Time Task ID
Start Predecessor
Planned Finish N/A Name Name Activity Resource ID
Finish Activity
Predecessors Max Max Units Status 2 Units
Predecessors Status 2
Successors Units/Time Role ID 2
Successors Successor
RCPM Log Cost Account
RCPM Log Activity
Activity Status 2 ID 2
Status 2
WBS Code 2
1 The terms in parentheses refer to the MSP’s export data type. 2 Values that must be included forcibly when
exporting in P6.

5.2. P6 Example
The CPM result of P6 for the schedule presented in Table 1 is depicted in Figure 9a, and the
RCS result is displayed in Figure 9b. Because of the application of RCS, the project completion time
is extended by two days, from day 10 to 12; the float of each activity is also changed. Figure 9c
demonstrates the result of CPM after exporting this RCS result in Excel format, applying eRCPM, and
importing the Excel file. In the RCPM log column of Figure 9c, the step of identifying the resource link
and the name of the resource that caused the constraint are presented; these resource links have been
added as a predecessor and successor of the activity.
Notably, the total floats of RCS and eRCPM are identical to each other, as depicted in Figure 9b,c.
The RCS output of P6 neither displays any additional activity relationships nor explains how these
calculations resulted. It is assumed that the existence of phantom floats is recognized, and certain
efforts are reflected. However, as explained by Franco-Duran and de la Garza [18] as well as this study,
the total float after RCS is no longer reliable when the scale of the schedule becomes larger.

307
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 9. eRCPM with P6: (a) CPM output; (b) RCS output; (c) eRCPM output.

Figure 10 demonstrates the process of implementing eRCPM in Excel. Each Excel sheet in
Figure 10a–d presents activities, activity relationships, resources, and resource assignments exported
from P6, as presented in Table 2. The schedule of each activity is the same as the RCS result in Figure 9b;
the activity relationships, resource demand, and maximum supply per resource are the same as those
in Table 1.
Based on these data, if the eRCPM add-on program implemented in Excel VBA is executed, the
identified resource links are recorded in the RCPM log, as depicted in Figure 10e. These resource
links have been added as a predecessor and successor pair, as depicted in Figure 10f. P6 imports this
updated Excel file and performs CPM. Figure 9c displays the eRCPM results.

(a)

Figure 10. Cont.

308
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 10. P6 s eRCPM data in Excel sheets:

(a) Exported activity data; (b) Exported activity relationship;
(c) Exported resource data; (d) Exported activity resource assignment; (e) RCPM Log after eRCPM; (f)
Activity relationships after eRCPM.

5.3. MSP Example

MSP also proceeds in the same processes as P6. The CPM result is displayed in Figure 11a, and the
RCS result is displayed in Figure 11b. In the RCS result, the critical path is broken because there is no
critical activity on day 6, and the total floats are unreliable because the schedule does not reflect the
resource dependency between activities. Each Excel sheet in Figure 11c–e presents the activity, resource,
and resource assignment exported from MSP, as presented in Table 2. The result of executing the Excel
add-on eRCPM based on this data is illustrated in Figure 11f, where the successor column presents the
identified resource links and the RCPM log column presents the property of each identified resource
link. Figure 11g depicts the result of executing CPM after MSP imports this Excel file. The critical path
is continuous, and the total floats are reliable.

309
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Figure 11. eRCPM process with MSP: (a) CPM output; (b) RCS output; (c) Exported activity data;
(d) Exported resource data; (e) Exported activity resource assignment; (f) RCPM Log and inserted
successors after eRCPM; (g) eRCPM output in MSP.

310
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

6. Case Study
This section validates eRCPM using a larger and more complex schedule than the previous
example. This schedule originated from Fondahl (1991) [11] and was used as a case study in two
previous studies [12,18]. In addition to the basic information of this schedule, Table 3 presents CPM,
RCS, and eRCPM results for both P6 and MSP. The schedule information provides the ID, duration,
successors, and required number of resources for each activity. There are three types of resources:
carpenters (R1), iron workers (R2), and common laborers (R3), each of which has a maximum daily
supply of four people. The CPM results are the same for P6 and MSP with a project duration of 27 days.
The start time and total float of each activity are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Case study schedule with CPM, RCS, and RCPM.

Resource CPM RCS eRCPM

ID Dur. Successors Carp Iron Lab Start TF RL TF
Start TF
(R1) (R2) (R3) P6 MSP P6 MSP P6 MSP P6 MSP
1 1 2 1 0 1 1 −5 0 0 0
2 3 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 2 0 2 2 −5 0 0 0
3 2 30 4 5 19 25 25 0 0 29 29 0 0
4 2 20 2 5 13 7 15 9 1 5 8 0 0
5 4 16 4 5 9 9 9 1 3 0 0
6 1 9, 10 4 5 0 5 5 −5 3 0 0
7 2 25 2 5 17 19 20 4 5 23 23 1 0
8 3 23 4 5 14 16 17 2 5 24, 7 24, 7 1 0
9 1 11 4 2 2 6 0 6 6 −5 3 4 0 0
10 1 15 6 5 6 6 0 8 5 5
11 1 12 1 2 7 0 7 7 −5 3 0 0
12 1 13 1 1 8 0 8 8 −5 3 5 5 0 0
13 3 14, 15 9 0 9 9 −5 3 0 0
14 1 16, 19 4 12 2 12 12 1 3 0 0
15 2 17 2 12 0 12 12 −5 3 0 0
16 1 18 4 13 5 13 13 3 3 17 0 0
17 1 19 2 2 14 0 14 14 −5 3 4 0 0
18 1 20 2 2 14 5 14 14 3 3 8 4 2 0
19 1 21 1 2 15 0 15 15 −1 3 8 0 0
20 1 22 4 15 5 15 17 6 1 3 1
21 6 23, 30 16 0 16 16 −1 3 0 0
22 1 24 4 16 5 16 18 6 1 3 1
23 2 25, 26 4 22 0 22 22 −1 3 0 0
24 2 27 2 17 5 19 20 4 1 23 23 1 0
25 1 28 2 24 0 24 24 3 3 3 3 0 0
26 1 28 2 24 0 24 24 3 3 3 3
27 1 29 2 19 5 21 22 5 1 5 4
28 2 31 25 0 25 25 3 3 3 3
29 2 31 2 20 5 27 27 0 1 30 30 0 0
30 1 31 4 22 4 29 29 0 0 0 0
31 1 4 27 0 30 30 0 0 0 0
Maximum units 4 4 4

When the serial (P6) and parallel (MSP) techniques are applied to reflect the resource constraints,
the start of several activities has been delayed, and the project durations of both methods are 30 days
each, three days longer than CPM. However, owing to the difference in applied techniques, the start
times of several activities are different, and both results provide unreliable total float values. Especially,
if RCS is applied without selecting “preserve scheduled early and late dates” option in P6, an improbable
result with negative total float values is obtained, as presented in Table 3 (P6’s total float in RCS).
In MSP, activities with a total float of zero are 1, 2, 3, 30, and 31, but as indicated by the start time in the
table, the critical path is broken because it does not proceed continuously between activities 2 and 3
and between activities 3 and 30.
If the resource links identified by eRCPM are reflected, as depicted in Figure 12, the critical path
becomes continuous from the project start to the end, and the total float values accurately reflect the
resource constraints. Notably, as the RCPM log explains, most of the resource links were caused by the
constraints of CARP (R1) in steps 1 and 3 of the eRCPM process.

311
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

(a)

(b)
Figure 12. eRCPM output: (a) eRCPM in P6; (b) eRCPM in MSP.

When comparing the results of eRCPM with a recent previous study of Franco-Duran and de la
Garza (2019) [18], P6’s results were observed to be completely identical, but in MSP, there are slight
differences in the identified resource links for activities 4, 17, 18, and 19. As presented in Table 3 and
Figure 12b, activity 4 has been delayed from day 5 to day 15 owing to R1 resource constraints. To reflect
this condition in step 1, the activities that released R1 with their completion on day 14 were identified
as activities 17 and 18. These two activities released identical resources (two R1s and two R2s); hence,
from the outlook of activity 4, these two activities were under equal conditions. In this case, eRCPM
selects an activity with a smaller activity ID as a predecessor, so that it created resource links between
activities 17 and 4. However, the manual application of RCPM in the previous study selected activity
18 as its predecessor. This difference in predecessor selection causes resource link differences for the

312
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

other activities. Thus, in terms of considering resource constraints and creating a resource-dependent
activity relationship, there is no difference between eRCPM and the previous study.
Through this case study, it can be noted that eRCPM appropriately identifies the necessary resource
links based on the RCS results under multiple resource constraints irrespective of the method used and
provides reliable total floats.

7. Conclusions
Resources are limited in most construction projects. To consider these resource restrictions, RCS
can be applied based on the CPM schedule. However, after applying the RCS technique, important
project management information, such as total float and the critical path, are lost. In addition,
the activity sequence may be altered after a regular schedule update which increases the difficulty
in project control and delay impact analysis. Accordingly, several studies related to RCPM were
conducted that additionally reflect the resource-dependent activity relationships on the existing CPM
network. The results of these studies were partially reflected in P6 as demonstrated with an example.
However, because the existing RCPM techniques recognize resource links in a specific RCS process
such as serial and parallel, separate algorithm development and system implementation are required
according to the applied technique. Consequently, this study proposes eRCPM to implement the
RCPM concept irrespective of the applied RCS technique under multiple resource constraints and
develops a prototype of the eRCPM system with Excel VBA. The main achievements, applications,
and future research of this study are summarized as follows.

• This study applied the serial method of P6 and the parallel method of MSP. However, it can be
extended to other RCS results such as genetic algorithms or other optimization methods [26,28].
• The role and meaning of the resource link were specified by dividing it into a direct resource link
identified in step 1 and an indirect resource link identified in step 3.
• This study developed an eRCPM prototype system with Excel VBA. The system automatically
identifies resource links by linking it using the export and import functions of P6 and MSP.
There are differences in input/output data types in the two systems, but the eRCPM process is
executed in one process. Therefore, if required data input/output functions are added, it can
be expanded to other types of systems or other RCS results. In addition, other activity-related
project management functions not currently provided by P6 or MSP, such as schedule validation,
procurement, quality, safety, etc., may be implemented in conjunction with their spreadsheet
software through a similar procedure introduced in this study.
• Because the step that identifies the resource link and the resource that has caused the constraint are
managed as a log, the system can be used as an additional planning technique, such as adjusting
the amount of supplying resources.
• In the future, by adding functions for calendars, PDM (Precedence Diagramming Method)
relationships, time constraints, progressed schedules, etc., the system will become a more practical
tool for project schedule management.

In many construction projects, inaccurate information causes disputes between project participants,
and these disputes are often resolved based on inaccurate data [11]. RCPM will provide more accurate
information after RCS, and the eRCPM of this study will expand it to a wider area. These attempts
will contribute to the implementation of sustainable construction project management by reducing
unnecessary disputes as well as improving the efficiency of project management.

Funding: This paper was supported by Konkuk University in 2017.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

313
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

References
1. O’Brien, J.; Plotnick, F. CPM in Construction Management, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY,
USA, 2016; pp. 635–700.
2. De la Garza, J.M.; Franco-Duran, D.M.; Buckley, B. CPM Benefits in Estimating, Bidding Reported in Survey.
2017. Available online: https://www.enr.com/articles/43666-cpm-benefits-in-estimating-bidding-reported-
in-survey (accessed on 15 September 2020).
3. Jo, S.-H.; Lee, E.-B.; Pyo, K.-Y. Integrating a Procurement Management Process into Critical Chain Project
Management (CCPM): A Case-Study on Oil and Gas Projects, the Piping Process. Sustainability 2018, 10,
1817. [CrossRef]
4. Dasović, B.; Galić, M.; Klanšek, U. A Survey on Integration of Optimization and Project Management Tools
for Sustainable Construction Scheduling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3405. [CrossRef]
5. Khatib, B.A.; Poh, Y.S.; El-Shafie, A. Delay Factors Management and Ranking for Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation Projects Based on the Relative Importance Index (RII). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6171. [CrossRef]
6. Leicht, D.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Dìaz, J.; Baier, C. Multidimensional Construction Planning and Agile Organized
Project Execution—The 5D-PROMPT Method. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6340. [CrossRef]
7. Kelley, J.E. The critical-path method: Resource planning and scheduling. In Industrial Scheduling; Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1963; pp. 347–365.
8. Moder, J.J.; Phillips, C.R.; Davis, E.W. Project Management with CPM, PERT, and Precedence Diagramming,
3rd ed.; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 203–204.
9. Demeulemeester, E.L.; Herroelen, W. Project Scheduling: A Research Handbook; Kluwer Academic Publishers:
New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 203–343.
10. Wiest, J.D. Some Properties of Schedules for Large Projects with Limited Resources. Oper. Res. 1964, 12,
395–418. [CrossRef]
11. Fondahl, J.W. The development of the construction engineer: Past progress and future problems. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 1991, 117, 380–392. [CrossRef]
12. Kim, K.; de la Garza, J.M. Phantom float. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 507–517. [CrossRef]
13. Pantouvakis, J.; Manoliadis, O.G. A practical approach to resource-constrained project scheduling. Oper. Res.
Int. J. 2006, 6, 299–309. [CrossRef]
14. Ibbs, W.; Nguyen, L.D. Schedule analysis under the effect of resource allocation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007,
133, 131–138. [CrossRef]
15. Kim, K. Delay analysis in resource-constrained schedules. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2009, 36, 295–303. [CrossRef]
16. Braimah, N. Construction Delay Analysis Techniques—A Review of Application Issues and Improvement
Needs. Buildings 2013, 3, 506–531. [CrossRef]
17. Liberatore, M.J.; Pollack-Johnson, B.; Smith, C.A. Project management in construction: Software use and
research directions. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2001, 127, 101–107. [CrossRef]
18. Franco-Duran, D.M.; de la Garza, J.M. Phantom float in commercial scheduling software. Autom. Constr.
2019, 103, 291–299. [CrossRef]
19. Woodworth, B.M.; Shanahan, S. Identifying the critical sequence in a resource constrained project. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 1988, 6, 89–96. [CrossRef]
20. Bowers, J.A. Criticality in resource-constrained networks. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1995, 46, 80–91. [CrossRef]
21. Lu, M.; Li, H. Resource-activity critical-path method for construction planning. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003,
129, 412–420. [CrossRef]
22. Nisar, S.A.; Yamamoto, K.; Suzuki, K. Resource-dependent critical path method for identifying the critical
path and the ‘Real floats’ in resource-constrained project scheduling. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 2013, 69, 97–107.
[CrossRef]
23. Kim, K.; de la Garza, J.M. Evaluation of the resource-constrained critical path method algorithms. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 522–532. [CrossRef]
24. Franco-Duran, D.M.; de la Garza, J.M. Review of Resource-Constrained Scheduling Algorithms. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 1–16. [CrossRef]
25. Tam, P.W.M.; Pujitha, B.G.D. Construction project scheduling by ranked positional weight method. Can. J.
Civ. Eng. 1998, 25, 424–436. [CrossRef]

314
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8918

26. Lu, M.; Lam, H.; Dai, F. Resource-constrained critical path analysis based on discrete event simulation and
particle swarm optimization. Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 670–681. [CrossRef]
27. Melin, J.W.; Whiteaker, B. Fencing a bar chart. J. Constr. Div. 1981, 107, 497–507.
28. Chen, P.H.; Shahandashti, S.M. Hybrid of genetic algorithm and simulated annealing for multiple project
scheduling with multiple resource constraints. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 434–443. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

315
sustainability

Article
Key Indicators for Linguistic Action Perspective in
the Last Planner® System
Luis A. Salazar 1,2, *, Paz Arroyo 3 and Luis F. Alarcón 1
1 School of Engineering, Department of Construction Engineering and Management, Pontificia Universidad,
Católica de Chile, Avda, Vicuña Mackenna, Macul, Santiago 4860, Chile; [email protected]
2 Faculty of Engineering, Construction Engineering, Universidad Andres Bello, Sazié, Santiago 2119, Chile
3 DPR Construction, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 23 August 2020; Accepted: 19 October 2020; Published: 21 October 2020

Abstract: Since 2001, a link has been established between the Last Planner® System (LPS) and
Linguistic Action Perspective (LAP). However, to date, it has not been studied in sufficient
depth. This research developed a system of indicators to measure and control the management
of commitments, through the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology, and thus contribute to
the development of the social dimension of sustainability that is often neglected in construction
management research. The main contributions of this paper are a proposal of five main activities to
apply the DSR method, a checklist to analyze the engagement of meeting participants, a notebook
for last planners, delve into the variations that can occur to the basic movements of LAP, and the
creation of a system of indicators hence updating the Percent Plan Complete (PPC) with a reliability
indicator. The main limitation of this research is that the system was only validated in two South
American countries that implemented LPS. In future studies, we propose to apply case studies in
weekly planning meetings in other industries worldwide and to determine the recommended values
to improve communication and achieve the proper implementation of LAP with LPS and without LPS.

Keywords: linguistic action indicators; last planner system; linguistic action perspective

1. Introduction

1.1. Context
Traditional construction systems, mostly spread worldwide, are based on the concept of
transforming raw materials (input) into a product result (output), through an established production
process, not distinguishing between activities that add value and those that do not add value to the final
product [1], which has generated a worldwide issue in construction productivity, since it adds costs to
construction projects without really adding value [2]. As a result, in the last 50 years, productivity in
the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry has dropped by almost 20%, while the
productivity in non-farm business enterprises has grown by over 150% [3]. Therefore, according to
González et al. [4], to improve project performance, it is necessary to increase the reliability of the
planning of commitments at the operational level, through a production control and planning system.

1.2. Need and Relevance of Research

In response to the low productivity, starting in the 1950s, a production system called
“Lean Production” was developed and led by engineers Taiichi Ohno and Eiji Toyoda, in the
implementation of concepts, methods, and tools applied in the Toyota car manufacturing company
in Japan [5], this production system later became part of the construction industry with the name of
“Lean Construction” [6]. This system’s main objective is to increase production efficiency by reducing

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728; doi:10.3390/su12208728 317 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

losses or waste and satisfying customer requirements through the delivery of a product or service with
higher value [5].
Regarding sustainability (“meet present needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs” [7]) the United Nations (UN) has defined 12 areas to be developed
around sustainability. Of these, number 12 specifies “Ensure sustainable consumption and production
patterns” [8], thus determining the need to ensure sustainability in industries such as construction.
The high impact that building construction has on the environment has been demonstrated [9].
Therefore, improving the productivity of the construction industry is a fundamental need for a more
sustainable society. Various authors have indicated a useful link between Lean Construction and
Sustainability [10–12], as it is necessary to ensure survival in a constantly evolving business environment,
through a sustainable environment driven by Lean, with significant untapped potential [11].
Furthermore, organizations have recognized the need for an approach that contributes not only
to the production of buildings but primarily to the delivery process and improvement in product
quality as a whole [11]. Thus, Lean Thinking and sustainability serve as complements given that Lean
helps to increase efficient production of construction projects [11].
However, considering the interconnection of the three sustainability components: environmental,
economic and social [9], the latter component should not be neglected. According to the Salem
and al. [13] discoveries, it is necessary to generate changes in behavior through the use of Lean
tools and concepts, mainly because construction structure is different from manufacturing’ due to
its greater complexity and uncertainty [14]. Under those circumstances, the Last Planner® System
(LPS), developed by Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell in the 1990s [15], has led the introduction of Lean
Construction concepts and principles [16]. The LPS is a system of planning and control of commitments,
which is based on the principles of the Lean production philosophy and which directs its efforts to
increase the reliability of planning and levels of performance [17,18]. Moreover, with the appropriate
use of this system a reduction of the uncertainty and variability of the projects is achieved and hereby
the coordination of the work participants is improved. This coordination is regarded as an internal
social aspect of the project.
It is important to note that, according to studies carried out by Goldratt and Cox [19], the reliability
of production is affected by the effectiveness of the control of dependencies and fluctuations between
the different activities of the project; for example, a measure of reliability is variability [20], which is
understood as the possible changes that can be generated in the execution time or the duration of
the processes [21]. On the other hand, the uncertainty is due to the existence of variables that are
not considered, such as availability of labor, administrative problems and availability of suppliers,
among others. [22]. Consequently, it is necessary to achieve an adequate management of commitments
to reduce the uncertainty and variability of the projects by strengthening the commitment management
system in the weekly planning meetings, through coordinated action by a complex network of requests
and promises, as this could be the only viable method of coordination under dynamic conditions [18].
Howell et al. [23] propose Linguistic Action Perspective (LAP) as a suitable framework for
understanding the operation and effectiveness of LPS [24]. This perspective developed by Flores [25]
is basically an application of the Speech Act Theory of Austin [26] and Searle [27] to organizational
management. Flores [25] says that conversations do not simply precede action but constitute actions in
themselves through the commitments that arise. In this way, language can be seen as the main means
to create a common future for the coordination of human action, cooperation [25]. As we mentioned
earlier, this idea builds on Austin’s work [26] and the notion of illocutionary acts (the actions we carry
out when we say certain words). For example, by saying, “I promise to do it,” I am changing my
environment, due to the actions that I take and those that other people take waiting for me to do
what I promised to do [24]. It is important to note that this idea was later developed by Searle [27],
who proposed a taxonomy of speech acts.
Flores [25] proposes a fundamental and universal structure for the coordination of actions in his
book “Conversations for action,” based on the completion of four essential speech acts: (1) request

318
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

or offer, (2) promise or acceptance, (3) declaration of compliance and (4) declaration of satisfaction.
These speech acts, according to Searle’s taxonomy [28], correspond respectively to directives (request),
commissives (offer, promise, and acceptance) and declaratives (statement of compliance and declaration
of satisfaction), these acts modify the possibilities of action in the future, or in other words, they change
the state of affairs through words [28].
According to Flores [25], four stages can be defined that generate a network or chain of
commitments: (1) preparation of a request, (2) negotiation and agreements, (3) execution and
declaration of compliance and (4) acceptance and declaration of satisfaction (for more details see
Figure 1, based on Flores [24,25]).

Figure 1. Network or Chain of Commitments.

In 2001 Ballard and Howell [15] established the first link between Last Planner® System
and Linguistic Action Perspective. However, despite this, a system of quantitative instruments
or methodologies has not been developed to carry out a specific management of the quality of
commitments. Furthermore, recent studies show how the application of Lean Construction has focused
on social responsibility (external) and engagement of the work environment (internal), filling gaps that
sustainable practices alone cannot fill [11], also demonstrating that the application of Lean tools has a
direct positive impact on the sustainability of projects [12].

1.3. State of the Art and Practice

Regarding state of the art, the authors carried out a thematic search in Web of Science, with the
keywords “Language Action” or “Linguistic Action,” obtaining, as a result, 217 documents. We consider
it essential to clarify that in the literature, “Language Action” and “Linguistic Action” are used
interchangeably. However, we respect both terms; we consider “Linguistic Action” more appropriate
because “Linguistic,” among many definitions, is the scientific study of language [29].
The authors carried out a preliminary analysis of co-occurrences, or joint appearances, to identify
the conceptual and thematic structure of the scientific domain, through an analysis of the term
co-occurrence based on text data, regarding the title and abstract fields of the 217 documents,
creating Figure 2 through VOSviewer software. By means of this simple analysis, the co-occurrence of
the key terms reported by the existing literature can be visually understood in order to obtain highly
cited documents, to identify the most active lines of research in this domain of knowledge.
In Figure 2, each rounded rectangle represents a term, while the size of each figure indicates
the number of publications in which that term appears in the title or abstract of the document.
VOSviewer locates the terms that have greater coexistence close to each other in the visualization and
defines the color according to the year of publication (see Figure 2 symbology, in the lower right corner).
Determining with this, that the most published terms (language, study and system) are related to the
area of linguistics, there is a gap in terms of construction, project, or indicators (our area of interest).
After this initial approach, the authors filtered the search, to find literature regarding construction
projects and found only three publications [30–32]. The first paper, “The Role of Commitments in
the Management of Construction Make-to-Order Supply Chains” [30], regards the commitment loop,
network of commitments, and the number of citations for the class of problem (rebar supply chain

319
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

and elevator supply chain). The second paper is based on “Understanding the theory behind the Last
Planner System using the Language-Action Perspective: two case studies” [31] where they develop
two case studies demonstrating the explicit representations in the commitment flows, through a
proposal of symbols used for mapping the network of commitments (mapping of materials and
equipment) and also an evaluation of the percentage of each type of activity performed during planning
meetings. Finally, the third paper called “Variability propagation in the production planning and
control mechanism of construction projects” [32] analyzes the variability propagation and planning
and control function, structure and behavior of a complex adaptive system and the baseline mechanism
and conversations over the LPS structure.

Figure 2. Term co-occurrence map created with VOSviewer.

Moreover, the authors review papers from the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC)
conference, where LAP has been proposed as a suitable framework to understand the effectiveness of
LPS [23,33], but to date, the implications have not been fully understood. A first effort to understand
the usefulness of LAP in LPS is the work of Viana, Formoso and Isatto [34], where based on a case study,
they propose a descriptive model of the engagement networks in LPS, as well as a detailed analysis
of the planning meetings. Otherwise, Vrijhoef, Koskela and Howell [35] studied construction supply
chains from a LAP theoretical point of view, analyzing organizations as networks of commitments,
determining that this perspective provides a plausible explanation for many of the root causes of
problems in construction supply chains. Likewise, Ballard and Howell [15] argue that LAP represents
an essential contribution to project management theory [33]. Macomber and Howell [33] pose five key
aspects LAP: coordination, evaluation, speech (narration), trust, and moods, stating that these aspects
influence how people work together and how this affects the results of the projects.
Nevertheless, the analysis offered by the publications mentioned above and all those that have
been carried out to date in the IGLC does not explain the relationship between the way in which
commitments are established, and the fulfillment of those commitments, except for the preliminary
proposal of indicators carried out by these authors in the years 2018 and 2019 [24,36].
At last, the authors reviewed the database of this journal, mainly finding aspects of Social
Networks, where the importance of understanding the relation between project dynamic interactions
of the different project stakeholders and its performance has been mentioned [37]. Still, it has not been
addressed through LAP.

1.4. Research Purpose and Why It Is New Knowledge

Based on the principles that view management as a process of opening, listening, obtaining,
articulation and activation of the network of commitments produced mainly through promises and
requests (allowing the autonomy of the productive unit), [38] and given that there are currently
only three publications on the Web of Science about LAP in construction, and finally because these

320
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

demonstrate the importance of this perspective in managing commitments [30–32], a vital element
of the Last Planner® System is that the authors have worked on the development of a system of
indicators to measure and control commitments, requirements, promises, and reliability, generating
an extension and updated and corrected version of their preliminary work published in the IGLC
conferences [24,36], through the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology.
Thus, the purpose of this document is to respond to the need of measuring the main elements of
LAP, to control and improve the management of commitments in the weekly LPS meetings, and thus
contribute to the development of an LPS 2.0 that centers its focus on the social (internal) dimension in
the context of Lean Construction [39], since this dimension of sustainability [40] has been neglected in
construction management approaches [41].

2. Research Method

2.1. Design Science Research

The authors used the Design Science Research (DSR) because this method manages to solve
practical problems and produce artifacts as results [42]. These artifacts can be models, methods,
indicators or any designed object in which a research contribution is incorporated into the design [43],
thus solving problems found in the real world, and in this way also, contribute theoretically to the
discipline in which it is applied [44].
According to Alan Hevner’s proposal [45], DSR bridges the gaps among the contextual environment
of the research project (people, organizational systems, technical systems, problems and opportunities),
design science research (artifacts and processes), and the knowledge base of scientific foundations
(scientific theories, methods, experience and expertise), iterating between the activities of construction
and evaluation of research design artifacts and processes [45].
Figure 3 shows the research approach based on the updated DSR model proposed by Robert
Briggs and Gerhard Schwabe [46] because the purpose of this work is to perform an Applied
Science/Engineering (AS/E) to produce an artifact, faced with a phenomenon that varies according to
time, contexts and application conditions [46]. This figure shows the main elements of the investigation,
highlighting a relevancy cycle between discovery and design activities, and a design cycle between
design and validation activities so that any DSR activity can be extracted or added to the knowledge
base [46].

Figure 3. Design Science Research, Cycles Model.

This research consists of 5 main activities that have been adapted from the proposals of Lukka [44]
and Peffers et al. [43], regarding the DSR method:
1. Discovery of problems and opportunities, through exhaustive analysis of the context.

321
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

2. Deep understanding of the subject, state of the art and practice.

3. Design and construction of artifact (indicators system), through constant iteration.
4. Evaluation of the solution to find a satisfactory solution (which fulfills its function).
5. Validation of artifact, through practical application and analysis of results.

Figure 4 shows how the artifact was developed through 3 cycles of continuous improvement
based on Design Science Research (DSR). The first version of the artifact was developed from the
identification of LAP elements, later it was evaluated by a panel of international experts, and it was
applied in the Villego® Simulation (a game that allows teaching LPS by the construction of a house
with Lego). Then, the second version of the artifact was developed from the elements of LAP applied in
LPS, later it was evaluated through measurement in four construction projects in Chile and validated by
means of comparison and analysis of results concerning artifact 1.0. The final version of the artifact was
developed from the analysis of the LPS implementation in different countries. Later it was evaluated
through measurement in two construction projects in Chile and two construction projects in Colombia,
to be finally validated from the comparison and analysis of results (functionality) with respect to
artifact 2.0.

Figure 4. Research Method based on Design Science Research (DSR).

2.2. Identification of the Problem

Although the implementation of the Last Planner® System indeed increases the reliability of
planning and performance levels through the management of commitments, the conversations during
which commitments are made at weekly planning meetings have not been discussed and analyzed
in sufficient depth [24]. Being a fundamental problem the lack of indicators to control this aspect,
there is only the Percent Plan Complete (PPC) indicator, which is the number of planned activities
completed, divided by the total number of planned activities and expressed as a percentage [47]; Hence,
the authors set the goal of developing a measurement system that allows quantifying the fundamental
elements of LAP present in LPS, since by measuring the management of commitments, we can enrich
LPS and advance in an improved and updated version of it.

2.3. Creation of Indicators: Version 1.0

For the creation of the first version of indicators, the researchers carried out five key steps,
after having discovered the problem and research opportunity, as detailed by Salazar et al. [24]:

1. To study the Linguistic Action Perspective, to generate a knowledge base, based mainly
on Flores [25].

322
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

2. To identify the elements of this perspective that were potentially quantifiable, creating a list of
concepts and data to be measured. Mainly aspects of the commitments, requests, promises and
foundations of trust.
3. To develop indicators that could measure and control the previously identified elements,
to generate the Design Science Research. For more details, see Table 1, which borrows the
Indicators System found in Salazar et al. 2018 [24].
4. To discuss with a panel of international experts (Linguistic Action in Last Planner System Group)
the feasibility of measuring and controlling these indicators, which allows improving the initial
design. This panel consisted of academics from University of California-Berkeley, PhD students,
a Master with a degree in linguistics, and Senior Lean consultants.
5. To validate proposed indicators, verifying the feasibility of observing these indicators utilizing a
Villego® Simulation applied to a group of students as a pilot test to validate them through the
Environment in a controlled situation.

These indicators are divided into three groups according to the study objective: (1) measurement
and control of commitments: the primary data to be evaluated are network or chain of commitments,
roles and responsibilities of the performers, declaration of the importance of the commitment, and the
availability of the performers; (2) measurement and control of petitions and promises: the relevant
data to be evaluated are specification of the deadline, unnecessary requests, and incomplete promises;
and (3) measurement and control of fundamentals of trust: among the data to be evaluated are
competence of the performer, reliability and engaged participants [24].
It is important to emphasize that these indicators are designed to analyze the management of
commitments in weekly planning meetings, so the frequency of measurement should be every seven
days [24]. Notwithstanding the preceding, it necessary to measure at least two weekly meetings to
complete the network or chain of commitments, since the first two movements will be seen in the
first meeting: (1) preparation of a request and (2) negotiation and agreements; and in the second
meeting, the last two: (3) execution and declaration of compliance, and (4) acceptance and declaration
of satisfaction [24]. If the client does not accept and declare satisfaction, it is understood that the
committee did not comply with the agreed terms and therefore, the network or chain of commitments
must be started again with the preparation of the request until the commitment is closed (when the
client accepts and declares satisfaction).

2.4. Pilot Application-Villego® Simulation

To analyze and validate the proposed indicators system, we decided to verify the feasibility of
observing and measuring these indicators employing the Villego® Simulation, which is a hands-on LPS
experience where participants build a house with Lego bricks. For this purpose, 11 volunteer students
of the sixth semester of Civil Engineering, at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, were asked to
perform the simulation. The authors video-recorded the two rounds of the simulation (first round
simulates a traditional planning process and the second round simulates a process with LPS) to be able
to analyze the proposed indicators system [24].

2.4.1. First Round Villego® Simulation

Next explaining the general rules of the simulation, we asked the students to define the roles and
responsibilities that each one would assume in this round, establishing roles in the following areas:
administration, quality, technical inspection, security, warehouse and several subcontractors who were
identified with different colors; gray, blue, white, yellow, green and red [24].

323
Table 1. Indicators for observing elements of Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner® System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

KPI measures the percentage of
(Number of commitments in which the 4
compliance with the chain of That the 4 movements for coordination
% of compliance network or chain of movements for coordination are
commitments; that is to say, that the 4 (LAP movements presented in Figure 1)
commitments fulfilled)/(Total number of commitments)
movements for the coordination are are fulfilled
× 100
fulfilled
Roles (Who): Client and Performer
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments with defined

% of definition of roles and Responsibilities (What): Definition of the
commitments that define roles and roles and responsibilities)/(Total number
responsibilities of the performers promise of which the performer takes
responsibilities of performers of commitments) × 100
charge
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that fulfilled
That the performer (not another) fulfills
% of fulfillment of roles and commitments in which the roles and previously defined roles and
the promise and declares compliance to
responsibilities of performers responsibilities of previously defined responsibilities)/(Total number of
the client
performers are met commitments) × 100
Declare the importance (priority) of
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments declaring
% of declaration of the importance of commitment in the first 2 movements for
commitments that declare the importance importance)/(Total number of
commitment coordination (LAP movements presented
(priority) of this, explicitly commitments) × 100
in Figure 1)
KPI measures the percentage of
(Number of priority commitments

324
% of compliance with priority commitments that were declared Review of priority commitment agreed
fulfilled)/(Total number of priority
commitments important (priority) and that are previously
commitments) × 100
effectively met
Verification of the availability of
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that verify
performers in the negotiation stage and

Measurement and Control of Commitments

% of verification of availability of commitments that verify the availability availability of performers in
agreements. The executor’s (workers)
performers in agreements of performers in the negotiation stage and agreements)/(Total number of
agenda can be requested from the
agreements commitments) × 100
foreman
(Number of commitments that verify
KPI measures the percentage of Compliance with the verification of the
% of verification of availability of availability of performers in
commitments that verify the availability availability of performers in the execution
performers in execution execution)/(Total number of
of performers in the execution stage stage
commitments) × 100
Table 1. Cont.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

(Number of commitments that specify the

KPI measures the percentage of Specific deadline: date and time (AM,
% of specified deadlines deadline)/(Total number of commitments)
commitments that specify the deadline PM)
× 100
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

When the client declares that the deadline

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that make specified in the request does not
% of unnecessary requests commitments that make unnecessary unnecessary requests)/(Total number of correspond to the last responsible
requests commitments) × 100 moment and/or requested something that
was not necessary (does not add value)

KPI measures the percentage of requests

and promises that do not comply with (Number of commitments that make Explicit conditions of satisfaction,
% of incomplete requests and promises explicit conditions of satisfaction, requests and incomplete promises)/(Total background of obviousness and specific
background of obviousness and/or number of commitments) × 100 deadline
specific term

Measurement and Control of Petitions and Promises

325
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments where Performer is able to perform in the
% of compliance of the performer’s
commitments where the performer is able performer is competent)/(Total number of required domain (recurring performance
competence
to perform in the required domain commitments) × 100 according to accepted standards)

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments fulfilled +

% of reliability compliance commitments where the performer is able number of commitments revoked + Performer keeps his promises on time
(complementary to PPC) to perform reliably and timely in the number of counteroffers)/(Total number (PPC), counteroffer or revokes
required domain of commitments) × 100

Participant attends the meeting, arrives at

the time and remains in an attitude that
(Number of participants engaged to the suggests concentration (does not interact
KPI measures the percentage of meeting
% of engaged participants meeting)/(Total number of attendees) × with the cell phone, looks at the speaker,
participants who are engaged to it
100 takes notes, etc.). (Failing to comply with
any previous aspect, justify it before or
during)

Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust

Table 1. borrows the Indicators System found in Salazar et al. 2018 [24]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

2.4.2. Second Round Villego® Simulation

After giving the new rules of the simulation, we asked students to redefine the roles and
responsibilities of each member, according to the lessons learned from the initial round [24].

2.5. Indicators Validation: Version 1.0

Once the simulation ended, we analyzed the videos to determine the feasibility of observing the
proposed indicators system. With this, not only did we manage to validate our indicators system,
but we also analyzed the main differences between the results obtained in the Villego® Simulation
and the expected results (according to preliminary field studies) in a real planning meeting. Given the
nature of this simulation, we could only able to verify the indicators of commitment: compliance
network or chain of commitments, definition of roles and responsibilities of the performers, fulfillment
of the roles and responsibilities of the performers, specification of the deadline, compliance of the
performer’s competence and engaged participants. On the other hand, indicators of declaration of the
importance of the commitment, compliance with priority commitments, verification of the availability
of performers in agreements, verification of the availability of performers in execution, unnecessary
requests, incomplete promises and promises and reliability compliance, were under verification process
in construction projects in Chile. In the end, the authors consider that this first generation of validated
Key Indicators is a useful tool to measure, control and improve the management of commitments in
planning meetings, as they provide fast and specific feedback on these aspects, which undoubtedly
enriches Last Planner® System. More details are provided in Salazar et al. [24].

2.6. Creation of Indicators: Version 2.0

After the publication of the first version of the Indicators System, the authors decided to evaluate
the feasibility of its application, but this time in real construction projects in the field. The purpose of this
was to observe which elements of LAP are intrinsically applied in LPS and which ones need to be taught
and incorporated in order to improve the management of commitments in weekly planning meetings.
Furthermore, we realized that we had to delve into the explanation of the LAP movements,
explaining that variations can occur in the basic movements shown in Figure 1. Specifically, if we
observe the third movement, “Execution and declaration of compliance,” we can renegotiate (generate a
new commitment), revoke (performer suspends), and cancel (client suspends). These do not decrease
reliability; it is increased [24,25]. Due to the fact that it is preferable that the performer or client
suspends the original commitment and then they generate a new agreement in the field instead of
what is currently happening, which is that they wait for the next weekly planning meeting to report
that the initial agreement was not fulfilled. See Figure 5.
For all the above, we decided to carry out the study in Chile, due to the access to projects through
the Collaborative Group of the Center of Excellence in Production Management (GEPUC), and also
because we found previous studies of LPS in which it has been demonstrated that the incorporation
of more actors in the planning process generates less variability, more reliable promises and higher
productivity [48].
For the creation of the second version of Indicators System, we carried out five key steps,
after having asked ourselves how to measure elements of LAP in real projects, as detailed in
Salazar et al. [36]:

1. Deepen the study of Linguistic Action Perspective and Last Planner® System to generate a
Knowledge Base mainly on Flores [25] and Ballard [47].
2. Identify the main elements of this Perspective that could be quantifiable and applied in LPS,
taking the Indicators 1.0 as reference.
3. Develop Indicators System 2.0 from the improvement of version 1.0 through the Design
Science Research.

326
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

4. Measure the proposed indicators in four construction projects in Chile to evaluate them through
the Environment in a typical construction situation. Researchers recorder analyzed videotapes of
weekly meetings and interviewed participants when necessary to assess each commitment for
each proposed indicator.
5. Validate the proposed Indicators System, comparing with version 1.0, and analyzing the results.

Figure 5. Network or Chain of Commitments with advanced movements.

In this second version of the Indicators System, the authors found deficiencies in functionality
and in its inherent qualities (ease of use) that limited its usefulness in practice [45], given that they
proposed a new set of indicators measured in the field according to the LAP to measure and control the
fundamental aspects of the commitments, requests, promises and foundations of trust [36], by replacing
some of the indicators and adding new ones based on the analysis of four case studies in construction
projects in Santiago, Chile. We quote the results indicated in Salazar et al [36]:

1. Proposal to eliminate indicators:

• The authors proposed not to measure the percentage of verification of the availability of
performers in execution because most of the foremen verify the availability of their workers
after the weekly meeting and in the field huddle, and these indicators are designed to be
measured exclusively in weekly planning meetings.
• We proposed to eliminate the percentage of incomplete requests and promises because it is
confusing to measure it in the field.
• Finally, we proposed to eliminate the percentage of compliance of the performer’s competence
because it is associated with the worker’s curriculum vitae, and it is not possible to measure in
the weekly meeting. It can only be associated with the correct fulfillment of each commitment
or PPC (Percent Plan Complete).
2. Proposal to change the indicators:

• The authors proposed modifying the percentage of declaration of the importance of each
commitment because they consider it more appropriate to use the word “priority,” so the
indicator should be renamed as percentage of declaration of the priority of commitment.
This change is proposed because it is necessary to deepen the conditions of satisfaction of
the most relevant commitments. For more details, see Table 2, which borrows the Indicators
System found in Salazar et al. 2019 [36].
• Further, we proposed modification of the percentage of reliability compliance because
we found a point of confusion in the formula of the indicator regarding the concept of
counteroffers since counteroffers occur in the same meeting, whereas the concept after the
meeting is “renegotiation.” Additionally, we add “cancel” a commitment. See Table 2.
3. Measurement of original indicators:

327
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

• Table 2 shows the average results of the indicators in the four projects measured during three
weeks, which incorporate the changes that we mentioned in version 1.0.
4. Newly proposed indicators:

• Finally, we proposed seven new indicators, which complement version 1.0. See Table 3,
which borrows the Indicators System found in Salazar et al. [36].

This new Indicators System seeks to analyze the management of commitments in weekly planning
meetings, so the measurement frequency is always every seven days. However, it is necessary to hold
at least two weekly meetings to analyze the results, as mentioned in the version 1.0.

2.7. Application in Construction Projects

The strategy for selecting the case studies was based on “information-oriented selection”
to establish “extreme cases/deviations” Flyvbjerg [49]. The units of the analysis were three multi-story
building projects and an extension housing project with the LPS implemented with different degrees of
maturity, in the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, Chile. The number of four projects were determined
according to the recommendation of Hernández et al. [50], who recommend a maximum of eight cases
when a multiple in-depth study is carried out [51], since the survey does not represent a “sample,” as if
an experiment does since it is a validation method.
Regarding the work methodology, the researchers used the “information-oriented selection”
selecting four projects, one for each company, according to the preferences of the managers, recording
availability and the degree of implementation maturity of the Last Planner® System due to the
feasibility of research with construction companies and projects that belong to the Collaborative Group
of GEPUC. As a result, projects with a primary degree of maturity (short-term planning system)
up to projects with an advanced level were obtained (systematic use of an Workable Backlog) [52].
Through video recording of three consecutive weekly planning meetings, the researchers carried out
the LAP in LPS practices survey, analyzing the indicators of the second and third meeting, since the
objective was not to modify the “behavior” of the participants in the studio (we observed “strange”
behavior by the team in the first meeting, probably because they knew they were being videotaped).

2.8. Indicators Validation: Version 2.0

To validate this new Indicators System, the authors measured the application of LAP in four
construction projects, comparing and analyzing the results of version 1.0. We proposed improvements
to the Indicators System: Version 1.0, eliminating indicators (percentage of verification of the availability
of performers in execution, percentage of incomplete requests and promises, and % of compliance
of the performer’s competence) changing indicators (percentage of declaration of the importance
of commitment and percentage of reliability compliance) and proposing new indicators for the
measurement and control of the management of commitments in construction projects. Additionally,
the researchers consulted contractors who participated in the weekly planning meetings about
their perceptions. They stated that these measurements improved the ability to provide reliable
promises since they understood the importance of speech acts, satisfaction conditions and trust in
the management of commitments [36]. In this second version, we created new metrics to make the
percentage compliance network or chain of commitments (four movements for coordination) and
percentage reliability compliance (complementary to PPC) clearer, defining the latter as:

Reliability = PPC + Revoke + Renegotiate + Cancel, (1)

Besides, we added Figure 5 and the results of the indicators: % of revoked commitments,
percentage of renegotiated commitments, and percentage of canceled commitments.

328
Table 2. Results of indicators from the Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner®System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Results General Comments

KPI measures the percentage of • The preparation of the petition is observed

(Number of commitments in which the • There is no negotiation process, but rather an
compliance with the chain of
% of compliance network or 4 movements for coordination are imposition by the client
commitments; that is to say, that the 4 0%
chain of commitments fulfilled)/(Total number of • The declaration of compliance is verified
movements for the coordination are
commitments) × 100 • The declaration of satisfaction is not observed
fulfilled
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

• In general, roles are defined intrinsically: client

% of definition of roles and KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments with defined requests and performers agree. Regarding
responsibilities of the commitments that define roles and roles and responsibilities)/(Total 83% responsibilities, the scope of the commitment is
performers responsibilities of performers number of commitments) × 100 not always clearly established

• In general, in the construction works the

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that fulfilled performer does not commit, the one who
% of fulfillment of roles and
commitments in which the roles and previously defined roles and commits is the head of the performer (foreman)
responsibilities of 15%
responsibilities of previously defined responsibilities)/(Total number of • Performer is engaged in administrative aspects
performers
performers are met completed commitments) × 100 (management team)

• In general, the priority of the commitments is

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments declaring not declared. This does not allow the foremen
% of declaration of the
commitments that declare the priority priority)/(Total number of 10%

329
priority of commitment to carry out an adequate planning regarding the
(importance) of this, explicitly commitments) × 100 execution order of the assumed commitments

• The few commitments that were declared a

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of priority commitments priority were completed. The foregoing
% of compliance with
commitments that were declared fulfilled)/(Total number of priority 100% demonstrates the importance of making the
priority commitments
priority and that are effectively met commitments) × 100 priority statement

Measurement and Control of Commitments

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that verify • There is a low percentage of verification of the
% of verification of
commitments that verify the availability availability of performers in availability of performers in the stage of
availability of performers in 18%
of performers in the negotiation stage agreements)/(Total number of negotiation and agreements
agreements
and agreements commitments) × 100
Table 2. Cont.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Results General Comments

(Number of commitments that specify • In general, only the date is specified, but it is
KPI measures the percentage of not scheduled in detail, or if it will be
% of specified deadlines the deadline)/(Total number of 10%
commitments that specify the deadline completed in the morning or in the afternoon
commitments) × 100

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments that make • Low percentage in weekly meetings

+ M. and C. PP
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

% of unnecessary requests commitments that make unnecessary unnecessary requests)/(Total number of 3% • According to the workers, the foremen often
requests commitments) × 100 make unnecessary requests on the field

• It must always be a percentage equal to or

KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments fulfilled + greater than the PPC
% of reliability compliance commitments where the performer is number of commitments revoked + • Complements the PPC with additional
81%
(complementary to PPC) able to perform reliably and timely in number of counteroffers)/(Total number movements, which happen after the
the required domain of commitments) × 100 initial agreement

• High degree of participation (only 10% left

the meeting)
• No meeting started at the agreed time
• A lot of interaction with the cell phone during
the meeting (calls, chat and e-mail)

330
(Number of participants engaged to the • Interruptions by radio
KPI measures the percentage of meeting
% of engaged participants meeting)/(Total number of attendees) × 48% • In some moments two or more people spoke at
participants who are engaged in it
100 the same time
• 60% of the team takes note (everyone should
take note)
• Non-verbal language indicates fatigue and lack
of attention

Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust

Table 2. Borrows the Indicators System 2.0 found in Salazar et al. 2019 [36]. + M. and C. PP: Measurement and Control of Petitions and Promises.
Table 3. Results of new indicators from the Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner®System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Results General Comments

KPI measures the compliance (Number of commitments in which the • Client is clear about the request (what) and to
% of fulfillment of a request percentage of the first movement; petition is prepared)/(Total number of 100% whom it will be entrusted (performer)
preparation of a request by the client commitments) × 100

• In general, there is no negotiation before the

(Number of commitments in which a
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

KPI measures the compliance agreement. The performer assumes the order
% of compliance negotiation negotiation and agreement is established by the client. Sometimes he does
percentage of the second movement; 20%
and agreements made)/(Total number of commitments) not answer if he can or cannot comply with
negotiation and agreements
× 100 the agreement

• It is verified by questions to clients and

KPI measures the percentage performers before the weekly meeting that
% of declaration of compliance of the third movement; (Number of commitments in which there is a high percentage of declarations of
compliance with the execution and declaration of compliance is declared)/(Total number 78% compliance with the commitments. However,
commitment compliance with the commitment by of commitments completed) × 100 there are performers who do not inform clients
the performer that they finished with the assigned task

• There is a low percentage of commitments in

331
KPI measures the percentage of (Number of commitments in which which satisfaction is declared by the client. In

Measurement and Control of Commitments

% of fulfillment declaration compliance of the fourth movement; satisfaction is accepted and general, it is only indicated if the commitment
5%
of satisfaction acceptance and declaration of declared)/(Total number of is fulfilled or not, without giving feedback to
satisfaction by the client commitments completed) × 100 the performer

(Number of commitments • Minor percentage of commitments are revoked

KPI measures the percentage of
% of revoked commitments revoked)/(Total number of 4% after the weekly meeting
commitments revoked
commitments) × 100

(Number of renegotiated • Practically no renegotiation of commitments

% of renegotiated KPI measures the percentage of
commitments)/(Total number of 2% after the weekly meeting
commitments renegotiated commitments
commitments) × 100

++ M. and C. FT
(Number of canceled • Practically no cancellation of commitments
KPI measures the percentage of
% of canceled commitments commitments)/(Total number of 1% after the weekly meeting
canceled commitments
commitments) × 100

Table 3. Borrows the Indicators System 2.0 found in Salazar et al. 2019 [36]. ++ M. and C. FT: Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

Finally, we conclude that this second generation of key indicators measured in the field (eliminating,
changing and proposing the Indicators System from the first generation) generate a powerful tool to
measure, control and improve the management of commitments in weekly planning meetings since
they enable quick feedback that undoubtedly enriches the Last Planner® System [36].

2.9. Creation of Indicators: Final Version

After the publication of the Indicators System: Version 2.0, the authors decided to carry out the
last iteration to achieve continuous improvement (Kaizen) and analyze the feasibility of application in
another context, thus determining the scope of this artifact.
Ergo, we measured these indicators in two new projects in Santiago, Chile, thanks to the
Collaborative Group of GEPUC and two projects in Bogotá, Colombia, thanks to the Engineering and
Construction Management Research Group (INGECO).
For the creation of the final version of the Indicators System, we carried out five key steps,
after having asked ourselves: Is it applicable in other countries?

1. Deepen the analysis of the implementation of the Last Planner® System and the Linguistic Action
Perspective to generate a Knowledge Base.
2. Identify the key elements of this Perspective and which ones are redundant, taking the Indicators
of version 2.0 as a reference.
3. Develop Indicators System 3.0 from the improvements of version 2.0 through the Design
Science Research.
4. Measure the proposed indicators in four construction projects, two in Chile (a project of 24 houses
and 22-story building) and two in Colombia (a 21-story building and a 23-story building),
to evaluate them through the different construction Environment. For the above, the authors
recorded and then analyzed videotapes of weekly meetings and interviewed participants when
necessary to evaluate each commitment for each proposed indicator.
5. Validate the proposed Indicators System, comparing with version 2.0, and analyzing the results.

In this version, the authors found limitations in functionality and in its inherent qualities (ease of
use) in practice [45] that must be optimized, so we propose the elimination of some of the indicators
and the expansion of others based on the analysis of the four construction projects in Chile (2) and
Colombia (2), which carry out weekly meetings using LPS.
This field test led to the following changes:

1. Proposal to eliminate indicators:

• The authors propose not to measure the percentage of definition of roles and responsibilities
of the performers because we realized that the roles (Who) are intrinsically established in
the LPS weekly meeting structure. Concerning the responsibilities (What), this should be
part of the correct fulfillment of the request, so it is incorporated into the % of fulfillment of
a request.
• Plus, we propose to eliminate the percentage of fulfillment of roles and responsibilities
of performers, where the performer and not another one fulfills the promise and declares
compliance to the client, because it is not possible to measure it directly. In general,
in construction works, the performer does not commit, the one who commits is the head of
the performer (foreman) [36].
• Finally, we propose to eliminate the percentage of verification of the availability of performers
in agreements because this verification should be carried out in the stage of negotiation and
agreements. The client must request the agenda of the executor (workers) form the foreman.
Therefore, it is incorporated into percentage of compliance negotiations and agreements.
2. Proposal to expand indicators:

332
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

• The authors propose to clarify the indicator percentage of engaged participants, providing
that in the previous publications it was not defined precisely what would be considered
as “engaged.” Thence, we want to mention the key aspects to consider in this indicator,
participants must:

Arrive on time (maximum 5 min late);

Avoid interaction with the cell phone (do not check, speak or ring the cell phone);
Remain in the room;
Avoid interacting with a walkie-talkie (not talking, hopefully off or at a volume that
does not interrupt others);
Intervene in the meeting;
Take notes;
Look at the person who is speaking.

To see the final proposal of Indicators System to analyze the management of commitments in
weekly planning meetings, see Table 4, while to measure the percentage of engaged participants,
see checklist in Appendix A.

2.10. Application in Another Country

The units of the analysis were three multi-story building projects and an extension housing
project with the LPS implemented with different degrees of maturity, in different countries, Chile and
Colombia. We determined four projects according to the recommendation of Hernández et al. [36,50].
We used the work methodology based on the “information-oriented selection,” selecting four projects,
one for each company, according to the agreements established with the managers, availability of
recording, and the degree of implementation maturity of Last Planner® System, as in version 2.0.
To measure the proposed indicator system, the principal investigator attended and videotaped three
consecutive weekly planning meetings. In these meetings, the people who participated were the last
planners, whose positions range from construction managers to foremen. We had a variable participation
in each meeting: minimum 13, maximum 43 and an average of 25 participants. The researcher took
notes of the meeting through the checklist (see in Appendix A) to measure the percentage of engaged
participants and note down what was observed during the meeting, such as observations regarding the
implementation of the room, topics discussed, adequate space, visual management, observed moods,
among other comments that allowed feedback to the leaders and thus improve the implementation of
LPS and LAP like a synergy. As well, after the meeting, the researchers analyzed the videos to complete
the system of indicators, based on the means of verification and the proposed formula. For example,
to determine the percentage of specified deadlines, according to the means of verification the number
of commitments that specify the deadline are those in which date and time are set (AM, PM); For that
reason, it is necessary to determine the number of commitments that meet the above, divide it by the
total number of commitments and multiply it by 100, to obtain the result (see Table 4).

333
Table 4. Key Indicators for Linguistic Action Perspective in the Last Planner®System.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

KPI measures the percentage of compliance
(Number of commitments in which the 4
% of compliance network or chain of with the chain of commitments; that is to say, That the 4 movements for coordination are
movements for coordination are
commitments that the 4 movements for the coordination are fulfilled
fulfilled)/(Total number of commitments) × 100
fulfilled
To determine that the petition was prepared, it
must be verified that the following are
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

established:
KPI measures the compliance percentage of the (Number of commitments in which the petition
% of fulfillment of a request first movement; preparation of a request by the is prepared)/(Total number of commitments) × • Roles (Who): Client and Performer
client 100 • Responsibilities (What): Definition of the
promise of which the performer
takes charge

- There must be an agreement and not an

(Number of commitments in which a imposition by the client (Conversations for action
KPI measures the compliance percentage of the
% of compliance negotiation and agreements negotiation and agreement is made)/(Total are generated)
second movement; negotiation and agreements
number of commitments) × 100 - In addition, the client must consult the
executor’s (workers) agenda with the foreman
KPI measures the percentage compliance of the - Performers execute and inform clients that they
(Number of commitments in which compliance
% of declarations of compliance with the third movement; execution and declaration of are done with the assigned task (immediately) in
is declared)/(Total number of commitments
commitment compliance with the commitment by the the field huddle

334
completed) × 100
performer - Verification is done at the next weekly meeting

Measurement and Control of Commitments

KPI measures the percentage of compliance of (Number of commitments in which satisfaction - Client verifies compliance and reports if the
% of fulfillment declaration of satisfaction the fourth movement; acceptance and is accepted and declared)/(Total number of commitment is satisfactory in the field huddle
declaration of satisfaction by the client commitments completed) × 100 - Verification is done at the next weekly meeting
KPI measures the percentage of commitments Declare the priority (importance) of commitment
(Number of commitments declaring
% of declaration of the priority of commitment that declare the priority (importance) of this, in the first two movements: Request or
priority)/(Total number of commitments) × 100
explicitly Negotiation and agreements
KPI measures the percentage of commitments (Number of priority commitments
Review of priority commitment agreed at the
% of compliance with priority commitments that were declared priority and that are fulfilled)/(Total number of priority
previous weekly meeting
effectively met commitments) × 100
Table 4. Cont.

Aim Measure Name Description Formula Means of Verification

(Number of commitments that specify the
KPI measures the percentage of commitments
% of specified deadlines deadline)/(Total number of commitments) × Specific deadline: date and time (AM, PM)
that specify the deadline
100
When the client declares that the deadline
(Number of commitments that make specified in the request does not correspond to
KPI measures the percentage of commitments
% of unnecessary requests unnecessary requests)/(Total number of the last responsible moment and/or requested

+ M. and C. PP
that make unnecessary requests
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

commitments) × 100 something that was not necessary (does not add
value)
(Number of commitments fulfilled + number
Indicator is the sum expressed in the formula.
KPI measures the percentage of commitments of commitments revoked + number of
% of reliability compliance (complementary to It is essential to measure it because it provides a
where the performer is able to perform reliably renegotiations + number of commitments
PPC) higher degree of reliability than the current PPC
and timely in the required domain canceled)/(Total number of commitments) ×
(Percent Plan Complete)
100
Performer informs the client immediately after
KPI measures the percentage of commitments (Number of commitments revoked)/(Total
% of revoked commitments the meeting (ASAP) that he will not be able to
revoked number of commitments) × 100
fulfill his commitments
Client and/or performer wishes to change the
KPI measures the percentage of renegotiated (Number of renegotiated commitments)/(Total satisfaction conditions immediately after the
% of renegotiated commitments
commitments number of commitments) × 100 meeting, a new agreement is generated in the
field huddle (between weekly meetings)

335
Client informs the performer immediately after
KPI measures the percentage of canceled (Number of canceled commitments)/(Total
% of canceled commitments the meeting (ASAP) that the commitment made
commitments number of commitments) × 100
is no longer necessary
- Participants must arrive on time (max 5 min
late)
- Avoid interaction with the cell phone and
KPI measures the percentage of meeting (Number of participants engaged to the walkie-talkie

Measurement and Control of Fundamentals of Trust

% of engaged participants
participants who are engaged to it meeting)/(Total number of attendees) × 100 - Remain in the room and intervene in the
meeting
- Take notes and look at the person who is
speaking
Table 4. Own elaboration, based on Salazar et al [24,36]. + M. and C. PP: Measurement and Control of Petitions and Promises.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

As we did with Version 2.0, the researchers presented the average results of the indicators
measured during the three weeks, this time in a list and not in a table:

• 25% of compliance network or chain of commitments: (1) The preparation of the petition is
observed. (2) Although a negotiation process is observed, it must be improved. (3) There is
a declaration of compliance although it must be measured in the field. (4) The declaration of
satisfaction must be worked out by the team.
• 93% of fulfillment of a request: In general, roles are defined intrinsically: client requests
and performers agree. Regarding responsibilities, the scope of the commitment is not always
clearly established.
• 55% of compliance negotiation and agreements: The generation of agreements must be
strengthened and the imposition by the client avoided. Currently, the performer assumes
the order established by the client. We did not delve into the fact that the client must consult the
executor’s (workers) agenda with the foreman.
• 66% of declarations of compliance with the commitment: Before each weekly meeting,
the investigators verified that there was a considerable percentage of declaration of compliance
with commitments, through several questions to the clients and performers. However, there were
performers who did not inform clients that they had finished with the assigned task.
• 48% of fulfillment declaration of satisfaction: We consider that work should be done on this
indicator, since we observed that in general, it only indicated if the commitment was fulfilled or
not, without giving feedback to the performer.
• 6% of declaration of the priority of commitment: In general, the priority of the commitments
was not declared. This must be worked on to allow the foremen to carry out adequate planning
regarding the order of execution of the assumed commitments.
• 20% of compliance with priority commitments: We consider this result exceptional because it is
very important to comply with the commitments declared as priorities. In this case, what happened
was that a contractor did not comply with the commitments, despite the fact that they had been
informed as priorities (a contractor who presented delays throughout the project and had problems
with the management). It is very important to note that we expect this percentage to always be
close to 100%.
• 66% of specified deadlines: In general, only the date is specified, but not if it will be completed in
the morning or in the afternoon.
• 0% of unnecessary requests: No unnecessary requests on the meetings. According to the workers,
the foremen often make unnecessary requests on the field.
• 68% of reliability compliance: This indicator complements the PPC with additional movements,
which occur after the initial deal. In this case we consider that there is important room
for improvement.
• 0% of revoked commitments: No commitments revoked after the weekly meetings.
• 1% of renegotiated commitments: Practically no renegotiation of commitments after the
weekly meetings.
• 0% of canceled commitments: No commitments cancelled after the weekly meetings.
• 61% of engaged participants: Regarding this indicator, we can detail by the average percentages
obtained with the Check List—Meeting participants (see Appendix A): 75% of the participants
arrived on time, 18% checked the cell phone, 2% of them had their walkie-talkie make sounds,
19% left the meeting room, 22% did not intervene, 50% made notes and 100% looked at the person
who was speaking.

2.11. Indicators Validation: Final Version

This final version of indicators was validated by applying this LAP in LPS Indicator System in
four construction projects, two in Chile and two in Colombia. Comparing and analyzing the results

336
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

of version 2.0, proposing improvements to this system in order to achieve a refined system of key
indicators of LAP in LPS.
Whence, we eliminated an indicator that could not be measured directly in the weekly meeting,
percentage of fulfillment of roles and responsibilities of performers. We mix two indicators:
(1) percentage of definition of roles and responsibilities of the performers, and (2) % of verification of
the availability of performers in agreements; Because the first can be measured in % of fulfillment of a
request, and the second can be measured in percentage of compliance negotiations and agreements.
As well, we explained in detail the indicator percentage of engaged participants, because we consider
that it was not evident in the previous versions and we consider it fundamental for the improvement of
LAP. Finally, we want to mention that this Indicators System has metrics with the high expected value
and low expected value; In other words, it is desirable that most indicators have high values (close to
100%, for example, percentage of compliance network or chain of commitments). In contrast, only some
indicators like % of declaration of the priority of commitment, percentage of unnecessary requests,
percentage of revoked commitments, percentage of renegotiated commitments, and percentage of
canceled commitments, should have low values (close to 0%).
We decided to incorporate only the average results obtained during the three weeks, because the
objective was to improve the proposed Indicators System through the optimization in the measurement
and means of verification of each indicator. It is relevant to mention that we did not observe differences
in the measurement system, but we did in the organizational culture (sociocultural of both countries),
which will be analyzed in another document.

3. Analysis of Results
According to the parsimony of theory; that is, the number of constructions and statements that it
requires to achieve its explanatory power [53], we have developed this “artifact” (Indicators System)
trying to increase the explanatory power, but with fewer constructions or statements to contribute to
the theoretical investigation (optimization).
The main criterion for this new contribution to Applied Science/Engineering (AS/E) knowledge is
its practical utility. Because this artifact not only contributes theoretically but it is an AS/E contribution
because it is original, generalizable, and validated [46]. Originality can be established by comparing
contributions to state of the art, while a generalization can be established through the demonstration of
the applicability of the artifact to a variety of contexts (different projects in different countries); in the
end, the validity may be justified by the evaluation of the results (comparison of the three versions
of indicators) [54]. Thus, researchers have reinforced efforts to justify these elements, including pilot
tests in natural environments [55] (Villego® Simulation, projects in Chile and projects in Colombia),
expert evaluations (including the creator of LPS) and feedback provided by the scientific community
(two IGLC conferences).
Else, all DSR activities have been carried out to make these findings scientifically rigorous,
meaning that there is no need for a separate Rigor Cycle [46] since all DSR activities have the potential
to contribute to the Knowledge Base (theoretical contribution). Finally, since stakeholders participated
in all DSR activities, we established a constant interaction with the Environment.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comments on the Results Obtained

We consider that our scientific research design was framed in a precise application context that
not only managed to provide the requirements for the research (opportunity and/or problems) but also
defined the acceptance criteria for the final evaluation of the results of the investigation [45].
Furthermore, through the DSR methodology, we demonstrated the usefulness of the proposed
Indicators System, measuring and controlling the management of commitments in different

337
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

situations: simulation with students, construction projects in a country, different construction projects
(extension and height) and in different countries.
Through the effort made in the indicator design process (42 iterations in total, creation of
two preliminary versions and a final proposal), we were able to meet the initial objective of this
research, in terms of responding to the need to measure the elements of LAP, to control and improve
the management of commitments in the weekly LPS meetings, and thus give the kick-off to the
development of an LPS 2.0 that focuses on the social dimension (people).

4.2. Lessons Learned from the Methodology Used

The authors consider that the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology used was adequate
because it allowed us to solve the problem of measuring and controlling the management of
commitments in different situations, managing to produce an Indicators System (artifact) reliable (tested)
as an outcome. For us, it was essential to use the updated model proposed by Briggs and Schwabe [46],
since our study phenomenon varies according to time, contexts and conditions of application; for the
same reason, we carry out a constant iteration applying Kaizen (continuous improvement) in each of
the versions, based on the relevance cycle between discovery and design activities, and the design
cycle between design and validation activities, always considering the knowledge base as the central
axis of the research.
We believe that the five main activities that we proposed and developed applying the DSR method,
are a contribution to the knowledge and updating of this method in constant evolution and not yet
fully understood by the entire scientific community. Furthermore, we believe it is necessary to mention
that as we implemented each system in new scenarios, we obtained more feedback, achieving an
increasingly optimal result, although not perfect.
At the end of our research, we realized, thanks to the feedback from other researchers, that the
process of having to analyze our indicators through video recording was a very slow and inefficient
process, except for the “% of engaged participants” that we had already resolved with our checklist
proposal. So we decided to propose a first version of a “Notebook for Last Planners” (see Appendix B)
that allows the same last planners to write down their commitments and fill in the necessary data to
directly measure seven of our indicators percentage of compliance network or chain of commitments,
percentage of fulfillment of a request, percentage of compliance negotiation and agreements, percentage
of declaration of compliance with the commitment, percentage of fulfillment declaration of satisfaction,
% percentage of declaration of the priority of commitment and percentage of specified deadlines) and
indirectly 2 of our indicators (percentage of compliance with priority commitments and percentage of
unnecessary requests), leaving only the indicator pending “% of reliability compliance” (and the metrics
that depend on it: percentage of revoked commitments, percentage of renegotiated commitments
and percentage of canceled commitments) since as these actions occur in the third movement of
“Execution and declaration of compliance” in the field huddle. It is recommended that it is discussed
openly in the meeting where the PPC and the Reason for Missed Commitment (RMC) of the previous
week are analyzed.

4.3. Scope of the Research

With respect to the scope of the proposed artifact, we can mention that it has already been
validated in Villego® Simulation, in extension and height construction projects in Chile, and in height
projects in Colombia that used LPS. Therefore, we consider that it could be generalizable to this type of
construction projects all over the world since the culture may be different and the degree of maturity of
LPS as well, but the methodology should be the same unless LPS is not implemented correctly.
Moreover, the research was focused on creating this Indicators System for projects that had LPS
implemented and thus optimizing it. Still, we consider that adapting the indicators, according to
the Linguistic Action Perspective, could measure and control aspects of commitment management
in any construction project, without necessarily having LPS implemented, having as a requirement

338
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

that the project has a formal meeting structure (ideally weekly) and that this meeting is based on the
management of commitments and planning activities. According to the experience of the researchers,
this system should not be applied in technical meetings, where work problems are solved without a
defined structure, since we tried to measure in these types of meetings and it was very confusing to
know who committed. Since even if solutions were given, the person in charge or the deadline was
not specified.
As a result, the entire community linked to the construction industry is invited to use the proposed
indicators to compare with the “location dimension” (Flyvbjerg 2006). The differences and similarities
among different projects around the world, with the objective of determining the effect of the culture
of the people and organization in the management of commitments and the general performance of
construction projects. Because a theory is more useful if it explains more variations in a phenomenon
in more contexts.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Summary
In 2001, Ballard and Howell, creators of LPS, raised a link between the Last Planner® System and
Linguistic Action Perspective. However, to date, a system of quantitative instruments or methodologies
had not been developed to carry out adequate management of the commitments.
Consequently, the authors wanted to respond to the need of measuring the main elements of LAP,
in order to control and improve the management of commitments in the weekly LPS meetings, and thus
contribute to the development of an LPS 2.0 that focuses its attention on the social dimension (people) in
the context of Lean Construction, creating an Indicators System to measure and control commitments,
requirements, promises, and reliability, through the Design Science Research methodology.
The authors used the Design Science Research (DSR) because this method manages to solve
practical problems and produce artifacts as results, thus solving problems found in the real world,
and in this way it also contributes theoretically in the discipline in which it is applied. Hence closing
the gaps among the contextual environment of the research project (people, organizational systems,
technical systems, problems and opportunities), design science research (artifacts and processes) and
the knowledge base of scientific foundations (scientific theories, methods, experience and expertise),
iterating between the activities of construction and evaluation of research design artifacts and processes.

5.2. Contributions
The main contributions of this document are: on the one hand, the proposal of five main activities
where the DSR method can be applied, which allowed us to carry out an artifact (indicators system),
managing to update this research method, which is continuously evolving, but unfortunately still is
not fully understood by the entire scientific community.
Otherwise, we developed a checklist to analyze the engagement of meeting participants, a proposal
of notebook for last planners, to simplify the measurement of this Indicators System, ergo avoiding
the use of video recordings that require the informed consent of the participants and that can often
be invasive.
Additionally, we delved into the Linguistic Action Perspective by creating a figure that details the
variations that can occur to basic movements, which do not decrease reliability but increase it. It is
important to note that these additional movements in the execution phase (revocation, renegotiation
and cancellation of commitments) must be carried out as soon as possible after the commitment is
established (once the meeting is over) because if the last planner notifies the client that the commitment
will not be fulfilled one day before the meeting, it is no longer considered reliable.
Finally, our main contribution is the creation of an Indicators System that allows to measure and
control the main aspects of Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner® System, updating the PPC

339
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

(Percent Plan Complete) with an updated indicator of Reliability (PPC + Revoke + Renegotiate +
Cancel) and a detail of the indicators of engagement of meeting participants.

5.3. Limitations
The main limitations of this research are in two main aspects. The first aspect is that the Indicators
System was validated only in projects that had the Last Planner® System implemented, which implies
that they are not validated nor are they completely suitable for construction projects that do not have
LPS implemented. However, we believe that they can be adapted. The second aspect is that the
Indicators System was only validated in two South American countries, which could mean that it is
not generalizable to everyone. Still, because LPS has a defined implementation methodology, if it is
correctly implemented, differences in the result of the indicators according to the socio-cultural aspects
of each country will probably be found. Still, the measurement and verification system should be
the same.
At last, this Indicators System seeks to analyze the management of commitments in weekly
planning meetings, so the measurement frequency was always every seven days. Nonetheless, it is
necessary to hold at least two weekly meetings to analyze the results, since the first two movements
will be seen in the first meeting: (1) preparation of a request and (2) negotiation and agreements; and in
the second meeting, the last two: (3) execution and declaration of compliance and (4) acceptance and
declaration of satisfaction.

5.4. Future Research

The authors see an opportunity to carry out case studies in different types of construction projects
and different countries, to carry out a management benchmarking of project commitments with this
new Indicators System, measuring and comparing different indicators of planning, production, term,
cost, productivity, quality and safety of works, among others.
As well, in future studies, the authors propose to apply case studies in weekly planning meetings
in other industries worldwide and to determine the recommended values to improve communication
and achieve the proper implementation of LAP with LPS and without LPS (other planning systems).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.A.S.; methodology, L.A.S.; validation, L.A.S.; formal analysis,
L.A.S.; investigation, L.A.S.; resources, L.A.S.; data curation, L.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.A.S.;
writing—review and editing, P.A. and L.F.A.; visualization, L.A.S.; supervision, P.A. and L.F.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Luis A. Salazar acknowledges the financial support for his PhD studies from the Scholarship Programme
of National Agency for Research and Development of Chile (ANID-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2016-21160819).
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank GEPUC and INGECO for their support in this research and all the
organizations that participated in this study, as well as the experts for the insight provided.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

340
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

Appendix A

Figure A1. Checklist to analyze engagement of meeting participants.

341
Appendix B

127(%22.)25/$673/$11(56
1DPH 0HDVXUHPHQWVWDUWGDWH BBBBBBBB 0HDVXUHPHQWHQGGDWH BBBBBBBB
3RVLWLRQ 9HU\ORZ /RZ 0HDQ +LJK 9HU\+LJK
6\PERORJ\
&RPSDQ\ ::HOO 11RUPDO 33RRU
:HHN :HHN
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

&ODULW\LQ 1HJRWLDWLRQ 'HFODUDWLRQ 'HFODUDWLRQ

'D\$0 7DVN &RPPHQWV
:KRDVNVIRULW $FWLYLW\DQGRU7DVN 6HFWRU WKH3HWLWLRQ DQG 33& RI RI
RU30 3ULRULW\ &RPSOHWHG &1&
UHTXHVW $JUHHPHQW FRPSLDQFH VDWLVIDFWLRQ
1DPHDQGRU 'RHVLW
:13 :13 <HV1R <HV1R
3RVLWLRQ FRPSO\"
7XHVGD\
$GPLQLVWUDWRU )ORRUVODELQVWDOODWLRQ 4XDGUDQW$DQG% : 1 12 <(6 12 EODEODEOD
$0

342
:HHN :HHN
&ODULW\LQ 1HJRWLDWLRQ 'HFODUDWLRQ 'HFODUDWLRQ
'D\$0 7DVN &RPPHQWV
:KRDVNVIRULW $FWLYLW\DQGRU7DVN 6HFWRU WKH3HWLWLRQ DQG 33& RI RI
RU30 3ULRULW\ &RPSOHWHG &1&
UHTXHVW $JUHHPHQW FRPSLDQFH VDWLVIDFWLRQ
1DPHDQGRU 'RHVLW
:13 :13 <HV1R <HV1R
3RVLWLRQ FRPSO\"

Figure A2. Proposal of Notebook for Last Planners.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

References
1. Koskela, L. An Exploration towards a Production Theory and its Application to Construction; Helsinki University
of Technology: Espoo, Finland, 2000.
2. Kapelko, M.; Abbott, M. Productivity Growth and Business Cycles: Case Study of the Spanish Construction
Industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 05016026. [CrossRef]
3. World Economic Forum Shaping the Future of Construction: A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology.
Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Shaping_the_Future_of_Construction_full_report__.
pdf (accessed on 16 October 2020).
4. González, V.; Alarcón, L.F.; Maturana, S.; Mundaca, F.; Bustamante, J. Improving planning reliability and
project performance using the reliable commitment model. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 1129–1139.
[CrossRef]
5. Womack, J.P.; Jones, D.T. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation; Free Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2003.
6. Koskela, L. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction; Stanford University:
Stanford, CA, USA, 1992; Volume 72.
7. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University:
Oxford, UK, 1987; ISBN 9780192820808.
8. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Goal 12. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/
goals/goal12 (accessed on 14 October 2020).
9. Arroyo, P.; Tommelein, I.D.; Ballard, G. Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Select
Sustainable Alternatives in the AEC Industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable
Design, Engineering, and Construction 2012, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 7–9 November 2012; pp. 869–876.
10. Tasdemir, C.; Gazo, R. A Systematic Literature Review for Better Understanding of Lean Driven Sustainability.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2544. [CrossRef]
11. de Carvalho, A.; Granja, A.; da Silva, V. A Systematic Literature Review on Integrative Lean and Sustainability
Synergies over a Building’s Lifecycle. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1156. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, B.; Niu, Z.; Liu, C. Lean Tools, Knowledge Management, and Lean Sustainability: The Moderating
Effects of Study Conventions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 956. [CrossRef]
13. Salem, O.; Solomon, J.; Genaidy, A.; Minkarah, I. Lean construction: From theory to implementation.
J. Manag. Eng. 2006, 22, 168–175. [CrossRef]
14. Ballard, G.; Howell, G.A. Toward construction JIT. In Lean Construction; Alarcón, L., Ed.; Balkema Publishers:
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 291–300. ISBN 9054106484.
15. Ballard, G.; Howell, G.A. An Update on Last Planner. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2003; pp. 1–13.
16. Daniel, E.I.; Pasquire, C.; Dickens, G. Exploring the implementation of the last planner® system through iglc
community: Twenty one years of experience. In Proceedings of the IGLC 23rd Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Perth, Australia, 29–31 July 2015; pp. 153–162.
17. Ballard, G. The Last Planner. In Proceedings of the Northern California Construction Institute Spring
Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 26–28 July 1994.
18. Ballard, G.; Tommelein, I. Current Process Benchmark for the Last Planner(R) System. Lean Constr. J. 2016,
89, 57–89.
19. Goldratt, E.M.; Cox, J. La meta, un Proceso de Mejora Continua; Ediciones Granica, S.A., Ed.; Tercera: Mexico,
2013; ISBN 9789506418069.
20. O’Brien, W.J.; Formoso, C.T.; Vrijhoef, R.; London, K.A. Construction Supply Chain Management Handbook;
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008.
21. Alves, T.C.L.; Tommelein, I.D. Buffering and batching practices in the HVAC industry. In Proceedings of the
11th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Blacksburg, VA, USA,
22–24 July 2003.
22. Rodríguez, A.D.; Alarcón, L.F.; Pellicer, E. La gestión de la obra desde la perspectiva del último planificador.
Rev. Obras Públicas 2011, 158, 35–44.

343
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

23. Howell, G.A.; Macomber, H.; Koskela, L.; Draper, J. Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Shift
from Fayol to Flores. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Helsingør, Denmark, 3–5 August 2004.
24. Salazar, L.A.; Ballard, G.; Arroyo, P.; Alarcón, L.F. Indicators for Observing Elements of Linguistic Action
Perspective in Last Planner® System. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International.
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Chennai, India, 18–20 July 2018; pp. 402–411.
25. Flores, F. Conversaciones Para la Acción: Inculcando una Cultura de Compromiso en Nuestras Relaciones de Trabajo
(Conversations for Action and Collected Essays: Instilling a Culture of Commitment in Working Relationships);
Flores, M., Ed.; Primera; Lemoine Editores: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015; ISBN 978-958-98664-9-8.
26. Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1975;
ISBN 9780198245537.
27. Searle, J.R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
1969; Volume 626.
28. Searle, J.R. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts; University Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1975;
Volume 7, pp. 344–369.
29. Shahhoseiny, H. Differences between language and linguistic in the ELT classroom. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud.
2013, 3, 2234–2239. [CrossRef]
30. Isatto, E.L.; Azambuja, M.; Formoso, C.T. The Role of Commitments in the Management of Construction
Make-to-Order Supply Chains. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014053. [CrossRef]
31. Viana, D.D.; Formoso, C.T.; Isatto, E.L. Understanding the theory behind the Last Planner System using the
Language-Action Perspective: Two case studies. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 177–189. [CrossRef]
32. Zegarra, O.; Alarcon, L.F. Variability propagation in the production planning and control mechanism of
construction projects. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 707–726. [CrossRef]
33. Macomber, H.; Howell, G.A. Linguistic Action: Contributing to the theory of lean construction. In Proceedings
of the 11th Annual Meeting of the International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA,
22–24 July 2003.
34. Viana, D.D.; Formoso, C.T.; Isatto, E.L. Modelling the network of commitments in the last planner
system. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Lean Construction Institute, Lima, Peru, 13–15 July 2011; Volume 2011.
35. Vrijhoef, R.; Koskela, L.; Howell, G.A. Understanding construction supply chains: An alternative
interpretation. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
Singapore, 6–8 August 2001; pp. 1–15.
36. Salazar, L.A.; Retamal, F.; Ballard, G.; Arroyo, P.; Alarcón, L.F. Results of indicators from the Linguistic Action
Perspective in the Last Planner(r) System. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, 3–5 July 2019; pp. 1241–1250.
37. Nunes, M.; Abreu, A. Applying Social Network Analysis to Identify Project Critical Success Factors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1503. [CrossRef]
38. Winograd, T.; Flores, F. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design; Intellect Books:
Bristol, UK, 1986.
39. Francis, A.; Thomas, A. Exploring the relationship between lean construction and environmental sustainability:
A review of existing literature to decipher broader dimensions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119913. [CrossRef]
40. Zarta Ávila, P. La sustentabilidad o sostenibilidad: Un concepto poderoso para la humanidad. Tabula Rasa
2018, 28, 409–423. [CrossRef]
41. Arroyo, P.; Gonzalez, V. Rethinking Waste Definition to Account for Environmental and Social Impacts.
In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Boston,
MA, USA, 20–22 July 2016.
42. Holmström, J.; Ketokivi, M.; Hameri, A.-P. Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach.
Decis. Sci. 2009, 40, 65–87. [CrossRef]
43. Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.A.; Chatterjee, S. A Design Science Research Methodology for
Information Systems Research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 45–77. [CrossRef]
44. Lukka, K. The constructive research approach. In Case Study Research in Logistics; Ojala, L., Hilmola, O.-P., Eds.;
Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration: Turku, Finland, 2003; pp. 83–101.
45. Hevner, A. A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 19, 87–92.

344
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8728

46. Briggs, R.O.; Schwabe, G. On Expanding the Scope of Design Science in IS Research. In Proceedings of the
Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 5–6 May 2011; Jain, H., Sinha, A.P.,
Vitharana, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 92–106.
47. Ballard, H.G. The Last Planner System of Production Control. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK, 2000.
48. Alarcón, L.F.; Diethelm, S.; Rojo, Ó. Collaborative implementation of lean planning systems in Chilean
construction companies. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Gramado, Brazil, 6–8 August 2002.
49. Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [CrossRef]
50. Hernandez Sampieri, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Capítulo 4. Estudios de caso (Centro de recursos
en línea). In Metodología de la Investigación; 2014; p. 31. ISBN 9781456223960. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308385754_Robert_K_Yin_2014_Case_Study_Research_Design_
and_Methods_5th_ed_Thousand_Oaks_CA_Sage_282_pages (accessed on 15 October 2020).
51. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. In Applied Social Research Methods, 3rd ed.; SAGE:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; Volume 5.
52. Lagos, C.; Salazar, L.A.; Alarcón, L.F. Análisis de la relación entre el nivel de implementación de Last Planner
System(R) y el desempeño de proyectos de construcción. In Proceedings of the 1er Congreso Latinoamericano
de Ingeniería, Entre Ríos, Argentina, 13–15 September 2017.
53. Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; ISSR library Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780415278447.
54. Frank, U. Die Konstruktion möglicher Welten als Chance und Herausforderung der Wirtschaftsinformatik.
In Wissenschaftstheorie und Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik; Physica-Verlag HD: Heidleburg,
Germany, 2009; pp. 161–173. [CrossRef]
55. Schwabe, G.; Krcmar, H. Piloting a SocioTechnical Innovation. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference
on Information Systems ECIS, Wienna, Austria, 3–5 July 2000; pp. 132–139.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

345
sustainability

Article
Sensitivity Analysis in Probabilistic Structural
Design: A Comparison of Selected Techniques
Zdeněk Kala
Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Brno University of Technology,
602 00 Brno, Czech Republic; [email protected]

Received: 10 May 2020; Accepted: 5 June 2020; Published: 11 June 2020

Abstract: Although more and more reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis (ROSA) techniques are
now available, review and comparison articles of ROSA are absent. In civil engineering, many of the
latest indices have never been used to analyse structural reliability for very small failure probability.
This article aims to analyse and compare different sensitivity analysis (SA) techniques and discusses
their strengths and weaknesses. For this purpose, eight selected sensitivity indices are first described
and then applied in two different test cases. Four ROSA type indices are directly oriented on the
failure probability or reliability index beta, and four other indices (of a different type) are oriented on
the output of the limit state function. The case study and results correspond to cases under common
engineering assumptions, where only two independent input variables with Gaussian distribution of
the load action and the resistance are applied in the ultimate limit state. The last section of the article
is dedicated to the analysis of the different results. Large differences between first-order sensitivity
indices and very strong interaction effects obtained from ROSA are observed for very low values
of failure probability. The obtained numerical results show that ROSA methods lack a common
platform that clearly interprets the relationship of indices to their information value. This paper can
help orientate in the selection of which sensitivity measure to use.

Keywords: sensitivity analysis; uncertainty modelling; load action; resistance; limit states; stochastic
simulation; failure probability; structural reliability; correlations

1. Introduction
Evaluating the reliability of building structures is a problem whose final goal remains a
decision-making process [1]. In a probabilistic framework, the basic characteristic of engineering
reliability is the probability of failure Pf , which represents the key quantity of interest in decision-making
processes [2]. It is recommended by the best practices that such a report is supplemented with sensitivity
analysis (SA), which describes the effect of changes in model inputs on the measure of reliability [3].
A classical measure of change in Pf is the derivative ∂Pf /∂μxi with respect to the mean value μ of
input variable Xi [4–7]. A drawback of the derivative-based SA is that it cannot detect interactions
between input variables. Since only one μxi is varied at a time while others are fixed, it can be labelled
as the One-At-a-Time (OAT) method or local SA (at point μxi ). The aforementioned drawback can
partially be overcome by using the factorial experiment, where SA is computed using two-level changes
of μxi for all Xi in combinations, which permit the computation of interaction effects [8]. However,
only absolute change of the distribution parameter μxi on Pf is investigated, not the relative influence
of the random variability of Xi on Pf . For structural reliability, it is better to prefer such SA types that
can compute the effects of the random variabilities of input variables and their interactions on Pf and
not just changes in distribution parameters.
Compared with the local SA, global SA [9] can measure the effect of input variables on the model
output in their entire distribution ranges and provide the interaction effect among different input

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788; doi:10.3390/su12114788 347 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

variables. In the literature, many global SA techniques, such as the non-parametric techniques [10],
screening approaches [11], Sobol’s variance-based (ANOVA) methods [12,13] and moment-independent
methods [14,15], can be found, among which the variance-based method has gained the most attention.
Variance is an important component of reliability analysis, but is insufficient on its own for the
analysis of structural reliability; see, for e.g., [16]. A more general approach, which generalized
Sobol’s sensitivity indices, was introduced by Fort et al. [17]. These indices are generally applicable
(goal-oriented) because they can analyze various key quantities of interest, including Pf .
The selection of SA methods that focus on Pf or design quantiles is usually based on a stochastic
model with binary output failure/nonfailure, 1/0 [18], but it is not a necessity. In first-order reliability
method (FORM), Pf can be replaced by reliability index β [19], which is computed using the first two
moments of resistance, and load action and can be applied as an alternative measure of reliability; see
Figure 1. However, global SA of β has not yet been developed.

Figure 1. Illustration of the reliability index β.

From a computational point of view, probabilistic sensitivity measures have been comprehensively
studied; however, from a decision-analytic point of view, they remain much less understood [20].
Their relationship to information value has not yet been particularly established. Linking the
information value, SA, and forecasting with scoring rules remains a subject of research [20]. For a
particular reliability task, it is necessary to look for means to select the most appropriate sensitivity
measure with common rationale for this selection.
In civil and construction engineering, the scientific community uses SA in structural mechanics [21,22],
geotechnics [23,24], landscape water management [25], building performance analysis [26], multi-criteria
decision making (MCDM) [27], sustainable development of the building sector [28] or sensitivity audits
to assess sustainability [29], but with a lower publication frequency than in basic sciences, such as
chemistry, economics or mathematics [30]. In structural reliability, research deals with limit states [31] or
the verification of partial safety factors of Eurocode standards [32] using various types of global SA based,
for example, on the variance of model outputs [33,34].
The term “sensitivity analysis” can be understood differently in civil engineering than in basic
sciences, where local and global SA types with random inputs are well established. For example, very
specific (non-stochastic) SA methods based on advanced non-linear models are sometimes used for
structures susceptible to buckling when the subject of interest is the stability (or potential energy) of
structures [35,36] or imperfection sensitivity [37,38], whereby the main objective of these methods is
to increase the stability limits of the structures through the variation of suitable design variables. In
stochastic systems, stability often means insensitivity or low sensitivity of the output characteristics
to the shapes of some input distributions [39]. In construction engineering, it is necessary to focus
more on cooperation and integration of SA development [3] with reliability analysis tools [31,40] and
decision-making processes [41,42].

348
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

This paper compares several existing sensitivity measures in the context of structural reliability
in civil engineering. For this purpose, eight selected sensitivity indices are first described and then
applied in two different test cases.
Four indices are oriented on the probability of failure or reliability index β, another four on
the distribution or some moments of the output from the ultimate limit state function Equation (2).
The reason for the inclusion of the second group of indices is their common use in the analysis of limit
states, despite being only sensitive to reliability; see, for e.g., [43,44]. Correlations present a typical
example; however, sensitivity techniques based on fuzzy probability analysis of constructions [45,46]
are no exception. These alternative types of SA are not directly focused on the probability of failure,
but they provide basic insight into the behaviour of computational models, their structures and their
reactions to changes in model inputs.
The presented article deals with four ROSA type SA and four other SA, which are empathetic to
reliability in civil engineering. Special attention is paid to small failure probabilities, which are relevant
for assessing the engineering reliability of structures using design reliability conditions.

2. Design Reliability Conditions

In limit state design, the resistance of a structure R must be greater than the load action F with
a predetermined probability [19]. Structural reliability can also be assessed by comparing the lower
quantile of R with the upper quantile of F [19], where the quantiles represent alternative key quantities
of interest. The decision-maker who develops or implements stochastic models is expected to provide a
forecast of structural reliability, which can be performed by estimating the failure probability, quantiles
or other computational statistics related to limit states of structure.
Let the reliability of building structures be a one-dimensional random variable Z, which is a
function of random variables.
Z = g ( X ) = g ( X 1 , X 2 , . . . , XM ) . (1)

The reliability assessment of load-bearing structures is based on a semi-probabilistic approach

of standard [19], which falls into the category of FORM methods [47]. Structural reliability is often
expressed as a limit state function of random resistance R and random load action F:

Z = R − F ≥ 0, (2)

where R and F are statistically independent variables for which Gauss probability density functions
(pdfs) are assumed with mean values μR , μF and standard deviations σR , σF . If R and F have Gauss
pdfs, then Z has a Gauss pdf with mean value μZ and standard deviation σZ :

μZ = μR − μF , (3)

σZ = σ2R + σ2F . (4)

The transformation of Z into a normalized Gaussian pdf of U with mean value μU = 0, and
standard deviation σU = 1 is written as
Z − μZ
U= . (5)
σZ
The probability of failure (key quantity of interest) can be expressed as

μZ
Pf = P ( Z < 0 ) = P U < − = P(U < −β) = ΦU (−β), (6)
σZ

where ΦU (•) is the cumulative distribution function of normalized Gaussian pdf and μZ /σZ is the
so-called reliability index β; see Equation (7) and Figure 1.

349
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

It is assumed that β > 0. Standard [19] verifies reliability by comparing the obtained reliability
index β with the target reliability index βd .
μZ
β= ≥ βd , (7)
σZ

For instance, the reliability index has a target value of βd = 3.8 (Pfd = 7.2·10−5 ), provided that we
consider the ultimate limit state for common design situations within the reference period of 50 years;
see Table C2 in [19] or [48]. Equation (8) can be written to obtain σZ as

σ2 + σ2F σ σF
σZ = σ2R + σ2F = R = R σR + σF = αR σR + αF σF , (8)
σ R + σF
2 2 σR + σF
2 2 σR + σ2F
2

where αF , αR are values of sensitivity coefficients (weight factors) according to the FORM method,
which [19] introduces with constant values αF = 0.7, αR = 0.8. Substituting Equations (3) and (8) into
Equation (7), we can write
μ R − μF
β= ≥ βd . (9)
αR σR + αF σF
Equation (9) is the design reliability condition with formally separated random variables that can
be expressed as
μF + αF βd σF ≤ μR − αR βd σR . (10)

where the left-hand side represents the design load Fd and the right-hand side the design resistance Rd ;
see Figure 2. The basic reliability targets for design values in the ultimate limit state recommended
in [19] are based on the semi-probabilistic approach in Figure 2, with the target value of reliability
index βd = 3.80 for a 50 years reference period [48,49]. For βd = 3.8, Rd can be approximately computed
as 0.1 percentile [40]. Standard [19] enables the determination of design values Fd , Rd not only from a
Gauss pdf but also from a two- or three-parameter lognormal (for resistance) or Gumbel or Gama (for
load) pdfs. The probability of failure for non-Gaussian R and F can be estimated using Monte Carlo (or
quasi-Monte Carlo) methods.

Figure 2. Illustration of the design condition of reliability.

3. Selected Types of Sensitivity Analysis Methods

In reliability engineering, SA methods quantify the effects of input variables on the failure
probability, reliability index β or design quantiles. However, other statistical model-based inferences
sensitive to reliability are often used. In this chapter, we present selected formulae of selected types of
sensitivity measures in forms that are adapted to structural reliability analysis.
Cramér–von Mises indices [50]. Input random variables in Equation (1) are assumed to be statistically
independent. Let ΦZ be the distribution function of Z:

ΦZ (t) = P(Z ≤ t) = E(1Z≤t ) for t ∈ R, (11)

350
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

and ΦiZ is the conditional distribution function of Z conditionally on Xi :

ΦiZ (t) = P(Z ≤ t|Xi ) = E(1Z≤t |Xi ) for t ∈ R. (12)

The first-order Cramér–von Mises index Gi is based on measuring the distance between probability
ΦZ (t) and conditional probability ΦiZ (t) when an input is fixed [50].
2
E ΦZ (t) − Φi (t)
Z
Gi = dΦZ (t). (13)
ΦZ (t)(1 − ΦZ (t))
R

The second-order Cramér–von Mises index Gi can be expressed, on the basis of [50], as
2
E ΦZ (t) − Φij (t)
Z
Gij = dΦZ (t) − Gi − G j , (14)
ΦZ (t)(1 − ΦZ (t))
R

ij
where ΦZ is the conditional distribution function of Z conditionally on Xi , Xj , for i < j:

ij

ΦZ (t) = P Z ≤ tXi , X j = E 1Z≤t Xi , X j for t ∈ R. (15)

Integration Equation (13) and Equation (14) respect t. Equation (13) is not oriented to one failure
probability value Pf , but, depending on t, integrates the averages of squared values from the differences
of all probabilities Equations (11) and (12) normalized by F(t)(1 − F(t)). The same applies to other
higher-order indices [50]. Indices Gi , Gij , etc., are based on Hoeffding decomposition; therefore, the
sum of all indices is equal to 1 [50]. It can be noted that Cramér–von Mises indices can be formulated
in copula theory framework [51].
Sensitivity indices subordinated to contrasts associated with probability [17] (in short, Contrast Pf indices).
These indices measure the distance between probability Pf and the conditional probability Pf |Xi using
the contrast function in Equation (16). The input random variables in Equation (1) are assumed to be
statistically independent.
ψ(θ) = E(ψ(Z, θ)) = E(1Z<0 − θ)2 . (16)

The first-order probability contrast index Ci is defined as Equation (17), where the contrast
min ψ(θ) is computed for probability estimator θ* = Argmin ψ(θ) = Pf .
θ

min ψ(θ) − E minE (ψ(Z, θ)|Xi )
θ θ
Ci = . (17)
min ψ(θ)
θ

The second term in the numerator in Equation (17) is computed as the average value of the
conditional contrast functions whose probability estimator is Pf |Xi . The second-order probability
contrast index Cij can be expressed as

min ψ(θ) − E minE ψ(Z, θ)Xi X j
θ θ
Cij = − Ci − C j , (18)
min ψ(θ)
θ

where i < j. Indices of the third and higher orders are computed similarly [17]. Sensitivity indices
subordinated to contrasts are based on decomposition; therefore, the sum of all indices must be
equal to one. Examples of the computation of indices using the Latin Hypercube Sampling method
(LHS) [52,53] in engineering applications are in [54,55].

351
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

Sensitivity indices subordinated to contrasts associated with α-quantile [17]. The contrast function ψ
associated with α-quantile can be written with parameter θ as [17]:

ψ(θ) = E(ψ(Z, θ)) = E((Y − θ)(α − 1Y<θ )), (19)

where the input random variables in Equation (1) are assumed to be statistically independent. The
first-order quantile contrast index Qi is defined as

min ψ(θ) − E minE (ψ(Y, θ)|Xi )
θ θ
Qi = , (20)
min ψ(θ)
θ

where min ψ(θ) is the contrast computed for the estimator of α-quantile θ* = Argmin ψ(θ).
θ

min ψ(θ) − E minE (ψ(Y, θ)|Xi )
θ θ
Qij = − Qi − Q j . (21)
min ψ(θ)
θ

The second-order quantile contrast index Qij is defined as Equation (21), where i < j. Indices of
the third and higher orders are computed in a similar manner [17]. Sensitivity indices subordinated
to contrasts are based on decomposition; therefore, the sum of all indices must be equal to one. In
engineering applications, the random variable Y is, for example, the load action F or resistance R [56];
see Figure 1.
Borgonovo moment independent importance measure [14] (in short, Borgonovo indices). The sensitivity
indices described in [14] are defined by introducing a moment-independent uncertainty indicator that
looks at the entire input/output distribution and whose definition is well-posed also in the presence of
correlations among the input parameters.

1
Bi = E ϕZ (z) − ϕZ|Xi (z)dz, (22)
2

where ϕZ (z) is the pdf of Z and ϕZ|Xi (z) is the conditional pdf of Z given that one of the parameters, Xi ,
assumes a fixed value [14]. Fixing pairs Xi , Xj , leads to the second-order index Bij , where i < j. Fixing
triplets Xi , Xj , Xk leads to the third-order index Bijk , where i < j < k, etc. The sum of all indices is not
equal to one. As a general rule, 0 ≤ Bi ≤ Bij ≤..≤ B1,2, . . . ,M ≤ 1 [14].
Reliability sensitivity index defined by Xiao et al. [57] (in short, Xiao indices). All the input variables
are independent of each other. The first-order index Si measures the individual effect of Xi on Pf .

1
Ki = E P f − P f |Xi , (23)
2P f

where |Pf – Pf |Xi | measures the absolute difference between the unconditional failure probability Pf
and the conditional failure probability Pf |Xi . The second-order interaction indices Kij , where i j,
are asymmetrical: ⎛ ⎞
1 ⎜⎜ P f |Xi P f |Xi , X j ⎟⎟⎟
Kij = E⎜⎜⎜⎝ − ⎟⎟. (24)
2 Pf P X ⎠ f j

352
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

Kij may or may not be equal to Kji . Third-order and higher-order indices are not defined in [57].
Reliability sensitivity index defined by Ling et al. [58] (in short, Ling indices). The first-order index is
the same as in Equation (23) Li = Ki . Fixing pairs Xi , Xj , leads to the second-order index Lij , where i < j:

1
Lij = E P f − P f |Xi , X j . (25)
2P f

Fixing triplets Xi , Xj , Xk leads to the third-order index Lijk , where i < j < k, etc. The sum of all indices
defined by Ling et al. [58] is not equal to one. As a general rule [58], 0 ≤ Li ≤ Lij ≤...≤ L1,2, . . . ,M ≤ 1.
Sobol’s sensitivity indices [12,13] (in short, Sobol’s indices). Sobol’s first-order sensitivity indices can
be written in the form:

V (Z) − E(V (Z|Xi )) V (E(Z|Xi ))

Si = = = corr2 (Z, E(Z|Xi )), (26)
V (Z) V (Z)

where corr is Pearson correlation coefficient. Fixing pairs Xi , Xj , leads to the second-order index Sij ,
where i < j. Fixing triplets Xi , Xj , Xk leads to the third-order index Sijk , where i < j < k, etc.; see, for
example [9]. The sum of all indices is equal to one. It can be noted that Sobol’s indices present a special
case of sensitivity indices subordinated to contrasts in which the contrast function is associated with
variance ψ(θ) = E(Z − θ)2 [17].
Omission sensitivity factor [59] (in short, Madsen’s factor). The omission sensitivity factor Oi is
defined as the ratio between the conditional reliability index β|Xi = μxi and the reliability index β (7).

β Xi = μXi
Oi = . (27)
β

Random variable Xi is fixed at its mean value μxi in the numerator in Equation (27), but the
possibility of fixing at the characteristic value [60] or median [3] is also indicated.
The indices described above can be divided into two groups. The first group (Sobol, Borgonovo
and Cramér–von Mises) focuses on the distribution or some moments of the output function Z, while
the second group (Xiao, Ling, Contrast, Madsen’s) considers Pf , β or quantiles as the quantity of interest
and thus can be referred to as reliability analysis indices. The first group can be classified as global SA,
while the second group can be classified as reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis (ROSA) [3], of which
Xiao, Ling and Contrast indices can terminologically [54,57,58] be classified as global ROSA. It can be
noted that Xiao, Ling and Contrast ROSA indices are typical examples of ambiguous “local–global”
indices [3]. On one hand, they can be considered as global since they are based on changes of Pf
with regard to the variability of the inputs over their entire distribution ranges and they provide the
interaction effect between different input variables. On the other hand, they can be considered as
local in the sense of regional SA since they are based on the frequency of failures from the random
realization in “region” of pairs of large load actions and small resistances.
Correlations. The last SA methods used are the analysis of the correlation between the input Xi
and output Z according to Pearson, Spearman and Kendal Tau.

4. Case Studies
Many new sensitivity indices have been developed, but their ability in applications has not yet
been reliably demonstrated. In this article, the properties of the selected sensitivity indices mentioned
in Chapter 3 are examined in a case study of the probabilistic analysis of the reliability of a steel bar
under axial tension; see Figure 3. A static time-independent study is considered.

353
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Static model: (a) bar under axial tension; (b) probability density functions of R and F.

In general, the random load action F and resistance R are usually described using appropriate
types of distribution functions ΦF (y), ΦR (y) and corresponding pdfs ϕF (y), ϕR (y), where y denotes a
general point of the observed variable (force with the unit of Newton), through which both variables F
and R are expressed; see right part of Figure 3. It is assumed that F and R are statistically independent
of each other with mean values μF , μR and standard deviations σF , σR .
The probability of failure P f = P(Z < 0) = P(R < F) can be computed as the integral:

∞
Pf = ΦR ( y)ϕF ( y)dy. (28)
−∞

In the case studies, integration in Equation (28) is performed numerically by Simpson’s rule, using
more than ten thousand integration steps over the interval [μZ − 10σZ , μZ + 10σZ ].
Reliability can be assessed by comparing the computed Pf in Equation (6) with the target value
of Pf , where target values for design cases are listed in standard EN1990 [19]. Target values of Pf in
Table 1 are taken from Table B2 in [19]. Table 1 lists the minimum values of Pf (the reliability index β)
for ultimate limit state and 50 years reference period. The description of subsequent classes RC1, RC2,
and RC3 with examples of building and civil engineering works are in [19,48].

Table 1. Recommended minimum values of β and related Pf .

Reliability Class β Pf
RC3 4.3 8.5·10−6
RC2 3.8 7.2·10−5
RC1 3.3 4.8·10−4

The aim of the presented study is the SA of the influence of input factors R, F on the output Pf using
different types of sensitivity indices and the subsequent comparison of obtained results. Resistance R
is the input random variable X1 , and load action F is the input random variable X2 .

354
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

4.1. Computation of Sensitivity Indices

This section includes a description of numerical methods for computing the size of sensitivity
indices based on numerical integration methods in combination with sampling-based methods or
analytical computation. Sensitivity indices were computed for eight SA types.
Contrast Pf indices [17] (ROSA). The contrast function Equation (16) is minimum if θ* = Pf . By
substituting Pf into Equation (16), we can write first-order index in Equation (17) using min ψ(θ) = Pf
θ
(1 − Pf ), and similarly for Pf |Xi , we can write minE (ψ(Z, θ)|Xi ) = (Pf |Xi )(1 − (Pf |Xi )).
θ

P f 1 − P f − E P f |Xi 1 − P f |Xi
Ci = . (29)
Pf 1 − Pf

By substituting Pf (1 − Pf ) and (Pf |Xi )(1 − (Pf |Xi )) into Equation (17), we can derive Equation (29)
for practical use. Ci measures, on average, the effect of fixing Xi on Pf . The estimate of Pf is computed
as the integral Equation (28). In the first loop, the estimate of Pf |Xi = P((Z|Xi ) < 0) is computed by
numerical integration across z∈[μZ − 10σZ , μZ + 10σZ ]. In the second loop, E[•] is computed by
numerical integration of the pdf of Xi with a small step Δxi taken over [μXi − 10σXi , μXi + 10σXi ]. Since
the second term in the numerator in Equation (18) is always equal to zero (Pf |X1 ,X2 is always equal to
zero or one), C12 = 1 − C1 − C2 .
Xiao indices [57] (ROSA). Indices K1 , K2 are estimated from Equation (23) using double-nested-loop
computation. In the outer loop, E[•] is computed by numerical integration of the pdf of Xi with a small
step Δxi taken over [μXi − 10σXi , μXi + 10σXi ]. Note: the estimate E[•] obtained using the LHS method
would be inaccurate because it requires an extremely high number of runs for small values of Pf . In the
nested loop, estimates of Pf and Pf |Xi are computed by integrating according to Equation (28). Indices
K12 and K21 defined in Equation (24) are computed in a similar manner.
Ling indices [58] (ROSA). By definition, L1 = K1 , L2 = K2 . The computation of L12 includes an
estimate of E[•], which is based on double numerical integration. In the outer loop, the pdf of X2 is
numerically integrated with a small step Δx2 taken over [μX2 − 10σX2 , μX2 + 10σX2 ]. In the inner loop,
the pdf of X1 is numerically integrated with a small step Δx1 taken over [μX1 − 10σX1 , μX1 + 10σX1 ].
During integration, the term Pf |X1 ,X2 can only have a value of 0 or 1.
Madsen factor [59] (ROSA). Indices O1 , O2 are computed using one million LHS runs.
Cramér–von Mises indices [50]. Indices G1 and G2 are computed using Equation (13). Three nested
loops are applied. In the first (outer) loop, numerical integration is computed with a small step Δt =
tl+1 − tl , where t = (tl+1 + tl )/2, t∈[μZ − 10σZ , μZ + 10σZ ], l = 1, 2,..., 10000. To each Δt belongs dΦ(t)≈P(tl
≤ Z ≤ tl+1 ) and Φ(t)≈P(Z ≤ (tl+1 + tl )/2). In the second loop, E[•] in the numerator in Equation (13)
is computed by numerical integration of the pdf of Xi with a small step Δxi taken over [μXi −10σXi ,
μXi +10σXi ]. Note: The LHS estimation of E[•] would be numerically very challenging but is possible.
In the third (deep) loop, Φi (t)≈P(Z ≤ (tl+1 + tl )/2|Xi = ξi ) is computed by numerical integration for fixed
ξi , where ξi is the middle of interval Δxi from the second loop. The index G12 is computed on the basis
of Equation (14) in a similar manner.
Borgonovo indices [14]. Indices B1 , B2 are estimated from Equation (13) using double-nested-loop
computation. In the outer loop, 0.5·E[•] is computed using one million runs of the LHS method. In
the nested loop, numerical integration |ϕZ (z) – ϕZ|Xi (z)| is taken over [μZ − 10σZ , μZ + 10σZ ] using ten
thousand runs. B12 = 1 in all case studies.
Sobol’s indices [12,13]. Sobol’s sensitivity indices are included only for comparison; these indices
analyse the influence of the variance of R or F on the variance of Z, but not the influence on Pf . Sobol’s
indices are computed analytically as S1 = σ2R /(σ2R + σ2F ), S2 = σ2F /(σ2R + σ2F ), S12 = 0. It can be noted that
Sobol’s first-order indices are equal to the squares of the sensitivity coefficients (weight factors) in
Equation (8): S1 = α2R , S2 = α2F .

355
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

Correlations. Correlation corr(X1 , Z) and corr(X2 , Z) are evaluated even though direct sensitivity to
Pf is not measured by correlation. Pearson, Spearman and Kendal Tau correlation coefficients between
input Xi and output Z are computed using one hundred thousand runs of the LHS method.
All E[•] are computed by numerical integration with the exception of Borgonovo indices and
correlation. It can be noted that E[•] in the formulae in chapter 3 can also be numerically computed using
Monte Carlo- (or quasi-Monte Carlo-) type simulation methods; however, the repeated computation of
small values of Pf requires extremely high numbers of simulation runs and is numerically challenging.

4.2. Case Study 1

The aim of SA is to assess the influence of R and F on Pf . Let R (resistance) and F (load action) be
statistically independent variables X1 , X2 with Gauss pdfs, where μR = 412.54 kN, σR = 34.132 kN,
σF = 34.132 kN, and mean value μF is the parameter; see Figure 4. Let parameter μF change with the
step ΔμF = 10 kN and gradually attain the values 92.54 kN, 102.54 kN,..., 722.54 kN. The sensitivity
indices are plotted in dependence on Pf , where Pf = ΦU (−(412.54 − μF )/(20.5 ·34.132)) is a function only
of parameter μF . If μF decreases, then Pf decreases.

Figure 4. Case study 1, probability density functions of R and F.

First-order indices are depicted in Figure 5 and the second-order indices are depicted on the left
part of Figure 6. Correlation coefficients corr(X1 , Z) and corr(X2 , Z) are added to Figure 5. Only indices
within the interval [0, 1] are depicted. Madsen’s factors are not plotted because they have a constant
value O1 = O2 = 1.415 for all Pf (μF ).
Changing Pf (μF ) influences only indices C1 , C2 , C12 , indices K1 , K2 , K12 , K21 and indices L1 , L2 ,
L12 ; see Figure 5 and the left part of Figure 6. For the other five types of SA, it was observed that
two variables that have a different influence on the output have the same indices. This demonstrates
properties of sensitivity indices that will prove useful in the interpretation of the result.
Ling and Xiao indices are the only indices with asymmetric plots and decrease with increasing
Pf . Xiao asymmetrical interaction indices are identical: K12 = K21 . Contrast-based sensitivity indices
have values of C1 = C2 = C12 = 0.33 for Pf = 0.5, but, otherwise, decrease with absolute distance from
Pf = 0.5. Approaching Pf → 0 or Pf → 1 leads to C1 = C2 → 0 and C12 → 1. Change in mean value μF
has no influence on the values of Sobol’s indices, which are functions of only the variance and therefore
remain constant S1 = S2 = 0.5, S12 = 0. Kendall’s tau coefficient is approximately equal to 0.5 for all Pf
(μF ). Spearman’s and Pearson coefficients confirm the dependence between the inputs R, F and the
output Z. Borgonovo and Cramér–von Mises first-order indices have approximately the same value
B1 = 0.306, G1 = 0.286, while the second-order indices are B12 = 1.0 and G12 = 1.0 − G1 − G2 = 0.428.
For common design situations, building constructions are considered reliable if Pf < 7.2·10−5 (RC2
in Table 1). For this case study, it occurs approximately for μF < 0.55·μR . Detail of the plots of sensitivity
indices for Pf < 1·10−4 are depicted on the right part of Figure 6.

356
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Case study 1, first-order sensitivity indices of (a) resistance R; (b) load Action F.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Case study 1: (a) second-order sensitivity indices of R, F; (b) sensitivity analysis (SA) results
related to structural reliability.

4.3. Case Study 2

Let R (resistance) and F (load action) be statistically independent variables X1 , X2 with Gauss pdfs,
where μR = 412.54 kN, σR = 34.132 kN and mean value μF is the parameter, while variation coefficient
of F is constant vF = vR = 34.132/412.54 = 0.0827 and thus σF = vF ·μF ; see Figure 7. Let parameter μF
change with the step ΔμF = 12.89 kN and gradually attain values of 0.06 kN, 12.95 kN,..., 902.36 kN.

357
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

Figure 7. Case study 2, probability density functions of R and F.

The sensitivity indices are plotted in dependence on Pf , where Pf = ΦU (−(412.54 − μF )/(34.1322

+ (μF ·34.132/412.54)2 )0.5 ) in Equation (6) is a function of only parameter μF , where Pf decreases if
μF decreases.
The first-order indices are depicted in Figure 8 and the second-order indices are depicted on
the left part of Figure 9. Correlation coefficients corr(X1 , Z) and corr(X2 , Z) are added to Figure 8.
Only indices within the interval [0, 1] are depicted. Omission sensitivity indices are not plotted because
they have a value greater than one. The curves meet the expectation that small Pf (due to small μF and
small σF ) are less sensitive to F and more sensitive to R.

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Case study 2, first-order sensitivity indices of (a) Resistance R; (b) Load Action F.

The parametric change of Pf (μF ) influences the values of all indices. All first-order indices
of variable X1 (R) are axially symmetrical to indices X2 (F) along the vertical axis Pf = 0.5 with the
exception of Ling and Xiao indices. Xiao asymmetrical interaction indices are K12 K21 with the
exception of Pf = 0.5 where K12 = K21 . The plots of Borgonovo and Cramér–von Mises first-order
indices are similar; the second-order indices are B12 = 1.0 and G12 = 1.0 − G1 − G12 . The plots of
Kendall’s tau coefficient and plots of Sobol’s indices are similar. The plots of Spearman’s and Pearson
coefficients are also similar. On the left side of the graphs, contrast Pf indices reach their extreme at
point Pf = 3.216·10−10 , C1 = 0.06, C12 = 0.94, but no extreme on C2 . On the right side of the graphs, the
extreme is at point Pf = 1 − 3.216·10−10 , C2 = 0.06, C12 = 0.94, but no extreme on C1 . Ling and Xiao
indices have an extreme at Pf = 3.216·10−10 , K2 = L2 = 0.82, K12 = 0.94; other extremes of Ling and Xiao

358
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

indices are difficult to identify numerically (compared to other indices) because they quickly attain
relatively small or large values for large or small Pf .
For standard design case Pf = 7.2·10−5 we obtain K1 = L1 = 0.97, K2 = L2 = 0.76, K12 = 0.91,
K12 = 0.994, L12 = 0.99993. A detail of the plot of sensitivity indices for Pf < 1·10−4 is depicted on the
right part of Figure 9. For instance, for Pf = 7.2·10−5 , we obtain O1 = 1.88, O2 = 1.18, or for Pf = 8.5·10−6 ,
we obtain O1 = 1.99, O2 = 1.16.

(a) (b)

Figure 9. Case study 2: (a) Second-order sensitivity indices of R, F; (b) SA results related to
structural reliability.

5. Observation, Discussion and Questions

Reliability-oriented sensitivity indices (Xiao, Ling, Contrast and Madsen’s) are computed together
with the global indices (Sobol, Borgonovo and Cramér–von Mises). The effects of R and F on structural
reliability are first analysed separately for each of the eight selected sensitivity indices.
Contrast Pf indices have relatively small values of first-order indices and high values of
second-order indices for small Pf . The numerical results of reliability engineering tasks [54,55]
with five input random variables have shown that the smaller Pf is, the smaller the values of first-order
indices and the higher the values of higher-order indices. Change in the mean value or standard
deviation of the dominant variables had a clear effect on Pf , confirming the rationality of the contrast
indices applied in [54]. The sum of all indices is equal to one, which makes it easier to compare SA
results for different Pf associated with different reliabilities, for e.g., different design conditions, different
stages of the structural life or different loading conditions. For very small values of Pf , Equation (29)
can be written approximately as:
P f − E P f |Xi
Ci ≈ , (30)
Pf
and similarly
P f − E P f |Xi , X j
Cij ≈ − Ci − C j . (31)
Pf
The clear addressability to Pf is evident from Equation (30) and Equation (31). If the binary
random variable 1Z<0 is considered, Equation (30) can then be written as:

E(1Z<0 ) − E(E(1Z<0 |Xi ))

Ci ≈ = corr2 (1Z<0 , E(1Z<0 |Xi )), (32)
E(1Z<0 )

359
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

where corr is Pearson correlation coefficient. SA based on contrast functions yields the same
(symmetrical) results for unreliability (Pf ) and reliability (1 − Pf ) because Ci in Equation (29) is
computed from the values of the contrast functions Pf (1 − Pf ) and (Pf |Xi )(1 − (Pf |Xi )). If 1Z<0 is rare, the
evaluation of Equation (32) using Monte Carlo type methods requires an extreme number of samples.
The sum of all Ling or Xiao indices is not equal to one. For small Pf , the values of the first-order
indices are relatively high; moreover, the second-order index is always greater than the first-order
index, which complicates the comparison of the influence on Pf . The advantage of computing Ling
indices is that the computation of the higher-order indices does not depend on the computation
(accuracy) of lower-order indices; therefore, their computation may be performed parallelly on multiple
processor cores.
Cramér–von Mises indices have the sum of all indices equal to one. However, there is no
addressability of indices to the Pf level because Equations (13) and (14) are integrated over all dΦZ (t),
i.e., over all t (which means over all Pf ). This is also the reason that, at intervals relevant to reliability,
index values are not extremely high or low. The advantage is that a zero value of the Cramér-von
Mises index clearly means that the input is not important. Triple-nested-loop computation makes
these indices very numerically challenging. Nevertheless, numerous effective approaches to reduce
this computational complexity already exist; see, for e.g., [61].
Borgonovo first-order indices yield reasonable values in intervals relevant to reliability, similar
to Cramér–von Mises indices. The advantage of these indices is the transparency and the clear
interpretation of the influence of input uncertainty on the entire output distribution regardless of the
specific moment of the output (moment independence). Moreover, the indices can be computed even
in the presence of correlation between input variables. The computational complexity of indices is not
high. The disadvantage is that the sum of all indices is not equal to one and the indices are not directly
addressable to Pf .
Sobol’s indices are functions of only the variance, which, although important, is not enough for
SA of reliability. The computation of Sobol’s indices is based on the double-nested-loop computation
and can be numerically very challenging for engineering tasks. However, if we consider the binary
random variable 1Z<0 as the quantity of interest, Sobol’s indices can be an interesting reliability-oriented
sensitivity technique [62].
Madsen’s factor can be applied as a computationally undemanding (simple) SA in engineering
tasks, but with a number of limitations. Madsen’s factor can only be applied for Pf < 0.5.
The disadvantage of Madsen’s factor is that factor Oi can have values significantly greater than
1. For example, in Case study 2, for Pf = 6.14·10−32 we obtain O1 = 32. A model with one random
variable would theoretically lead to O1 = ∞. A significant computational problem can occur in
non-linear problems when fixing to the mean value Xi leads to the limit case of a given physical
phenomenon. For example, the amplitude of the axial curvature of a slender bar subjected to buckling
has a mean value equal to zero, which means a perfectly straight bar [63]. The resistance of such
a perfectly straight (unrealistic) bar is always higher than the resistance of a bar with any non-zero
imperfection [64], and thus the mean value of zero is not suitable for fixing in reliability analysis or SA.
The modification of Equation (27) to the form E(β|Xi )/β can be discussed, but with the proviso that fixing
Xi must not lead to negative values of β. So far there is no global SA based on β, and it is questionable
whether the first two statistical moments are sufficient to describe the influence on reliability.
The correlation coefficients are not directly addressable to Pf but can be used as sensitivity indicators
if the output (Z) is monotonically dependent on the input variables R and F. Correlation points to
dependence, but the opposite is not true. The advantage of correlation coefficients is their availability
in computer software and they are relatively computationally inexpensive in simulation approaches.
ROSA-type indices have a different explanatory power than those of other types. Similar results
cannot be expected from these two types (ROSA vs. non-ROSA) of indices as an input variable could
be influential on Pf but not on the distribution of Z and conversely. Nevertheless, there is relatively
good agreement between contrast Cramér–von Mises indices, Borgonovo indices and Pf indices in the

360
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

interval of approximately Pf
(0.1, 0.9). However, common building structures are designed with a
reliability of Pf < 4.8·10−4 ; see Table 1. For such small Pf , only Cramér–von Mises indices and Borgonovo
indices have similar values. The values of the other sensitivity indices are considerably different.
It can be concluded from all the obtained numerical results that if σF < σR (σF > σR ), the sensitivity
of Pf to R is higher (lower) than the sensitivity of Pf to F. It was confirmed that only ROSA-type indices
are suitable for probability-based reliability assessment. The results of Case study 1 showed that
change in μF together with σF = const. changes only the values of contrast Pf indices and Ling and
Xiao indices, the other indices remain unchanged. Furthermore, change in σF together with μF = const.
changes the values of all indices, except of course B12 = 1 and S12 = 0. The results of Case study 2
showed that changes in σF and μF with the condition vF = σF /μF = const. causes changes in the values
of all indices; therefore, none of these indices is a pure indicator of the influence of vF on Pf .
It can be noted that resistance is generally a random variable that is a product of random variables
such as yield strength (material characteristic), cross-sectional area (geometric characteristic), etc.
Material and geometric characteristics usually do not have perfect Gauss pdf due to small skewness
and kurtosis observed in histograms from real experiments [65,66]. The dead load can be roughly
approximated using Gauss pdf, but other load types (wind, snow, traffic, long-term load action) have
pdfs significantly different from Gauss pdf. For more complex structures, numerous load conditions
and tens to hundreds of random variables with different pdfs can be expected. Furthermore, input
random variables may have mutual correlations, which are implemented in beams [67] in more detail
than in systems where each beam is represented by a smaller number of random variables independent
of another beam; see for e.g., [68].
The question is, to what extent can different types of sensitivity indices oriented to Pf be influenced
by the skewness and kurtosis values of the input variables or by correlations between them, and what
is its importance for the analysis of reliability? For instance, the values of Sobol’s indices change when
the kurtosis changes, but not when the skewness changes [34]. Of the SA types presented here, only
Borgonovo indices [14] have the ability to have correlations between input variables. This ability must
also be sought in other indices suitable for structural reliability analysis.
A generally accepted measure of reliability is Pf ; therefore, Pf should be the overall objective of
SA. However, the concept of Eurocodes [19] assesses reliability according to the limit states using the
so-called semi-probabilistic method, which compares the design values (quantiles) of resistance and
load. Because probabilistic reliability analysis would be too expensive in common engineering practice,
design values are usually computed deterministically according to design standards. These design
values can be verified using the lower quantity of resistance (for e.g., 0.1 percentile) and upper quantity
of load, where resistance and load are functions of other random variables; see Figure 2. Another
useful property of SA could be that sensitivity indices oriented to Pf and design quantiles form pairs
based on the same theoretical basis. For example, global SA subordinated to contrasts can be associated
with both Pf and quantities Rd and Fd ; see Figure 2. However, the question is whether there is a link
between indices Equations (17), (18) and (20), (21) when the contrast functions Equations (16) and (19)
are different. Preliminary studies show that partial similarity can be expected between the total indices.

6. Conclusions
The presented case studies have shown that the numerical results of reliability-oriented sensitivity
analysis (ROSA) are inconsistent. ROSA was evaluated using Contrast, Xiao, Ling and Madsen’s
indices. For structural reliability, the key quantity of interest is failure probability Pf , which is lower
than 4.8·10−4 .
Contrast Pf indices have relatively small values of first-order indices and high values of
second-order indices for small Pf . Ling or Xiao indices have relatively high values of first-order
indices, but also high values of second-order indices for small Pf . For instance, in the first case study, if
Pf → 0 then C1 = 0, C2 = 0, C12 = 1 and L1 = 1, L2 = 1, L12 = 1. In civil engineering, Pf is generally very
small, and extreme values of sensitivity indices estimated by ROSA can be expected. The advantage of

361
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

contrast Pf indices is that the sum of all indices is equal to one. The sum of all Ling or Xiao indices is
not equal to one. The Madsen factor values were significantly greater than 1 and therefore cannot be
compared in size with Contrast, Xiao and Ling indices. Madsen’s factor does not reflect change in the
mean value of input variables, although this change causes a change in Pf .
In contrast, Xiao, Ling and Madsen’s indices have correctly identified the order of importance
of input random variables to Pf ; however, this observation only applies to the presented case studies
and cannot be generalized. In the case studies, it is not possible to determine, even approximately, the
percentage by which the dominant variable is more influential than the others, so this conclusion is
true for each type of SA. Structural reliability lacks a common platform of SA that provides a clear
interpretation of the size of sensitivity indices and defines their information value.
The other indices (Sobol, Borgonovo and Cramér–von Mises) and correlation coefficients are
not directly addressable to Pf and therefore are not generally suitable for the analysis of reliability.
As expected, these (out of ROSA type) sensitivity indices do not reflect the change in mean value of
input variables, although this change causes a change in Pf . This means that the two variables that
have a different influence on the reliability may have the same indices. In relation to the reliability of
structures, the information value of these indices is not unambiguous. In the case of ROSA, Xiao and
Ling indices, no two different Pf values exist for which the same sets of sensitivity indices exist, but
contrast Pf indices have the same or similar values for unreliability (Pf ) and reliability (1 − Pf ).
There are many engineering reliability assessments in which non-ROSA indices are applied,
although the connection with reliability is mentioned. The reason for these applications may be the
simplicity of evaluating indices as well as the experience that known indices have at least partial
sensitivity for reliability, which, along with other experience, is sufficient for basic decision-making.
With the development of ROSA, a gradual transition to new types of reliability-oriented indices can
be expected.
In connection with sustainable reliability, it is possible to discuss which type of ROSA should be
applied and which key quantities of interest ROSA should be oriented to in particular. The Eurocode
standards for structural design assess reliability using a so-called semi-probabilistic approach, which is
based on design quantiles. The question remains whether Pf can be adequately replaced by design
quantities, reliability index β or other model-based inferences so that the information value of SA
results in relation to reliability is approximately maintained. Design quantiles are an important part
of reliability analysis, and SA of the design quantiles may be required to provide results consistent
with Pf .
In general, ROSA directly addressable to Pf may be preferred rather than focusing on the reliability
index β or quantiles. Indices with the sum of one and a clear addressability to Pf present one SA,
an advantage that facilitates the comparison of the results of different probability models. Contrast
functions are a more general tool for estimating various parameters associated with probability
distributions, and thus the partial consistency of requirements could perhaps be sought on the basis of
contrasts. These and other tasks need to be addressed in order to make SA of structural reliability a
useful and practical tool.

Funding: The work has been supported and prepared within the project namely “Probability oriented global
sensitivity measures of structural reliability“ of The Czech Science Foundation (GACR, https://gacr.cz/) no.
20-01734S, Czechia.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Benjamin, J.R.; Cornell, C.A. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers; McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY, USA, 1970.
2. Au, S.-K.; Wang, Y. Engineering Risk Assessment with Subset Simulation; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
3. Chabridon, V. Reliability-Oriented Sensitivity Analysis under Probabilistic Model Uncertainty—Application
to Aerospace Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2018.

362
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

4. Melchers, R.E.; Ahammed, M. A fast-approximate method for parameter sensitivity estimation in Monte
Carlo structural reliability. Comput. Struct. 2004, 82, 55–61. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, P.; Lu, Z.; Tang, Z. A derivative based sensitivity measure of failure probability in the presence of
epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. Comput. Math. Appl. 2013, 65, 89–101. [CrossRef]
6. Jensen, H.A.; Mayorga, F.; Papadimitriou, C. Reliability sensitivity analysis of stochastic finite element
models. Comput. Methods. Appl. Mech. Eng. 2015, 296, 327–351. [CrossRef]
7. MiarNaeimi, F.; Azizyan, G.; Rashki, M. Reliability sensitivity analysis method based on subset simulation
hybrid techniques. Appl. Math. Model. 2019, 75, 607–626. [CrossRef]
8. Kala, Z.; Valeš, J. Sensitivity assessment and lateral-torsional buckling design of I-beams using solid finite
elements. J. Constr. Steel. Res. 2017, 139, 110–122. [CrossRef]
9. Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Andres, T.; Campolongo, F.; Cariboni, J.; Gatelli, D.; Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S. Global
Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer; John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK, 2008.
10. Saltelli, A.; Marivoet, J. Non-parametric statistics in sensitivity analysis for model output: A comparison of
selected techniques. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1990, 28, 229–253. [CrossRef]
11. Xiao, S.; Lu, Z.; Xu, L. A new effective screening design for structural sensitivity analysis of failure probability
with the epistemic uncertainty. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2016, 156, 1–14. [CrossRef]
12. Sobol, I.M. Sensitivity estimates for non-linear mathematical models. Math. Model. Comput. Exp. 1993, 1,
407–414.
13. Sobol, I.M. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates.
Math. Comput. Simul. 2001, 55, 271–280. [CrossRef]
14. Borgonovo, E. A new uncertainty importance measure. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2007, 92, 771–784. [CrossRef]
15. Borgonovo, E.; Castaings, W.; Tarantola, S. Moment independent importance measures: New results and
analytical test cases. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 404–428. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Borgonovo, E. Measuring uncertainty importance: Investigation and comparison of alternative approaches.
Risk Anal. 2006, 26, 1349–1361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Fort, J.C.; Klein, T.; Rachdi, N. New sensitivity analysis subordinated to a contrast. Commun. Stat. Theory
Methods 2016, 45, 4349–4364. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, Y.; Xiao, S.; Lu, Z. An efficient method based on Bayes’ theorem to estimate thefailure-probability-based
sensitivity measure. Mech. Syst. Signal. Process. 2019, 115, 607–620. [CrossRef]
19. European Committee for Standardization. EN 1990:2002: Eurocode—Basis of Structural Design; European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
20. Borgonovo, E.; Hazen, G.; Plischke, E. A Common rationale for global sensitivity measures and their
estimation. Comput. Struct. 2016, 36, 1871–1895. [CrossRef]
21. Greegar, G.; Manohar, G.S. Global response sensitivity analysis using probability distance measures and
generalization of Sobol’s analysis. Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 2015, 41, 21–33. [CrossRef]
22. Kotełko, M.; Lis, P.; Macdonald, M. Load capacity probabilistic sensitivity analysis of thin-walled beams.
Thin Walled Struct. 2017, 115, 142–153. [CrossRef]
23. Štefaňák, J.; Kala, Z.; Miča, L.; Norkus, A. Global sensitivity analysis for transformation of Hoek-Brown
failure criterion for rock mass. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 390–398. [CrossRef]
24. Mahmoudi, E.; Hölter, R.; Georgieva, R.; König, M.; Schanz, T. On the global sensitivity analysis methods
in geotechnical engineering: A comparative study on a rock salt energy storage. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 17,
131–143. [CrossRef]
25. Tate, E.; Munoz, C.; Suchan, J. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the HAZUS-MH flood model. Nat.
Hazards Rev. 2014, 16, 04014030. [CrossRef]
26. Pang, Z.; O’Neill, Z.; Li, Y.; Niu, F. The role of sensitivity analysis in the building performance analysis:
A critical review. Energy Build. 2020, 209, 109659. [CrossRef]
27. Su, L.; Wang, T.; Li, H.; Cao, Y.; Wang, L. Multi-criteria decision making for identification of unbalanced
bidding. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 43–52. [CrossRef]
28. Salimi, S.; Hammad, A. Sensitivity analysis of probabilistic occupancy prediction model using big data.
Build. Environ. 2020, 172, 106729. [CrossRef]
29. Saltelli, A.; Benini, L.; Funtowicz, S.; Giampietro, M.; Kaiser, M.; Reinert, E.; Van der Sluijs, J.P. The technique
is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability.
Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 106, 87–98. [CrossRef]

363
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

30. Ferretti, F.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S. Trends in sensitivity analysis practice in the last decade. Sci. Total Environ.
2016, 568, 666–670. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS). Probabilistic Model Code. Available online: https://www.jcss-lc.
org/ (accessed on 15 May 2020).
32. Sedlacek, G.; Kraus, O. Use of safety factors for the design of steel structures according to the Eurocodes.
Eng. Fail. Anal. 2007, 14, 434–441. [CrossRef]
33. Kala, Z. Geometrically non-linear finite element reliability analysis of steel plane frames with initial
imperfections. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2012, 18, 81–90. [CrossRef]
34. Kala, Z.; Valeš, J. Global sensitivity analysis of lateral-torsional buckling resistance based on finite element
simulations. Eng. Struct. 2017, 134, 37–47. [CrossRef]
35. Szymczak, C. Sensitivity analysis of thin-walled members, problems and applications. Thin Walled Struct.
2003, 41, 271–290. [CrossRef]
36. Mang, H.A.; Höfinger, G.; Jia, X. On the interdependency of primary and initial secondary equilibrium
paths in sensitivity analysis of elastic structures. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2011, 200, 1558–1567.
[CrossRef]
37. Hassan, M.S.; Salawdeh, S.; Goggins, J. Determination of geometrical imperfection models in finite element
analysis of structural steel hollow sections under cyclic axial loading. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 141, 189–203.
[CrossRef]
38. Wu, J.; Zhu, J.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, Q. Nonlinear stability analysis of steel cooling towers considering imperfection
sensitivity. Thin Walled Struct. 2020, 146, 106448. [CrossRef]
39. Rykov, V.; Zaripova, E.; Ivanova, N.; Shorgin, S. On sensitivity analysis of steady state probabilities of double
redundant renewable system with Marshall-Olkin failure model. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2018, 919,
234–245.
40. Jönsson, J.; Müller, M.S.; Gamst, C.; Valeš, J.; Kala, Z. Investigation of European flexural and lateral torsional
buckling interaction. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 156, 105–121. [CrossRef]
41. Antucheviciene, J.; Kala, Z.; Marzouk, M.; Vaidogas, E.R. Solving civil engineering problems by means
of fuzzy and stochastic MCDM methods: Current state and future research. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015,
2015, 362579. [CrossRef]
42. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Vilutiene, T.; Adeli, H. Sustainable decision-making in civil engineering,
construction and building technology. Sustainability 2018, 10, 14. [CrossRef]
43. Lehký, D.; Pan, L.; Novák, D.; Cao, M.; Šomodíková, M.; Slowik, O. A comparison of sensitivity analyses for
selected prestressed concrete structures. Struct. Concr. 2019, 20, 38–51. [CrossRef]
44. Novák, L.; Novák, D. On the possibility of utilizing Wiener-Hermite polynomial chaos expansion for global
sensitivity analysis based on Cramér-von Mises distance. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference
on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering, QR2MSE 2019, Zhangjiajie, China, 6–9
August 2019; pp. 646–654.
45. Wen, Z.; Xia, Y.; Ji, Y.; Liu, Y.; Xiong, Z.; Lu, H. Study on risk control of water inrush in tunnel construction
period considering uncertainty. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 757–772. [CrossRef]
46. Karasan, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Kahraman, C.; Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Residential construction site selection
through interval-valued hesitant fuzzy CODAS method. Informatica 2019, 30, 689–710. [CrossRef]
47. Zhao, Y.G.; Ono, T. A general procedure for first/second-order reliability method (FORM/SORM). Struct. Saf.
1999, 21, 95–112. [CrossRef]
48. Kala, Z. Reliability analysis of the lateral torsional buckling resistance and the ultimate limit state of steel
beams with random imperfections. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 902–911. [CrossRef]
49. Sedlacek, G.; Müller, C. The European standard family and its basis. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2006, 62, 522–548.
[CrossRef]
50. Gamboa, F.; Klein, T.; Lagnoux, A. Sensitivity analysis based on Cramér-von Mises distance. SIAM ASA J.
Uncertain. Quantif. 2018, 6, 522–548. [CrossRef]
51. Plischke, E.; Borgonovo, E. Copula theory and probabilistic sensitivity analysis: Is there a connection? Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2019, 277, 1046–1059. [CrossRef]
52. McKey, M.D.; Beckman, R.J.; Conover, W.J. Comparison of the three methods for selecting values of input
variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 1979, 21, 239–245.

364
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4788

53. Iman, R.C.; Conover, W.J. Small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models with an
application to risk assessment. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 1980, 9, 1749–1842. [CrossRef]
54. Kala, Z. Global sensitivity analysis of reliability of structural bridge system. Eng. Struct. 2019, 194, 36–45.
[CrossRef]
55. Kala, Z. Estimating probability of fatigue failure of steel structures. Acta Comment. Univ. Tartu. Math. 2019,
23, 245–254. [CrossRef]
56. Kala, Z. Quantile-oriented global sensitivity analysis of design resistance. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25,
297–305. [CrossRef]
57. Xiao, S.; Lu, Z. Structural reliability sensitivity analysis based on classification of model output. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 2017, 71, 52–61. [CrossRef]
58. Ling, C.; Lu, Z.; Cheng, K.; Sun, B. An efficient method for estimating global reliability sensitivity indices.
Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 2019, 56, 35–49. [CrossRef]
59. Madsen, H.O. Omission sensitivity factor. Struct. Saf. 1988, 5, 35–45. [CrossRef]
60. Leander, J.; Al-Emrani, M. Reliability-based fatigue assessment of steel bridges using LEFM—A sensitivity
analysis. Int. J. Fatigue 2016, 93, 82–91. [CrossRef]
61. Sudret, B. Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93,
964–979. [CrossRef]
62. Wei, P.; Lu, Z.; Hao, W.; Feng, J.; Wang, B. Efficient sampling methods for global reliability sensitivity analysis.
Comput. Phys. Commun. 2012, 183, 1728–1743. [CrossRef]
63. Kala, Z. Sensitivity assessment of steel members under compression. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 1344–1348.
[CrossRef]
64. Mercier, C.; Khelil, A.; Khamisi, A.; Al Mahmoud, F.; Boissiere, R.; Pamies, A. Analysis of the global and
local imperfection of structural members and frames. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 805–818. [CrossRef]
65. Melcher, J.; Kala, Z.; Holický, M.; Fajkus, M.; Rozlívka, L. Design characteristics of structural steels based on
statistical analysis of metallurgical products. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2004, 60, 795–808. [CrossRef]
66. Kala, Z.; Melcher, J.; Puklický, L. Material and geometrical characteristics of structural steels based on
statistical analysis of metallurgical products. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2009, 15, 299–307. [CrossRef]
67. Kala, Z.; Valeš, J.; Jönsson, L. Random fields of initial out of straightness leading to column buckling. J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 902–913. [CrossRef]
68. Kala, Z. Sensitivity analysis of steel plane frames with initial imperfections. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 2342–2349.
[CrossRef]

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

365
sustainability

Article
Sustainable Risk Assessment through the Analysis of
Financial Losses from Third-Party Damage in
Bridge Construction
Sungjin Ahn, Taehui Kim and Ji-Myong Kim *
Department of Architectural Engineering, Mokpo National University, Mokpo 58554, Korea;
[email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (T.K.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-61-450-2457

Received: 13 March 2020; Accepted: 17 April 2020; Published: 23 April 2020

Abstract: Due to the recent introduction of innovative construction methods and technologies,
construction projects increasingly require sustainability in their high degrees of specialization and
complex work processes. This is due to a wide variety of new risk factors associated with construction
projects that can lead to extensive and severe damage. When an accident occurs during a construction
project, it can cause material, property, or bodily damage not only within the actual construction site
but also outside, affecting third parties. This study analyzed the record of such third-party damage
and the subsequent financial losses in bridge construction management, to identify the objective and
quantified relationship of risk indicators related to the damage and losses. In order to assess the actual
losses in construction projects, we adopted the loss claim payout data as recorded and provided by a
major Korean insurance company, and conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify the loss
indicators and to develop a loss estimation model. In this study, the analysis of the data indicated
that the superstructure type, the foundation type, floods, and company ranking by the amount of
the contract were the four statistically significant risk indicators that affected financial losses from
third-party damage, among the nine variables used as independent variables, which included the
superstructure type, foundation type, superstructure construction method, maximum span length,
floods, typhoons, total construction cost, total construction period, and company ranking. As this
study focused on identifying the risk factors and producing a loss assessment model quantified
in numerical values, the results provide important references for assessing and minimizing the
risks to third parties and the consequential financial losses in bridge construction, while promoting
sustainability objectives.

Keywords: bridge construction; risk analysis; loss assessment model; third-party damage; insurance

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Purpose of the Study

Bridges are important infrastructure and industrial facilities for urban growth and economic
development, as they allow a large volume of logistics and transportation by connecting rivers, canyons,
islands, and lands. Due to the recent introduction of innovative construction methods and technologies,
construction projects increasingly require sustainability in their high degrees of specialization and
complex work processes. This is due to a wide variety of new risk factors associated with construction
projects, which can lead to extensive and severe damage. The high level of expertise and technology
also highlights the need for a sustainable and systematic management of finances, as well-organized
fiscal management and fund execution, which can contribute to the sustainable practices of safety and
risk management.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435; doi:10.3390/su12083435 367 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

It is also important to reinforce the reliability of information regarding risks in construction projects
and to use this information as a means for rational decision-making and effective strategy-making for
sustainable risk management. However, there are limits to relying solely on government-led risk and
safety management systems, which tend to be too broad and general, and thus the role of the private
sector is becoming more emphasized [1]. More specifically, the current trend of risk management in
construction projects should be more numerical, quantified, and thus more objective, as opposed to the
empirical custom of the past, which relied on the individual experiences of experts and judgments
from previous cases [2,3].
Risk management is defined in the Principles for Risk Management of the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) as: (1) a part of decision-making; (2) should clearly address uncertainty;
(3) should be based on the best information available; (4) should be adapted to a specific purpose
or method; and (5) should be comprehensive and obvious [4]. Risk management in construction is
commonly focused on reducing risk factors, as well as transferring risk through purchasing construction
insurances. For this reason, a risk management approach that recognizes internal and external risk
factors in advance and analyzes the extent of possible losses, in order to share the risks according to
the causes, is strongly required [5]. In other words, construction management and loss estimation
models require a more sophisticated and scientific methodology. Furthermore, it is also crucial that
such models consider the comprehensive aspects of losses, by including not only material damage
within the site but also third-party damage, which is directly and indirectly due to the influence of
construction activities or accidents.
In this study, a “third party” is defined as an outside entity not aligned with any of the stakeholders
(including the workers, subcontractors, or general contractors) of a construction project. Therefore,
“third-party damage” refers to the damage caused by construction activities or accidents to the third
party’s bodies and/or properties, including damage to, physical injury to, loss of, or destruction of
tangible property [6]. On the insurance record data, which this study collected and analyzed, the “loss
claim payout” refers to the financial amount spent to indemnify the third-party damage.
Previous studies on safety accidents and risk management in construction have been mostly
limited to the workers and structures within the construction site. Analyses and studies on third-party
damage beyond the construction sites are much rarer [7–10]. Examples of third parties can include,
among others, pedestrians and agricultural and commercial workers around the site. The occurrence
of third-party damage can give rise to many problems, including cost compensation, suspension of
construction work, and administrative punishment, resulting in reduced work productivity, economic
losses, and harm to the reputation of the company in question. This, in turn, can lead to unexpected
secondary losses despite many efforts to improve the productivity and profitability, such as cost-cutting,
construction period reducing, and so on. Therefore, at a time when many construction companies seek
to develop and strengthen more advanced risk assessment and management methods to minimize
potential losses, a more comprehensive and sustainable management system needs to be established
by taking into account the risk factors beyond the construction site, rather than relying on the existing
risk management, focused on accidents taking place within the boundaries of construction sites [11].
The purpose of this study is to provide a loss assessment model for third-party damage that
can contribute to minimizing risks in a more systematic and evidence-based way. In other words,
this study aims to identify the statistically significant risk factors in bridge construction projects from
onset to completion and to present a risk prediction model, while reflecting the actual record of damage
that occurred in bridge construction projects. Both aims are ultimately directed at the achievement of
sustainable risk management.

1.2. Method and Scope of Research

This study analyzed the record of damage incurred to the third parties and subsequent financial
losses to indemnify the damage in actual bridge construction projects, in order to identify the correlation
between the risk factors of the damage and financial losses. To ascertain the actual losses in construction

368
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

projects, we adopted the loss claim payout data recorded and provided by a major Korean insurance
company as the data in this study, for the purpose of achieving the quantification of third-party
damage in numerical values. More specifically, the loss claim payout record was used due to its
clarity and objectivity [12], which can represent the cost of financial losses in construction work well.
This quantified representation of insurance records can be especially useful, because of the specific and
detailed information about each case of damage, which allows engineers, insurance underwriters, etc.,
to accurately and logically review, examine, and determine the loss in construction management.
We conducted risk analysis in order to find valid factors based on the accumulated past data and
statistics. In the insurance industry, generalized linear models (GLMs) are commonly used to support
critical decisions [13]; more specifically, the choice of variables in the model first considers all variables
used in the calculation of insurance premium and filters out statistically meaningless variables through
a statistical analysis process. Adopting this method, in this study, variables were selected based on the
insurance claim payout record and the correlations with quantified losses were analyzed.
Based on the data, the financial loss incurred to compensate the third-party damage was then
referred to as the “loss from third-party damage” in this study, and the term and concept of the “loss
ratio” was established as the dependent variable. To identify the risk factors and the relationships
between the loss and the factors, first, the dependent variable was defined using the term, “loss ratio.”
The loss ratio is defined as the amount of financial loss incurred to indemnify third-party damage,
divided by the total cost of the construction project. We used the term and concept of loss ratio as it
seemed reasonable to consider the fact that, even when the loss amount was relatively little in a project,
if the size of the project was rather small, the extent of the loss could be more detrimental and severe,
and the contrary fact that even when the loss amount was relatively large, if the size of the project was
rather big, the extent of the loss could be considered somewhat benign and insignificant.
Second, the key risk factors in bridge constructions were selected based on previous studies
and past insurance compensation records. The risk factors regarding the characteristics of bridge
constructions were based on the project base information, and the occurrence of natural disasters
were entered as the independent variables. Therefore, a total of eight variables (superstructure
types, maximum span length, superstructure construction method, flood, typhoon, total construction
duration, and company rank) were selected for the analysis. Third, a multiple regression analysis
using the stepwise variable selection method was conducted to identify and verify the statistically
significant risk factors as well as the correlation between the variables and to develop a loss assessment
model. Figure 1.

Figure 1. Our study procedure.

369
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

2. Review of Literature

2.1. Construction Insurance

Construction insurance covers the damage caused by unexpected accidents and consequential
losses occurred during construction and civil engineering works, such as temporary construction work,
main construction, and damage to the construction materials. The compensation for such damage can
be divided into two types: first, the compensation for construction materials within the construction
sites, and second, the compensation for third-party physical and property losses incurred beyond the
construction site due to accidents involving the construction work [14].
The regulations on the compensation not only for construction materials but also for third-party
damage have recently become more stringent. For example, it has become obligatory for construction
projects ordered by the Korean central or local governments to purchase construction insurance,
carried out mainly through a turn-key base contract or alternative bidding, mostly by large
construction companies. The projects requiring pre-qualification are bridges over 50 meters in
span. These regulations also require that the insurance purchased in such cases must guarantee the
collateral damage for materials and third-party liability (Article 55 of the government’s bidding and
contract enforcement standards). The Korean Public Procurement Service is also seeking to reduce the
loss burden on construction companies by applying construction insurance, which includes third-party
liability, to the public building corporation in downtown areas starting from August 2019.
This study used the loss claim payout data from Contractor’s All Risk (CAR) insurance.
As mentioned earlier, construction insurance is designed to cover the entire range of unexpected losses
at all stages of construction projects. If an accident occurs during a construction project, this could
cause damage to the existing property of the contractors and to those involved in the construction
around the construction site, and also to a third-party that is not necessarily directly related to the
construction activities. In addition to property and material damage, damage such as death, physical
injuries and/or any bodily harm can occur to third parties. For example, the Korea National Environment
Dispute Resolution Commission recently ordered hundreds of millions of KRW (South Korean Won)
in compensation for damage, such as damage to crops due to sunlight interruption from highway
bridges and damage from mass death in fish farms due to the noise and water pollution from bridge
construction. Such construction events relating to third-party damage, in turn, can cause losses to the
owners, including the suspension of work or delay of completion.

2.2. Loss from Third-Party Damage

Many leading companies involved in construction projects make a great deal of effort to estimate
the possible losses during construction work. In particular, insurance and re-insurance companies
have developed their own loss assessment models to predict and prepare for the potential losses [15].
These loss estimation models in fact help the insurers and their customers to understand and estimate
the potential risks in construction projects. However, there is a disadvantage that these models can
only be accessed and used by certain insurers or limited customers, which makes it difficult for the
others who are also involved in construction work to utilize the models. Therefore, it is quite difficult
for general operators or public institutions to gain access to such models and to estimate the losses
incurred during construction work.
Many vendors, including EQECAT, Risk Management Solution, and Applied Insurance Research,
have designed and provided risk estimation models to evaluate the construction risks [16,17] to be
generally used, but applying these models over a wide range of regions and countries has some
limitations. This is because differences in the size and frequency of local vulnerabilities in construction
projects and natural disasters can increase the uncertainty in forecasting losses, and models that do
not adequately reflect the characteristics of a region or country may result in errors. This, in turn,
can increase the differences or errors, especially in identifying third-party losses, as third-party losses
tend to be heavily affected by the surrounding environmental conditions. More specifically, because

370
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

third-party losses incur to people and places beyond the actual sites of construction, particular regional
differences easily arise due to a variety of surrounding environmental factors and the construction
related regulations and laws.
Therefore, for users, not only are the loss assessment models developed by insurance and
re-insurance companies difficult to understand due to their black box type algorithms but also these
models cannot easily be adjusted to reflect the important characteristics particular to specific regions
and countries. For this reason, there is a need for studies to analyze the risk factors for third-party
damage and also the losses from third-party damage, and to develop a loss assessment model that
evaluates the losses from third-party damage, which can be applied to a wide range of regions with
their particular details regarding the environment and laws.

2.3. Risks in Bridge Construction Projects

Existing studies on the risks in bridge construction have also been conducted with a wide range
of approaches, including technical, social, environmental, and economic points of views, as risk is a
combination of factors, such as disaster, vulnerability, and exposure, and is not solely or independently
determined by a single factor [18]. Hastak and Baim proposed risk factors that influenced the
cost-effectiveness of management and the operation and maintenance of urban infrastructures, such as
bridges, highways and subway stations. They determined that the risk factors specific to bridges include
the training of inspection personnel and deicing salts [19]. Wang and Elhag performed a comparative
study that analyzed bridge risk modeling, focusing on safety, functionality, substantiality, and the
environment by comparing multiple regression analysis and neural network analysis methods [20].
Cho and Kim proposed a probabilistic risk assessment in a virtual construction to evaluate
the risks of erection control and the main cable wires’ fracture during the construction phases [21].
Hashemi et al. identified the key bridge construction risk factors, i.e., delayed payment on the contract
and extras, a shortage of labor, materials, and equipment, construction permitting issues, and poor
relationship among parties [22]. Li et al. pointed out the risk factors for bridge construction using factor
analysis. They categorized seven risk factors: economic, contract and law, building technology, design,
environment, staff, and materials and equipment [23]. Choudhry et al. identified the critical risk
factors related to bridge construction projects, including the financial risks, external risks, design risks,
management risks, construction risks, contractual risks, and health and safety risks. They determined
that financial risks were the key factor that affected the costs and schedule of bridge construction
projects [24].
Various studies have been conducted on risk assessment methods and losses in bridge construction,
and these studies contributed to recognizing certain critical risk factors. In existing studies, however,
two major gaps can be pointed out. First, studies that identify significant risk factors through objective
and statistical analysis using quantified data are still insufficient. Second, most of the previous
studies on bridge construction risks did not distinguish the material damage that occurred within the
construction sites from third-party damage, as it is difficult to exclusively distinguish and evaluate
the losses from third-party damage. Thus, for a scientific and objective analysis of losses caused by
third-party damage, and for the development of the loss assessment models, the use of data with
quantified risk, as well as statistical analysis and verification, is crucial and necessary.

3. Data Collection and Analysis

3.1. Data Collection

For quantitative risk analysis and evaluation, in this study, we collected the data of 296 loss cases of
third-party damage claim payouts from construction insurance coverages of actual bridge construction
projects between 1999 and 2016. The collected data included various information, such as the date and
place of accidents, structure component types, construction period, loss details, the amount of insurance
coverage, and the loss amount in the bridge construction project. The detailed information in the data

371
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

was then classified into three groups, for the sake of convenience: (1) accident information (accident
date, site address, and accident details); (2) characteristic information of the bridge construction projects
(superstructure types, maximum span length, and superstructure construction method); and (3) the
project scale, represented by the total construction duration and company rank. Not all information
was used to select the independent variables. However, the above information was used to form sets
of independent variables, which will be introduced in the next section. For example, the accident
information itself was not selected as an independent variable, but based on such information, such
as the accident date, site address, and accident details, the indicators of natural hazards (floods and
typhoons) were determined and used as independent variables.

3.2. Comparison of Material Loss and the 3rd Party Loss

Table 1 shows a descriptive statistical comparison between the losses from material damage and
the losses from third-party damage from the collected data. The frequency of third-party damage was
not very high, as it was estimated to be about half of the material damage. However, the average
amount of the financial loss incurred to indemnify the third-party damage was approximately 20%
higher than the loss incurred to indemnify the material damage.
Furthermore, a statistical comparison for a clearer verification was performed and is represented
in Table 2. The table illustrates the results of analyzing the differences between the two groups. As can
be seen, there is no significant difference in the average between the losses from the materials and from
the third-party, which evidently indicates that the loss from third-party damage can and should be
an important part of the consideration for construction loss analysis, and requires an equivalent and
immediate level of management with the loss from the material damage.

Table 1. Comparison with materials and third-party losses.

Frequency Avg. Loss Max. Min

Category Std. Deviation
(%) (Mil. KRW) (Mil. KRW) (Mil. KRW)
Material 66.8 84.98 1915 1.15 328.22
Third-party 33.2 95.34 841 1.03 176.41

Table 2. ANOVA test for materials and third-party losses.

Category Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value Sig.

Between Groups 5.079e+15 5.079e+15 0.147 0.833
Within Groups 5.054e+18 4.458e+16
Total 5.059e+18

3.3. Multiple Regression

3.3.1. Dependent Variable

In this study, multiple regression analysis was used to define the relationship between the loss ratio
and loss indicators to develop a loss estimation model. More specifically, through multiple regression
analysis, we identified the loss indicators in quantitative, numerical values through analyzing the
third-party losses, and determined the significant loss indicators among them. Based on the data,
the term and concept of the “loss ratio” were established. This is the amount of the loss incurred to
indemnify the third-party damage, divided by the size of the construction project. The size of the
construction project in this study was represented by the total sum insured (TSI), which reflects the
total bridge construction cost. This can be expressed in an equation as follows in Equation (1):

372
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

CP
LR = . (1)
TSI
where:

LR: Loss Ratio

CP: Claim-Payout
TSI: Total Sum Insured

In each case, the loss from third-party damage was relatively small, compared to the TSI,
and most loss ratios (LR) were inclined toward zero when expressed by Equation (1). For this reason,
the dependent variables used in the regression analysis were converted by natural logarithms in order
to meet the normal distribution. The value of the dependent variable used in the regression analysis is
shown in Equation (2):
Transformed Loss Ratio = Ln(LR). (2)

As mentioned, the normality test for the dependent variable was performed for the regression
analysis. The LR tended to be excessively left-leaning, which required conversion to a normal
distribution. As shown in Equation (2), the dependent variable was log transformed, and then the
normality was tested by histogram, Q-Q plot, and Shapiro–Wilk tests (see Table 3 and Figure 2). As the
p-value of the Shapiro–Wilk test was greater than 0.05, the dependent variable data can be interpreted
as being normally distributed.

Table 3. Normality test of the dependent value.

Shapiro–Wilk Test
Statistic df sig. Statistic df sig.
LR 0.386 296 0.000 Ln (LR) 0.965 296 0.084

(a) Histogram of Ln(LR) (b) Q-Q plot of Ln(LR)

Figure 2. Normality test by histogram and Q-Q plot.

3.3.2. Independent Variables

This section introduces the independent variables in detail, focusing on how they were selected.
This study included eight independent variables, which were categorized into three groups. The first
is technical components, including the types of superstructures, types of foundations, construction
methods, and lengths of bridges. The second group concerns natural disasters, such as floods and
typhoons. The last group includes information regarding construction projects, e.g., the total duration

373
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

of construction work and the sizes of the construction companies (company ranking by amount of
contract). Numerical construction information indicates the complexity, scale, and task level of the
construction projects and can reflect the risk of the work [25].

Technical Components
The types of superstructures of bridges refer to the structure above the bridge’s abutment and
bridge deck, and are determined by the composite assessment of constructability, economic feasibility,
and safety along with topographical and environmental conditions. The Korean Public Procurement
Service assesses the previous performance record by classifying them into A to D grades according
to the difficulty of the construction in the contractor pre-qualification criteria for bridge construction.
Researchers have suggested that optimizing the selection of the superstructure types can be done on
the basis of such factors as the number and length of bridge spans and the approximate construction
cost [26,27]. Differentiation according to the characteristics of the superstructure types can be considered
as a risk factor in bridge construction. This study classified the types of superstructures into the order
of the ordinal scale of arch bridges, pre-cast concrete (PSC) beam bridges and cable-stayed bridges,
by the distribution of the average loss claim payout.
In addition, for long spanned bridges, the difficulty of construction can increase, and the risks can
also increase due to the influence of the increased period and the cost, as well as severe wind speed
risks [28–30]. In this study, ordinal scales were classified on the basis of 50, 100, and 500 m.
The foundation of the bridge is an important structural factor in the construction of a bridge
and bears important risk factors and uncertainties, which necessitate specific management of the
hazards [31]. In addition to this, increased flow rates and water speeds resulting from floods and
typhoons can bring about scour, which can cause unforeseen damage and the collapse of bridges [32].
This, in turn, can trigger material and third-party damage. As such, the occurrence of scour can be
a fatal hazard to the life and stability of a bridge. The data collected regarding the foundation of
the bridge can be used as a major risk factor, and based on the distribution of the average loss claim
payouts, the classification criteria of an ordinal scale, including pre-cast concrete pile, cast in place,
and open-caisson type, were established.
The superstructure construction method is determined based on economic feasibility, construction
speed, and overhead clearance (valid height from the bottom of the bridge body to the surface of the
water or road). Previous studies analyzed the structural safety and optimal design methods, according
to bridge construction methods [33–36]. These studies found that differences existed between the
influence of loads according to the construction methods and the economic design methods. For this,
risk analyses based on the characteristics of the different construction methods and their classifications
are required. Kim and Cho developed a rough estimation model for the construction costs according
to the classification of the typical construction methods of bridge superstructures and found that the
classification of the superstructure construction methods was necessary [37]. In this study, the criteria
for classification of ILM (Incremental Launching Method), FCM (Free Cantilever Method), and MSS
(Movable Scaffolding System) were established on the basis of the average loss claim payout through
classification of the construction method.

Natural Disasters
Losses from natural disasters were calculated through indicators, e.g., typhoons and floods,
using the reinsurer’s Natural Disaster Assessment Network (NATHAN). The map of world natural
disasters uses the existing natural disaster occurrence data to index the risks of disasters in specific areas,
e.g., floods, typhoons, and earthquakes. We used the risks, such as typhoon and flood, to represent the
indicators of natural disasters. Natural disaster hazards were collected using the location information
(address) from each construction project site. Meteorological accidents have been considered as a key
factor that affects construction risks [38,39]. Construction sites located in major hurricane-prone areas

374
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

face frequent construction delays due to hurricane-induced gusts and heavy rains, and there is a direct
link to construction risks according to the risk levels of natural disasters [40–42].

Information Regarding Construction Project

In previous studies, the total duration of the project was used as a measure of the construction
project risk and could be a key indicator in estimating the loss [43–45]. We found that, in these previous
studies, in general building construction, the loss ratio became lower as the total period of the project
became longer.
In addition, studies have suggested that the differences in the sizes of construction companies
can entail notable differences in the awareness and support for safety accident prevention and
risk management, which indicates that company sizes could be used as a major measure of risk
analysis [46,47]. In this study, we used the company ranking by the number of contracts to indicate the
size of the construction companies.
Table 4 shows the categories of the bridge project risk indicators.

Table 4. The categories of bridge project risk indicators.

Engineering Natural Hazard Project

Span Construction Total Company
Factor Super-structure Foundation Flood Typhoon
Length Method Duration Rank
Ordinal
Ordinal scale
Unit Ordinal scale meters Ordinal scale Ordinal scale scale Month Number
(Zone)
(Zone)
Occurrence Max. speed
per year (Km/h)
1: Precast conc’ (times) 1: 76–141 Company
1: Arch Max. 1: ILM Total
pile Zone 1: 1 2: 142–184 rank by
Description 2: PSC beam span 2: FCM duration of
2: Cast in place Zone 2: 2 3: 185–212 contract
3: Cable-stayed length 3: MSS the project
3: Open caisson Zone 3: 3 4: 213–251 amount
Zone 4: 4 5: 252–290
Zone 5: 5 6: 300–

4. Results
Tables 5 and 6 show the descriptive statistics of the variables and the results of the regression
analysis, respectively. Eight variables were used as independent variables, including the superstructure
type, foundation type, superstructure construction method, maximum span length, floods, typhoons,
total construction duration, and company rank by amount of contract. The analysis found that four
independent variables were significant indicators that affected the loss ratio from third-party damage
in the bridge construction. These are the superstructure type, foundation type, flood, and company
rank. The p-value of the F test was less than the significance level (0.05).

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the variables.

Variables Min. Max Mean Std. Deviation

Dependent variable
Ln (Loss Ratio) 1.14 18.41 9.27 7.14
Independent variables
Superstructure 1.00 2.00 1.24 0.65
Foundation 1.00 3.00 2.64 0.71
Flood 1.00 5.00 3.52 1.83
Company Rank 1.00 84.00 42.59 14.42

375
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

Table 6. Regression analyses results.

Variables Coef. Beta Coef. p > |z| VIF

Engineering factor
Superstructure 4.243 0.708 0.008 1.032
Foundation 2.275 0.454 0.024 1.051
Natural Hazard factor
Flood 1.075 0.353 0.021 1.072
Project factor
Company rank −0.092 −0.582 0.018 1.043
Number of Observations = 296
F value = 16.341
Adj-R2 = 0.361

In addition, the independent variables, such as the superstructure construction method, maximum
span length, typhoons, total construction cost, and total construction period were found to be
non-significant to the dependent variable and the loss ratio, as their levels of significance were greater
than 0.05. In the regression analysis of the loss ratio of the bridge construction, as illustrated in Table 5,
the revised R2 value was 0.361, which indicated that 36.1% of the loss ratio could be explained by the
regression model. In addition, the variance inflation factor (VIF) value range shown is from 1.032 to
1.072, reflecting no multicollinearity among the variables.
The standardized coefficient (beta value) is the value of the relationship between the independent
and the dependent variables that compares the influence of the independent variable on the dependent
variable. In other words, the standardized regression coefficient indicates the importance of the
regression coefficient, and the higher the value of the beta coefficient of the variable, the greater the
effect on the dependent variable. When prioritized by the absolute value of the beta coefficient, in order
to understand each indicator’s impact on the loss ratio, the variables were organized as follows: (1) the
superstructure type (beta coefficient = 0.708); (2) the company ranking (beta coefficient = −0.582);
(3) the foundation type (beta coefficient = 0.454); and (4) floods (beta coefficient = 0.353).
According to the analysis values, when the value of the superstructure type, one of the independent
variables, was changed to the ordinal scale of 1 unit, the amount of change in the loss ratio increased
by 0.708. In other words, it is possible to predict that the loss from third-party damage will increase
when the superstructure type of the bridge is constructed in a cable-stayed bridge rather than a PSC
bridge. In terms of the impact of the construction company ranking, the results show that companies
with a greater number of contracts tended to have less losses from third-party damage. Regarding the
foundation types, the selection of precast concrete pile, cast in place, and open-caisson type had an
influence of 0.454 on the loss ratio. When the risk level of flood increased by one level, the influence of
0.353 arose on the loss ratio. This indicates that the higher the risk rating of flood, the higher the loss
ratio due to loss from third-party damage. Figure 3 shows the scatter plot comparing the results of the
log transformed loss ratio and predicted log transformed loss ratio. The plot proves that both values
are well matched and verified that the values were consistent.

376
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

Figure 3. The scatter plot of actual Ln(LR) and predicted Ln(LR).

5. Conclusions and Discussion

Bridge construction projects increasingly require more thorough and sustainable risk management
due to the scattering risks in the projects, such as heavy-duty construction equipment and high-altitude
work under unstable environmental conditions. Consequently, in the fields of construction management,
the processes and practices of risk assessment that align with sustainability objectives are all the
more necessary. For this reason, studies that identify more objective and quantified risk factors at
construction sites and develop a loss assessment models are called for.
In response to these needs, this study analyzed the financial losses that incurred to indemnify
third-party damage in actual bridge construction projects and developed a loss assessment model
through a multi-linear regression analysis. This was based on the data of loss claim payouts for
third-party damage in bridge construction, as recorded by a Korean insurance company. The analysis
found that the four independent variables, i.e., superstructure types, foundation types, floods, and
construction company rank, were the significant risk factors that demonstrated actual relationships
with the financial losses incurred to indemnify the third-party damage.
Some of the findings of this study demonstrated consistency with those of the previous studies.
As regards to structure type, Gurcanli et al. [45] and Kim et al. [48] found that the type of structure is a
key factor to be considered in construction risk analysis. In this study, we specified the types as the
superstructure type, foundation type, span length, and construction method in our analysis. We found
that superstructure type was a significant factor in bridge construction risk analysis.
Previous studies have shown that natural hazards played a main role in defining the risks in
construction projects [38,39]. Among the natural hazards, this study found that the occurrence of
flooding was proportional to the increase in third-party losses in bridge construction, which is consistent
with the findings of previous studies that revealed that the elements of flooding are also key risk factors
in construction projects [44]. In addition, as Kim et al. [49] contended, the results of this study also
indicate that the size of a construction project affects the potential loss. This study classified the size of a
construction project into two different elements, the construction duration and rank of the construction
company and verified that the rank of the company is the more significant factor of the two.

377
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

This study sought to statistically analyze and evaluate the practical effectiveness of secured
information in risk assessment in a situation where it is necessary to predict the future risks of bridge
construction with minimum information. Therefore, the units of ordinal scale applied to the risk
analysis of superstructures and foundation types, as well as construction method, do not indicate
or evaluate the difficulty of the construction or the level of safety. Rather, this study identifies the
statistically significant kinds and extent of the risk factors in bridge construction as reflected in the
collected data. In this study, the derived risk factors had a correlation with the incurred financial losses
but did not objectively explain a causal relation between them.
For example, a correlation was identified where the higher the construction company rank, the
less loss from third-party damage, while the causal relationship between the two, such as whether the
reason for the decrease in the loss ratio was due to decent risk management or disaster prevention
measures within the company, is still unexplainable. Therefore, further studies are required in order
to obtain more effective risk assessment measures through additional investigation and analysis to
identify the causal relationship in the future. In addition, this study used loss claim payout data from
only one Korean insurance company. Further research is needed to support this study and its reliability
based on data from many other insurers and their loss data to reflect a wide range of characteristics in
construction projects.
As this study verified the quantified risk factors that reflected the actual loss claim payout record
and presented the framework used for deriving the factors and developing the loss assessment model,
the results can be used as important references for the government, construction companies, insurance
and re-insurance companies, and others related to bridge construction projects, all of whom aim to
manage and minimize the risks and consequential financial losses in bridge construction management.
In particular, insurance and reinsurance companies can refer to this study to reconstruct their own loss
assessment model of measuring the potential risks for particular bridge construction projects and to
adapt the results from the model in estimating the rates of premiums.
Construction companies can benefit from this study, as we provided a substantial risk assessment
for third-party loss in bridge construction based on the predicted total value of property, structure type,
and the foundation type of the bridge. By doing so, such information can be reflected in predicting
the life cycles and consequential management costs for third parties as well as for the bridge. This is
because having risk factors for third party damage in bridge construction projects are quantified and
proportioned helps in managing, responding to, and ultimately reducing potential loss.
Thus, the framework and the findings of this study will be able to contribute to improving the
bridge construction companies’ judgment in risk management. In addition, for the central and local
governments and government-invested institutions, the utilization of the findings of this study is also
expected to contribute to the establishment of effective measures and regulations of risk management
and prevention that reflect the characteristics of actual damage and losses in bridge construction projects.
This study is also expected to be applicable to other regions and countries where the construction
environment and the natural disasters are similar to Korea. Taking particular consideration of the issues
surrounding bridge superstructure types, foundations, floods, and company ranks, which were the four
significant risk factors found in this study, will allow various resources to be efficiently distributed and
allocated, ultimately contributing to robust and sustainable risk management in bridge construction.
Overall, this study is novel as it provided quantified and therefore measurable risk factors in
bridge construction. In this study, we derived the risk factors based on the data of the actual accidents
that occurred in bridge construction projects that had been carried out and developed a loss prediction
model. These two outcomes of this study are believed to be useful for risk management in the
construction industry, especially in the sense that this study was based on the numerical and tangible
records of construction accidents, which were then perceptibly represented in financial values.

378
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.A.; Data curation, S.A., J.-M.K.; Funding acquisition, T.K.;
Investigation, S.A.; Methodology, S.A.; Project administration, T.K.; Software, J.-M.K.; Supervision, T.K.; Validation,
S.A.; Writing—original draft, J.-M.K.; Writing—review & editing, S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by a grant (NRF-2019R1A2C1009398) from the National Research
Foundation of Korea by Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Paudel, Y. A Comparative study of public–private catastrophe insurance systems: Lessons from current
practices. Geneva Pap. Risk Ins. 2012, 37, 257–285. [CrossRef]
2. Wood, G.; Ellis, R.C.T. Risk management practices of leading UK cost consultants. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
2003, 10, 254–262. [CrossRef]
3. Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M.T.; Arikan, A.E. A Critical Review of Risk Management Support Tools. In Proceedings
of the 20th Annual Conference of Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Edinburgh, UK,
1–3 September 2004; pp. 1145–1154.
4. ISO. ISO31000, “31000: 2009 Risk Management–Principles and Guidelines”; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
5. Adeleke, A.Q.; Bahaudin, A.Y.; Kamaruddeen, A.M.; Bamgbade, J.A.; Salimon, M.G.; Khan, M.W.A.;
Sorooshian, S. The Influence of Organizational External Factors on Construction Risk Management among
Nigerian Construction Companies. Saf. Health Work. 2018, 9, 115–124. [CrossRef]
6. Dewar, J. International Project Finance: Law and Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011.
7. Lee, H.S.; Kim, H.; Park, M.; Ai Lin Teo, E.; Lee, K.P. Construction risk assessment using site influence factors.
J. Comput. Civil Eng. 2012, 26, 319–330. [CrossRef]
8. Fung, I.W.; Tam, V.W.; Lo, T.Y.; Lu, L.L. Developing a risk assessment model for construction safety. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 593–600. [CrossRef]
9. Xiang, P.; Jia, F.; Li, X. Critical Behavioral Risk Factors among Principal Participants in the Chinese
Construction Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3158. [CrossRef]
10. Taroun, A. Towards a better modelling and assessment of construction risk: Insights from a literature review.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 101–115. [CrossRef]
11. Brockett, P.L.; Golden, L.L.; Betak, J. Different Market Methods for Transferring Financial Risks in Construction.
In Risk Management in Construction Projects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019.
12. Odeyinka, H.A. An evaluation of the use of insurance in managing construction risks. Constr. Manag. Econ.
2000, 18, 519–524. [CrossRef]
13. De Jong, P.; Heller, G.Z. Generalized Linear Models for Insurance Data; Cambridge University Press: New York,
NY, USA, 2008.
14. Bunni, N.G. Risk and Insurance in Construction, 2nd ed.; Spon Press: London, UK, 2003.
15. Kim, J.M.; Kim, T.; Son, K.; Yum, S.G.; Ahn, S. Measuring Vulnerability of Typhoon in Residential Facilities:
Focusing on Typhoon Maemi in South Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2768. [CrossRef]
16. Sanders, D.E.; Brix, A.; Duffy, P.; Forster, W.; Hartington, T.; Jones, G.; Levi, C.; Paddam, P.; Papachristou, D.;
Perry, G.; et al. The Management of Losses Arising from Extreme Events; Convention General Insurance Study
Group GIRO: London, UK, 2002.
17. Kunreuther, H.; Meyer, R.; Van den Bulte, C.; Chapman, R.E. Risk Analysis for Extreme Events:
Economic Incentives for Reducing Future Losses; US Department of Commerce; Technology Administration;
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2004.
18. Crichton, D. The Risk Triangle. In Natural Disaster Management; Ingleton, J., Ed.; Tudor Rose: London, UK,
1999; pp. 102–103.
19. Hastak, M.; Baim, E.J. Risk factors affecting management and maintenance cost of urban infrastructure.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2001, 7, 7–76. [CrossRef]
20. Wang, Y.-M.; Elhag, T.M.S. A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple regression
analysis in modeling bridge risks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2007, 32, 336–348. [CrossRef]

379
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

21. Cho, T.; Kim, T.S. Probabilistic risk assessment for the construction phases of a bridge construction based on
finite element analysis. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2008, 44, 383–400. [CrossRef]
22. Hashemi, H.; Mousavi, S.M.; Mojtahedi, S.M. Bootstrap technique for risk analysis with interval numbers in
bridge construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 600–608. [CrossRef]
23. Li, Q.F.; Li, Z.X.; Niu, J. Application of factor analysis to risk evaluation of bridge construction. Adv. Mater. Res.
2011, 243, 1848–1853. [CrossRef]
24. Choudhry, R.M.; Aslam, M.A.; Hinze, J.W.; Arain, F.M. Cost and schedule risk analysis of bridge construction
in Pakistan: Establishing risk guidelines. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014020. [CrossRef]
25. Nevada DOT. Risk Management and Risk-based Cost Estimation Guidelines. 2012. Available online:
https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=4518 (accessed on 22 April 2020).
26. Yun, S.Y.; Kim, C.H.; Kang, L.S. Development of model for selecting superstructure type of small size bridge
using dual classification method. J. Korean Soc. Civ. Eng. 2015, 35, 1413–1420. [CrossRef]
27. Malekly, H.; Mousavi, S.M.; Hashemi, H. A fuzzy integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge
design. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 4910–4920. [CrossRef]
28. Koh, H.M.; Kim, H.J.; Lim, J.H.; Kang, S.C.; Choo, J.F. Lifetime Design of Cable-Supported Super-Long-Span
Bridges. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 11–15 July 2010; pp. 26–42.
29. Jo, B.W.; Park, J.C.; Kim, C.H. Wind characteristics of existing long span bridge based on measured data.
J. Civ. Eng. 2005, 9, 219–224. [CrossRef]
30. Yang, Y.; Gang, Y.; Wei, F.; Qin, W. Buffeting performance of long-span suspension bridge based on measured
wind data in a mountainous region. J. Vibroeng. 2018, 20, 621–635. [CrossRef]
31. Giroux, R.P. Relevance of Roebling. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2009, 23, 2–4. [CrossRef]
32. Elsaid, A.; Seracino, R. Rapid assessment of foundation scour using the dynamic features of bridge
superstructure. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 42–49. [CrossRef]
33. Won, J.H.; Kim, G.Y. Structural Safety Analysis of a Long Span Cable-stayed Bridge with a Partially Earth
Anchored Cable System on Dynamic Loads during Construction. J. Korean Soc. Saf. 2016, 31, 104–110. [CrossRef]
34. Sampaio, A.Z.; Martins, O.P. The application of virtual reality technology in the construction of bridge:
The cantilever and incremental launching methods. Autom. Constr. 2014, 37, 58–67. [CrossRef]
35. Kwak, H.G.; Son, J.K. Determination of design moments in bridges constructed with a movable scaffolding
system (MSS). Comput. Struct. 2006, 84, 2141–2150. [CrossRef]
36. Pan, N.F. Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Autom. Constr. 2008,
17, 958–965. [CrossRef]
37. Kim, S.B.; Cho, J.H. Development of the approximate cost estimating model for PSC box girder bridge based
on the breakdown of standard work. J. Korean Soc. Civ. Eng. 2013, 33, 791–800. [CrossRef]
38. Choi, H.H.; Mahadevan, S. Construction project risk assessment using existing database and project-specific
information. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 894–903. [CrossRef]
39. Kuo, Y.C.; Lu, S.T. Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for
metropolitan construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 602–614. [CrossRef]
40. Carr, V.; Tah, J.H.M. A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment and analysis: Construction
project risk management system. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2001, 32, 847–857. [CrossRef]
41. El-Sayegh, S.M. Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008,
26, 431–438. [CrossRef]
42. Chan, D.W.; Chan, A.P.; Lam, P.T.; Yeung, J.F.; Chan, J.H. Risk ranking and analysis in target cost contracts:
Empirical evidence from the construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 751–763. [CrossRef]
43. Kim, J.M.; Kim, T.; Bae, J.; Son, K.; Ahn, S. Analysis of plant construction accidents and loss estimation using
insurance loss records. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2019, 18, 507–516. [CrossRef]
44. Ryu, H.; Son, K.; Kim, J.M. Loss prediction model for building construction projects using insurance claim
payout. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2016, 15, 441–446. [CrossRef]
45. Gurcanli, G.E.; Bilir, S.; Sevim, M. Activity based risk assessment and safety cost estimation for residential
building construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2015, 80, 1–12. [CrossRef]
46. Lowery, J.T.; Borgerding, J.A.; Zhen, B.; Glazner, J.E.; Bondy, J.; Kreiss, K. Risk factors for injury among
construction workers at Denver International Airport. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1998, 34, 113–120. [CrossRef]

380
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3435

47. Cañamares, M.S.; Escribano, B.V.; García, M.G.; Barriuso, A.R.; Sáiz, A.R. Occupational risk-prevention
diagnosis: A study of construction SMEs in Spain. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 104–115. [CrossRef]
48. Kim, J.M.; Kim, T.; Son, K.; Bae, J.; Son, S. A quantitative risk assessment development using risk indicators
for predicting economic damages in construction sites of South Korea. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2019, 18,
472–478. [CrossRef]
49. Kim, J.M.; Woods, P.K.; Park, Y.J.; Kim, T.; Son, K. Predicting Hurricane Wind Damage by Claim Payout
Based on Hurricane Ike in Texas. Geomat. Nat. Haz. Risk 2015, 7, 1513–1525. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

381
sustainability

Article
Prediction of Risk Delay in Construction Projects
Using a Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Model
Zaher Mundher Yaseen 1 , Zainab Hasan Ali 2 , Sinan Q. Salih 3, * and Nadhir Al-Ansari 4, *
1 Sustainable Developments in Civil Engineering Research Group, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; [email protected]
2 Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Diyala, Baquba 32001, Iraq;
[email protected]
3 Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
4 Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lulea University of Technology,
97187 Lulea, Sweden
* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.Q.S.); [email protected] (N.A.-A.)

Received: 22 December 2019; Accepted: 14 February 2020; Published: 18 February 2020

Abstract: Project delays are the major problems tackled by the construction sector owing to the
associated complexity and uncertainty in the construction activities. Artificial Intelligence (AI) models
have evidenced their capacity to solve dynamic, uncertain and complex tasks. The aim of this current
study is to develop a hybrid artificial intelligence model called integrative Random Forest classifier
with Genetic Algorithm optimization (RF-GA) for delay problem prediction. At first, related sources
and factors of delay problems are identified. A questionnaire is adopted to quantify the impact of
delay sources on project performance. The developed hybrid model is trained using the collected
data of the previous construction projects. The proposed RF-GA is validated against the classical
version of an RF model using statistical performance measure indices. The achieved results of the
developed hybrid RF-GA model revealed a good resultant performance in terms of accuracy, kappa
and classification error. Based on the measured accuracy, kappa and classification error, RF-GA
attained 91.67%, 87% and 8.33%, respectively. Overall, the proposed methodology indicated a robust
and reliable technique for project delay prediction that is contributing to the construction project
management monitoring and sustainability.

Keywords: delay sources; risk management; random forest-genetic algorithm; computer aid;
construction project

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background

The construction sector has a crucial role in improving the economics of developed countries [1].
The success of this sector is measured by time, cost and quality performance of construction projects.
Prediction of construction durations represents a problem for both researchers and project managers.
The construction process is subject to many factors and unpredicted variables that result from many
sources. These sources prevent the completion of projects within the specified time and lead to a delay
risk in the construction process [2,3].
Delay risk is considered as one of the major challenges tackled by construction firms [3,4]. Delay
can be defined as an action or event that extends the time required to complete the project identified
in a contract [3]. Project delay has an adverse effect on the project performance, which leads to cost
overruns and productivity reduction. Its effect extends to include the owner, consultant and contractor
in terms of litigation, dispute and arbitration [5]. Delays are caused by many sources and factors such

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514; doi:10.3390/su12041514 383 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

as the owner [6,7], designer [3,8], contractor [4,7], materials [4,7], project [7,8], labor [9] and external
factors [3,10].

1.2. Literature Review

The prediction of project delay based on internal and external sources can help project managers
to provide an accurate forecast of the project schedule, and this can assist a proactive management
approach in the construction project [11]. Construction projects are dynamic and complex, included
a huge number of project stockholders, feedback processes and non-linear relationships [12]. The
existence of a delay problem is related to interdependent factors that affect the construction project
and the complexity and uncertainty of construction activities. Thus, providing of an efficient tool for
analyzing delay factors is key for estimating an accurate duration in construction projects [11].
By recalling previous studies, Chan (2001) used regression analysis to identify time–cost
relationships for building projects in Malaysia [2]. This approach was developed for managers
and owners to estimate the average time that is required for project delivery. Chan and Chan (2004)
performed multiple regression exercises to analyze data related to the time performance of construction
projects [13]. The results indicated that multiple regression was used as a useful method to predict
time performance in construction projects. Rezaie et al. (2007) used Monte Carlo analysis to investigate
the effects of uncertainties on the schedule performance [14]. The results revealed that this method is a
good tool to simulate the relationship of uncertainties of construction projects, and represents many
dimensions of the utility function. Hammad et al. (2008) developed a statistical model and sample
tests to predict the cost and duration of construction projects in Jordan [15]. The proposed model
showed reliable statistical results in the prediction of the time and cost performance of construction
projects. Mohamed et al. (2009) introduced Analytical Hierarchy Processes (AHP) to predict time
contingency in construction projects [16]. The model provided a reliable result in the estimation
process. In another study, Abu Hammad et al. (2010) used statistical analysis to measure the risk
impact on the time and cost of public building projects [17]. Dursun and Stoy (2011) modeled
construction project duration by testing the statistical efficiency in classifying projects with respect to
their locations [18]. The results demonstrated that the model was valid to select populations. Kokkaew
and Wipulanusat (2014) presented a stochastic-based Monte Carlo approach for managing delay risk in
construction projects [19]. This approach has been applied to two case studies, a commercial building
and a build–operate–transfer (BOT) road. The results showed that this approach may enhance risk
management in construction projects that are surrounded with uncertainties. However, although there
have been several models introduced for delay risk simulation, these methods cannot explain and
clarify the uncertainty and complexity of the construction process very well, and this can affect the
prediction process of project duration.
Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) models have been widely applied in different fields of
engineering and science [20]. Several studies used AI models in their research on construction project
management. Elazouni (2006) Used an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) during the prequalification
process before awarding a contract [21]. The model was used to classify contractors into several groups
depending on their performance. The model demonstrated reliable result in representing contractors
in four-dimensional space. Chao and Chien (2009) developed a neural network model to estimate
the S-curve in a construction project, which represented by polynomial parameter [22]. The results
displayed that the model can be useful for contractors and owners in the early planning phase of
a construction project. Desai and Joshi (2010) used a decision tree to analyze labor productivity in
construction projects [23]. Shin (2011) proposed the AdaBoost algorithm for the selection of a framework
system in construction projects [24]. The algorithm was compared with an ANN model and the results
revealed that the AdaBoost algorithm performed with better accuracy than the ANN model. In another
study, Chou and Lin (2012) applied an ensemble method for disputing problems in public–private
partnership projects [25]. The study used four regression and classification trees and two statistical
techniques to compare the performance of the utilized method. The study revealed that the ensemble

384
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

models provided better accuracy that the individual models. Rudžianskaitė-Kvaraciejienė et al.
(2015) Integrated a Random Forest algorithm with the modeling of public–private partnerships in
infrastructure projects [26]. The method performed with good accuracy in the prediction process for
public and private projects.
Heravi and Eslamdoost (2015) investigated the potential of an ANN model for the prediction of
labor productivity in construction projects [27]. The results discovered that the ANN model showed
better modeling of labor productivity. Gerassis et al. (2016) applied Bayesian networks to analyze the
causes of accidents in embankment construction [28]. The study revealed that this method provided
an accurate identification of embankment stability in civil engineering projects. By recalling the related
literature review studies, AI model application is still a new methodology in the field of construction
management research and delay risk prediction [29]. Few studies used AI models in risk prediction
and classification.
Asadi et al. (2015) used a decision tree and a Naive Bayes model based on a questionnaire
survey to predict delay in construction logistics. The authors evidenced the capacity of the decision
tree has higher accuracy by 79.41% over the Naive Bayes model, which showed a lower accuracy
value of 73.52% [30]. Naji et al. (2018) used a Bayesian decision tree model to predict the impact
of contract changes on the time and quality performance of construction projects [31]. The model
performed with good accuracy in the prediction process and caused an improvement in the project
performance. Gondia et al. (2020) utilized Naive Bayes and decision tree models to predict the delay
risk in construction projects. The study revealed the power of AI models in delay risk prediction and
improving risk management strategies [11]. Based on the reported studies in the literature, the current
research is established with the aim of providing a reliable methodology for delay risk prediction
that will contribute to the baseline knowledge of construction management. Owing to the fact that
standalone AI models experienced some limitations on tuning their internal parameters for an optimal
learning process [32], the current study is adopted based on the integration of a nature-inspired
optimization algorithm called Genetic Algorithm (GA) with a Random Forest (RF) model. The GA
optimization approach was demonstrated as a reliable technique in tuning AI models for multiple
engineering applications and thus it was selected for the current study [33–35].

1.3. Research Objectives

In the current study, the authors aim to explore and develop an effective tool to predict delay risk
problems based on delay sources using previous construction projects data. The main contribution of
the current investigation is to provide an accurate methodology that can assist in the prediction of
future durations and monitor risk levels, based on these projects. This work can enhance a proactive
approach in risk management. To achieve this aim, sources and factors of delay risk are extracted from
the literature, and then related data to the delay risk problems are collected from previous construction
projects. A questionnaire survey is adopted to measure the impact of various sources on the delay level
in construction projects. Based on the complex nature of the construction process and the associated
uncertainties of the delay sources, a hybrid model based on the integration of the Random Forest and
Genetic Algorithm (RF-GA) is developed in order to analyze the data of completed previous projects.
The performance of the developed model is studied statistically and discussed comprehensively. The
potential of the proposed RF-GA model is validated against the classic RF model.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Random Forest Model

The RF model was first developed by Breiman (2001) based on the combination of decision
tree classifiers [36]. Each tree provides a prediction for the class label and the algorithm selects the
classes that have the most choices. Random Forest is a very popular tool that uses the bootstrapping
method to train dataset samples and construct multiple random trees [37]. The algorithm gained

385
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

significant important because it is invariant under scaling and it is robust to the inclusion of irrelevant
features [38]. Several studies examined the application of Random Forest in engineering applications
and demonstrated its feasibility in prediction processes [26,34,35]. Under the bootstrapping method,
the data during the training phase are selected randomly and independently to develop an RF model,
and the data that are not involved in the selection process are named “out-of-bag” [39]. The capacity of
the random forest has been approved by several engineering problems such as [40,41]. During this
process, the out-of-bag data are changed and the prediction error is measured to estimate the importance
of input variables [41,42]. In the RF algorithm, overfitting does not occur due to large numbers of trees
and the choice of the right type of random variables leads to accurate classification. Random Forests
contain several parameters that need to be optimized, such as number of trees, minimum gain and
maximum tree depth. In this study, these parameters were optimized by a genetic algorithm.

2.2. The Hybrid RF-GA Model

Genetic algorithm is a popular technique used to optimize problems in complex systems based on
natural selection [43]. To solve a problem in a GA algorithm, random solutions are generated, and then
the selection of the population is done to develop the model. The new solutions are developed by
using selection, crossover and mutation. A string of bits or chromosomes is used to represent the
solutions in the GA model. The position of bits is called the gene, and the gene contains many values
that are named alleles. GA has been widely applied in different fields, such as image processing,
pattern recognition and controlling systems [44]. The GA model was used in different research in
construction management such as resources optimization [45], project scheduling [46,47], optimizing
of time and cost in construction projects [48] and dispute classification [49]. In the present study, a GA
model is presented to optimize parameters of the RF model, including number of trees, minimum gain
and maximum tree depth. The description of the hybrid FR-GA model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Hybrid artificial intelligence model Random Forest and Genetic Algorithm (RF-GA) structure.

2.3. Identification of Delay Sources and Factors in Construction Projects

The most important factors that affect delays in construction projects were identified from a
literature survey, and these factors were categorized into different sources. These sources included
owner, designer, contractor, project, material, equipment, labor and external factors. To obtain more
information on the delay problems and their factors in construction projects, interviews were held with

386
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

15 experts in construction work [11,50]. By this interview, the identified sources and factors and their
relevance to the construction industry were confirmed. Based on the reviews and literature review,
the most important delay factors and their sources were identified as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Identified factors and sources in construction projects.

Delay Source Delay Factors

1.1 Owner financial problems
1.2 Payment delay by the owner
1.3 Choosing of inefficient design team
1. Owner
1.4 Inadequate experience of the owner
1.5 Issuing of change orders by the owner
1.6 Delay in location delivery to the contractor
1.7 Choice of inefficient contractor
1.8 Delay in decision making procedure
2.1 Inadequate experience of design members
2. Designer
2.2 Delay in the preparation of design documents
2.3 Defects in the design and ambiguity of design drawings
3.1 Ineffective project planning
3.2 Financial contractor difficulties
3. Contractor 3.3 Inadequacy of contractor
3.4 Rework due to defects in executed work
3.5 Ineffective supervision and site management
3.6 Many changes in subcontractor parties
3.7 Poor communication between contractor and project parties
4.1 Awarding the contract to an inadequate contractor
4. Project 4.2 Disputes between project parties
4.3 Period of contract is very short
4.4 Errors in contract documents
5.1 Deficiency of materials in the market
5. Material 5.2 Delay in supplying materials
5.3 Ineffective quality of materials
5.4 Poor storage of materials
6.1 Poor efficiency of equipment
6. Equipment
6.2 Unsuitable type of equipment
7.1 Poor labor productivity
7. Labor 7.2 Inadequacy of workforce
7.3 Lack of labor
8.1 Political situation and terrorism
8.2 Inflation
8. External factors 8.3 Legislation changes in the country
8.4 Unpredicted surface conditions
8.5 Neighbor problems
8.6 Bad weather conditions

2.4. Data Collection

The compiled data included 40 completed projects that had different degrees of time overrun.
These projects were executed in Diyala city, Iraq. The collected data included historical documents of
previous projects that were investigated to extract the measure of risk delay in construction projects.

387
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

These documents included contract documents, specifications, change orders records and schedule
baselines. To complete data collection, a questionnaire survey was arranged and constructed. Each
questionnaire form contained a construction project and another nine variables. The first variable
represented the delay level, and the other eight variables referred to the risk delay sources in the
construction project. Each risk source was given scores depending on two scales. The first scale was
the probability of risk to occur in the construction project and the second related to the impact of
sources on the delay of the construction project, as shown in Table 2. The overall risk impact was
evaluated by multiplying the two scales [3,43,44].

Table 2. Scales of probability and impact of risk delay in construction projects.

Scale Probability Impact

Very low 0.1 0.05
Low 0.3 0.1
Medium 0.5 0.2
High 0.7 0.4
Very high 0.9 0.8

The probability and impact of the variables were measured by using a five-point Likert scale with
measures form very low to very high level [51]. The input variables were classified as: very low, low,
medium, high and very high. The output variable (delay level) was also classified into three class
measures. This method resulted in three categories of delay level that reduced the bias during the
execution of the artificial intelligence model. Delay level was categorized as: <50% delay, 50%–100%
delay and >100% delay. The questionnaire was allocated to a pilot study to measure the questionnaire
reliability and to investigate the problems and determine the items that are more confusing than the
others. The authors selected 40 parties for the pilot study as the size of the study was ranged between
30 and 50 parties [52]. To confirm the questionnaire reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was adopted, and in
this study the value of the alpha coefficient is 91.8%. The result of Cronbach’s alpha confirms the
reliability of the questionnaire.

2.5. Model Development Procedure

The questionnaire was distributed to 300 experts who worked in the collected projects. The
experts were involved in different parties, which include client, engineer and the other experts of these
projects. The collected projects were divided into two phases: 70% of the total projects (28 projects)
were used for the training phase and 30% (12 projects) for the testing phase of the hybrid intelligence
model. The genetic algorithm was applied to optimize the Random Forest classifier, and the hybrid
RF-GA was used to predict the time performance in construction projects based on their risk levels by
dividing the projects into a class label describing the predicted time delay. At first, the model describes
the data with a set of records and variable values. The rows represent the individual projects and the
columns represent the value of each project. The input variables included owner, designer, contractor,
project, material, equipment, labor and external factors. The hybrid model was used for learning
the dataset in order to predict the time delay at different levels of time overrun. The structure of the
developed model is described in Figure 2.

388
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

Figure 2. Structure of the delay prediction model.

2.6. Model Performance Measures

The performance of the predicted model was evaluated by using class performance and overall
performance measures. Class performance was measured by precision, sensitivity and specificity [53,54].
The overall performance of the predicted model was evaluated by accuracy, classification error and
kappa statistics. The kappa coefficient (k) was used in statistics to measure the quality of an item based
on inter classifier agreement [55,56]. The equations of performance measures are explained as follows:

TP
Precision = (1)
TP + FP

TP
Sensitivity = (2)
TP + FN
TN
Speci f icity = (3)
TN + FP
TP + TN
Accuracy = (4)
TP + FP + TN + FN
Classi f ication error = 1 − accuracy (5)
po − pe
k= (6)
1 − pe
where:
TP means the number of positive classes that are correctly recognized by the algorithm;
FP represents the number of positive classes that are incorrectly classified by the algorithm;
TN means the number of negative classes that are correctly predicted by the algorithm;
FN represents the number of negative classed that are incorrectly recognized by the algorithm;
Po means the observed agreement between rates; and
Pe represents the probability of chance agreement.

3. Results and Discussion

Analysis of collected data based on 40 projects was conducted to identify the sources of delay
problems effectively. The properties of the complied data and the distribution of delay sources among
the construction project are presented in Figures 3 and 4.

389
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

'HOD\VLQFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWV



&RXQWRIGHOD\V







‫ޒ‬ ‫ޓ‬
'HOD\VYDOXH

Figure 3. Frequency count of delays in construction projects.

D ‫ޒ‬GHOD\

5LVNOHYHO

'HOD\ULVNVRXUFHV
RZQHU GHVLJQHU FRQWUDFWRU SURMHFW
PDWHULDO HTXLSPHQW ODEXU H[WHUQDOIDFWRU

E GHOD\


5LVNOHYHO

'HOD\ULVNVRXUFHV
RZQHU GHVLJQHU FRQWUDFWRU SURMHFW
PDWHULDO HTXLSPHQW ODERU H[WHUQDOIDFWRU

Figure 4. Cont.

390
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

F ‫ޓ‬GHOD\

5LVNOHYHO

'HOD\ULVNVRXUFHV
RZQHU GHVLJQHU FRQWUDFWRU SURMHFW
PDWHULDO HTXLSPHQW ODERU H[WHUQDOIDFWRU

Figure 4. (a) Distribution of delay sources among projects with class <50% delay, (b) distribution of
delay sources among projects with class 50%–100% delay, (c) distribution of delay sources among
projects with class >100% delay.

Based on the reported results, Figure 3 shows the counts of projects with a <50% delay, 50%–100%
delay and >100% delay were 10 (25%), 14 (35%) and 16 (40%), respectively. It can be seen that a high
percentage of projects belongs to the class of >100% delay. Figure 4 demonstrates the distribution of
delay sources among each class of delay problem, which was obtained from the historical records, pilot
study and distributed questionnaire. These outcomes revealed the delay sources values of contractor,
owner, designer, project and external factors have a higher impact that the other delay sources. Owner,
designer, contractor and project are represented as the internal risk sources that have an impact on the
project delay. External factors can be discussed by the special circumstances that are experienced in the
studied region “Iraq” in a manner that severely affected the construction industry. These conditions
have an enormous impact on the project stockholder and project performance. These conditions
resulted in the stumbling and failure of many projects in the construction sector. On the other hand,
the application of a robust predictive model can contribute to estimating an accurate duration in
construction projects and analyzing delay risk sources that arise from the complex and dynamic nature
of construction sector.
The statistical performance of the training and testing datasets of the proposed hybrid RF-GA
model were evaluated based on the model performance measures against the classical Random Forest
classifier. The performance measure metrics were evaluated based on the confusion matrix of the
two classifiers. The confusion matrix is described in the performance of the classification model. The
confusion matrix of the RF and RF-GA are displayed in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Confusion matrix from RF classifier.

Actual Class
Predicted Class <50% 50%–100% >100% Total
<50% 2 0 1 3
50%–100% 0 0 3 3
>100% 1 4 1 6
Total 3 4 5

391
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

Table 4. Confusion matrix from RF-GA classifier.

Actual Class
Predicted Class <50% 50%–100% >100% Total
<50% 2 0 0 2
50%–100% 1 5 0 6
>100% 0 0 4 4
Total 3 5 4

The columns in the confusion matrix represent the actual classification within each class, while
the rows correspond to the number of the predicted class. The correct predictors are located on the
diagonal of the matrix. The confusion matrix of a high-performance model contains large numbers in
its diagonal and the zero numbers outside the diagonal. The performance of the hybrid RF-GA and
RF models during the training and testing phases was evaluated. Precision, sensitivity, specificity,
accuracy, classification error and kappa statistics were computed and are presented in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5. Comparison of two classifiers based on performance measures for the training phase (70%).

RF RF-GA
Performance <50% Delay 50%–100% >100% <50% Delay 50%–100% >100%
Index Delay Delay Delay Delay
Precision 87.5 100 90 87.5 100 100
Sensitivity 87.5 83.33 90 100 91.67 90
Specificity 95 100 94.44 95.2 100 100
Accuracy 92.86 96.43
Classification 7.41 3.57
error
Kappa 89.2 94.6

Table 6. Comparison of two classifiers based on performance measures for the testing phase (30%).

RF RF-GA
Performance <50% Delay 50%–100% >100% <50% Delay 50%–100% >100%
Index Delay Delay Delay Delay
Precision 66.67 100 90 66.67 83.33 100
Sensitivity 50 50 90 80 100 80
Specificity 87.5 100 94.44 71.4 85.7 100
Accuracy 75 91.67
Classification 25 8.33
error
Kappa 62.5 87

Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate the comparison of the RF-GA and RF models based on performance
measures for the overall and class performance. Based on these results, the attained values of accuracy,
classification error, and Kappa for RF-GA were 96.43%, 3.57% and 94.6%, respectively for the training
phase; whereas the RF model provided an accuracy value of 92.86%, a classification error of 7.41%
and a Kappa statistics value of 89.2%. It can be noticed that the both models gave good results for the
training phase. Based on the results of testing phase, RF-GA revealed a better performance than the RF

392
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

model. The provided values of accuracy, classification error and Kappa of RF-GA are 91.67%, 8.3%,
and 87%, respectively.
With regards to performance measures, the RF-GA model exhibited a good performance in the
prediction of delay in the construction sector. Based on the training phase, RF-GA achieved the
minimum values of precision, sensitivity and specificity of 87.5, 90 and 95.2, respectively. The lowest
values of RF in terms of precision, sensitivity and specificity were 87.5, 83.33 and 94.44, respectively.
Based on the comparison between the two classifiers, it can be concluded that the RF-GA model
outperformed the feasibility of the classical RF model in both the training and testing performances.
Tables 5 and 6 revealed the superiority of the RF-GA classifier in terms of accuracy, classification
error and Kappa statistics. This can be explained as due to the potential of the integration of the
nature-inspired optimization algorithm (i.e., GA) that assisted in providing reliable hyperparameters
optimization and thus attained a reliable learning process. The RF-GA model also provided higher
values of precision, sensitivity and specificity in comparison with the RF model.
The RF-GA classifier showed an impressive performance in terms of overall and class measure
indices. These results can be discussed by the ability of the genetic algorithm in solving optimization
problems depending on the chromosome approach, and its capacity to solve the problems while
dealing with multiple solutions [57]. It is even better to validate the current research results with the
reported research over the literature. As compared with the previous results, it can be inferred that
the RF-GA model demonstrated remarkable prediction superiority in comparison with the previous
established studies as reported in Table 7. The capacity of the RF-GA model was compared with the
best outcomes. The RF-GA model exceeded all of the reported related literature.

Table 7. Validation of the current research results against the reported related literature studies.

Author Methods Results

Questionnaire survey, decision Accuracy of decision tree 79.41% is
[30]
tree and Naive Bayes higher than Naive Bayes by 5.81%
Questionnaire and Bayesian Bayesian decision tree gained an
[31]
decision tree accuracy of 86.7%
Records of construction projects,
Accuracy of Naive Bayes, 51.2%, is
[11] meeting with experts, decision tree
higher than decision tree by 4%
and Naive Bayes
Records of construction projects,
Accuracy of genetic Random
meetings and questionnaire
The current study Forest, 91.76%, is higher than
survey, classical Random Forest,
classical Random Forest by 16.67%
hybrid genetic Random Forest

To summarize, a proactive management approach involves the identification of new risk delay
sources and the monitoring of the sources that arise during the project lifecycle. As a result,
the proposition of a reliable and robust methodology as an analysis tool that is able to mimic
and comprehend the dynamic input variables is highly needed for this purpose. Hence, and based on
the established methodology of the current research, the potential of the RF-GA model to be modified
and set up for project duration prediction though the project lifecycle was evidenced. The RF-GA
model was successfully developed for the investigated dynamic project delay risk prediction.

4. Conclusions
In this present study, an analysis tool that is capable of predicting the delay level in construction
projects based on delay sources was proposed. To meet this goal, two approaches were adopted in
this study. First, delay sources and factors were collected from a literature review and identified by
an expert meeting. Data that are related to delay levels were compiled from 40 construction projects
that are located in Diyala city, Iraq. The collected data included historical records of previous projects

393
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

that were investigated, and in order to extract the measure of delay risk in construction projects a
questionnaire was prepared and distributed to 300 experts so as to extract the information about delay
sources in construction projects. Risk sources were measured by computing the probability and the
impact of each source. An analysis of data results and distribution of delay sources among the collected
previous projects was implemented in order to better understand delay factors in the construction
sector. Secondly, a hybrid RF-GA model was developed to deal with the complex and dynamic nature
of data in the construction sector. The RF-GA model was evaluated by performance measure indices
and compared with the classical RF model. Based on the analysis results, RF-GA revealed a better
performance than the RF model. The RF-GA provided values of accuracy, classification error and
Kappa were 91.67%, 8.3%, and 87%, respectively. These results reflect the ability of the model to
handle the nonlinearity and complexity of data in the construction sector. The results also revealed the
capability of the genetic algorithm in solving problems with multiple solutions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.M.Y. and Z.H.A.; Data curation, Z.M.Y.; Formal analysis, Z.M.Y. and
N.A.-A.; Funding acquisition, N.A.-A.; Investigation, Z.M.Y., Z.H.A. and S.Q.S.; Methodology, Z.H.A. and S.Q.S.;
Project administration, S.Q.S.; Resources, Z.H.A.; Software, Z.H.A. and S.Q.S.; Supervision, N.A.-A.; Validation,
Z.H.A. and S.Q.S.; Visualization, Z.H.A. and S.Q.S.; Writing—original draft, Z.M.Y., Z.H.A., S.Q.S. and N.A.-A.;
Writing—review and editing, Z.M.Y. and N.A.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Vorakulpipat, C.; Rezgui, Y.; Hopfe, C.J. Value creating construction virtual teams: A case study in the
construction sector. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 142–147. [CrossRef]
2. Chan, A.P. Time-cost relationship of public sector projects in Malaysia. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 223–229.
[CrossRef]
3. Assaf, S.A.; Al-Hejji, S. Causes of delay in large construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 349–357.
[CrossRef]
4. Sambasivan, M.; Soon, Y.W. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2007, 25, 517–526. [CrossRef]
5. Aibinu, A.; Jagboro, G. The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction industry.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 593–599. [CrossRef]
6. Odeh, A.M.; Battaineh, H.T. Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20,
67–73. [CrossRef]
7. Fugar, F.D.; Agyakwah-Baah, A.B. Delays in Building Construction Projects in Ghana. Australas. J. Constr.
Econ. Build. 2010, 10, 103–116. [CrossRef]
8. Aziz, R.F. Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian revolution. Alex. Eng. J. 2013, 52,
387–406. [CrossRef]
9. Al-Momani, A.H. Construction delay: a quantitative analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2000, 18, 51–59. [CrossRef]
10. Jing, W.; Naji, H.I.; Zehawi, R.N.; Ali, Z.; Al-Ansari, N.; Yaseen, Z.M. System Dynamics Modeling Strategy
for Civil Construction Projects: The Concept of Successive Legislation Periods. Symmetry 2019, 11, 677.
[CrossRef]
11. Gondia, A.; Siam, A.; El-Dakhakhni, W.; Nassar, A.H. Machine Learning Algorithms for Construction Projects
Delay Risk Prediction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04019085. [CrossRef]
12. Mahamid, I.; Bruland, A.; Dmaidi, N. Causes of delay in road construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 28,
300–310. [CrossRef]
13. Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, D.W. Developing a benchmark model for project construction time performance in Hong
Kong. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 339–349. [CrossRef]
14. Rezaie, K.; Amalnik, M.; Gereie, A.; Ostadi, B.; Shakhseniaee, M. Using extended Monte Carlo simulation
method for the improvement of risk management: Consideration of relationships between uncertainties.
Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 190, 1492–1501. [CrossRef]

394
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

15. Hammad, A.A.A.; Ali, S.M.A.; Sweis, G.J.; Bashir, A. Prediction model for construction cost and duration in
Jordan. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2008, 2, 250–266.
16. Mohamed, D.; Srour, F.; Tabra, W.; Zayed, T. A prediction model for construction project time contingency. In
Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a Sustainable Future; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 736–745.
17. Abu Hammad, A.; Ali, S.M.A.; Sweis, G.J.; Sweis, R. Statistical Analysis on the Cost and Duration of Public
Building Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 26, 105–112. [CrossRef]
18. Dursun, O.; Stoy, C. Time–cost relationship of building projects: statistical adequacy of categorization with
respect to project location. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 97–106. [CrossRef]
19. Kokkaew, N.; Wipulanusat, W. Completion delay risk management: A dynamic risk insurance approach.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 1599–1608. [CrossRef]
20. Brunette, E.S.; Flemmer, R.C.; Flemmer, C.L. A review of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2009 4th
International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents, Wellington, New Zealand, 10–12 February
2009; pp. 385–392.
21. Elazouni, A. Classifying Construction Contractors Using Unsupervised-Learning Neural Networks. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 1242–1253. [CrossRef]
22. Chao, L.-C.; Chien, C.-F. Estimating Project S-Curves Using Polynomial Function and Neural Networks.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 169–177. [CrossRef]
23. Desai, V.S.; Joshi, S. Application of decision tree technique to analyze construction project data. In
Communications in Computer and Information Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Systems, Technology and Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 11–13 March 2010; Springer: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2010; pp. 304–313.
24. Shin, Y.-S. Formwork System Selection Model for Tall Building Construction Using the Adaboost Algorithm.
J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2011, 11, 523–529. [CrossRef]
25. Chou, J.-S.; Lin, C. Predicting disputes in public-private partnership projects: Classification and ensemble
models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 27, 51–60. [CrossRef]
26. Rudžianskaitė–Kvaraciejienė, R.; Apanaviciene, R.; Gelzinis, A. modelling the effectiveness of ppp road
infrastructure projects by applying random forests. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 290–299. [CrossRef]
27. Heravi, G.; Eslamdoost, E. Applying Artificial Neural Networks for Measuring and Predicting
Construction-Labor Productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015032. [CrossRef]
28. Gerassis, S.; Martín, J.E.; García, J.T.; Saavedra, A.; Taboada, J. Bayesian decision tool for the analysis of
occupational accidents in the construction of embankments. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 143, 4016093.
[CrossRef]
29. Bilal, M.; Oyedele, L.; Qadir, J.; Munir, K.; Ajayi, S.; Akinade, O.; Owolabi, H.A.; Alaka, H.A.; Pasha, M.
Big Data in the construction industry: A review of present status, opportunities, and future trends.
Adv. Eng. Inform. 2016, 30, 500–521. [CrossRef]
30. Asadi, A.; Alsubaey, M.; Makatsoris, C. A machine learning approach for predicting delays in construction
logistics. Int. J. Adv. Logist. 2015, 4, 115–130. [CrossRef]
31. Hassan, Z.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Naji, H. Evaluation of Legislation Adequacy in Managing Time and Quality
Performance in Iraqi Construction Projects- a Bayesian Decision Tree Approach. Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 993.
[CrossRef]
32. Yaseen, Z.; Mohtar, W.H.M.W.; Ameen, A.M.S.; Ebtehaj, I.; Razali, S.F.M.; Bonakdari, H.; Salih, S.Q.;
Al-Ansari, N.; Shahid, S. Implementation of univariate paradigm for streamflow simulation using hybrid
data-driven model: Case study in tropical region: Implementation of univariate paradigm for streamflow
simulation using hybrid data-driven model: Case study in tropical region. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 74471–74481.
[CrossRef]
33. Chou, J.-S.; Pham, A.-D. Hybrid computational model for predicting bridge scour depth near piers and
abutments. Autom. Constr. 2014, 48, 88–96. [CrossRef]
34. Yaseen, Z.M.; Ehteram, M.; Hossain, S.; Chow, M.F.; Koting, S.; Mohd, N.S.; Jaafar, W.B.; Afan, H.A.;
Hin, L.S.; Zaini, N.; et al. A Novel Hybrid Evolutionary Data-Intelligence Algorithm for Irrigation and
Power Production Management: Application to Multi-Purpose Reservoir Systems. Sustainability 2019, 11,
1953. [CrossRef]

395
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514

35. Yaseen, Z.M.; Ebtehaj, I.; Kim, S.; Sanikhani, H.; Asadi, H.; Ghareb, M.I.; Bonakdari, H.; Mohtar, W.H.M.W.;
Al-Ansari, N.; Shahid, S. Novel Hybrid Data-Intelligence Model for Forecasting Monthly Rainfall with
Uncertainty Analysis. Water 2019, 11, 502. [CrossRef]
36. Breiman, L.; Cutler, A. State of the art of data mining using Random forest. In Proceedings of the Salford
Data Mining Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 24–25 May 2012.
37. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
38. Ruppert, D. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
2004, 99, 567. [CrossRef]
39. Catani, F.; Lagomarsino, D.; Segoni, S.; Tofani, V. Landslide susceptibility estimation by random forests
technique: sensitivity and scaling issues. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 2815–2831. [CrossRef]
40. Naghibi, S.A.; Ahmadi, K.; Daneshi, A. Application of Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and Genetic
Algorithm Optimized Random Forest Models in Groundwater Potential Mapping. Water Resour. Manag.
2017, 31, 2761–2775. [CrossRef]
41. Alipour, M.; Harris, D.K.; Barnes, L.E.; Ozbulut, O.; Carroll, J. Load-Capacity Rating of Bridge Populations
through Machine Learning: Application of Decision Trees and Random Forests. J. Bridg. Eng. 2017, 22,
04017076. [CrossRef]
42. Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomforest. R News 2002, 2, 18–22.
43. Holland, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology,
Control, and Artificial Intelligence; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.
44. Azar, A.T.; Vaidyanathan, S. Computational Intelligence Applications in Modeling and Control; Springer:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
45. Kandil, A.; El-Rayes, K. Parallel Genetic Algorithms for Optimizing Resource Utilization in Large-Scale
Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 491–498. [CrossRef]
46. Senouci, A.; Eldin, N.N. Use of Genetic Algorithms in Resource Scheduling of Construction Projects. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 869–877. [CrossRef]
47. Long, L.D.; Ohsato, A. A genetic algorithm-based method for scheduling repetitive construction projects.
Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 499–511. [CrossRef]
48. Rogalska, M.; Bozejko, W.; Hejducki, Z. Time/cost optimization using hybrid evolutionary algorithm in
construction project scheduling. Autom. Constr. 2008, 18, 24–31. [CrossRef]
49. Chou, J.-S.; Cheng, M.-Y.; Wu, Y.-W.; Pham, A.-D. Optimizing parameters of support vector machine using
fast messy genetic algorithm for dispute classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 3955–3964. [CrossRef]
50. Xia, N.; Zhong, R.; Wu, C.; Wang, X.; Wang, S. Assessment of Stakeholder-Related Risks in Construction
Projects: Integrated Analyses of Risk Attributes and Stakeholder Influences. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143,
04017030. [CrossRef]
51. Ismail, I.; Memon, A.H.; Rahman, I.A. Expert opinion on risk level for factors affecting time and cost overrun
along the project lifecycle in Malaysian construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Technol. Manag. 2013, 1, 2289.
52. Thomas, S.J. Using Web and Paper Questionnaires for Data-Based Decision Making: From Design to Interpretation
of the Results; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004.
53. Helmer, G.; Wong, J.; Honavar, V.G.; Miller, L. Automated discovery of concise predictive rules for intrusion
detection. J. Syst. Softw. 2002, 60, 165–175. [CrossRef]
54. Davis, J.; Goadrich, M. The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Machine Learning; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 233–240.
55. Smeeton, N.C. Early history of the kappa statistic. Biometrics 1985, 41, 795.
56. Pontius, R.G.; Millones, M. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for
accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 4407–4429. [CrossRef]
57. Tabassum, M.; Mathew, K. A genetic algorithm analysis towards optimization solutions. Int. J. Digit. Inf.
Wirel. Commun. 2014, 4, 124–142. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

396
sustainability

Article
A Comprehensive Analysis: Sustainable Trends and
Awarded LEED 2009 Credits in Vietnam
Duy Hoang Pham 1 , Byeol Kim 1 , Joosung Lee 2, *, Abraham Chiwon Ahn 3 and Yonghan Ahn 4, *
1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangrok-gu,
Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea; [email protected] (D.H.P.); [email protected] (B.K.)
2 Innovative Durable Building and Infrastructure Research Center, Hanyang University,
55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangrok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea
3 Department of Architectural Design, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangrok-gu, Ansan-si,
Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea; [email protected]
4 School of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro,
Sangrok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (J.L.); [email protected] (Y.A.)

Received: 20 December 2019; Accepted: 20 January 2020; Published: 23 January 2020

Abstract: Established by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) became a sustainable leader of green building rating systems in
American and many other countries. In Vietnam, LEED is expected as a potential solution in
improving the sustainable quality of buildings for residents and solving the housing/infrastructure
demand with a limit in resource consumption and minimizing negative environmental impacts.
The study analyzed the awarded LEED 2009 credits by investigating the data of 36 of the total 42
LEED BC+D 2009 certified projects in Vietnam. The results of the investigation indicated the awarded
credits were significantly implemented in Vietnam. These results were converted based on the
summary updated on LEED version 4 of the USGBC report, to become a useful guideline for green
building cost-efficiency strategies. Additionally, it also served as reference data for the Vietnamese
public agency to update their green regulations based on the specific characteristics of Vietnam.

Keywords: sustainability; green building; LEED; Vietnam

1. Introduction
Besides the rapid economic growth, environmental pollution and the lack of housing demand,
the research of sustainability has become a top concern for developing countries [1]. Especially in
2019, the study of Climate Central showed that a large area of Vietnam could be drowned due to
rising sea levels in 2050, and a quarter of Vietnam’s population will be profoundly affected by climate
change [2]. Along with the limitations of developing countries such as seeking large budgets to address
environmental issues, it is essential and necessary to find a way to promote sustainable development.
Obviously, the construction industry not only accounts for a large proportion of Vietnam’s production,
but buildings also contribute a large part to the consumption of electricity, water, and other research
resources [3]. Thus, green buildings had flourished in recent years after recognizing their potential social
and economic benefits in solving many negative environmental issues and problems [4]. Moreover, the
increase in electricity prices and recent urban environment incidents in Vietnam also became a strong
motivation for real estate developers to choose green building certification for their future projects [1,3].
This trend can be reflected by the increase in the number of projects participating in green building
certification in Vietnam in recent years, especially LEED certificates with notable numbers.
LEED and other green building certification systems provided technical guides and a framework
to promote sustainable construction practical activities by balancing the elements of environmental

Sustainability 2020, 12, 852; doi:10.3390/su12030852 397 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

protection, energy/water consumption, the benefits of user and community and operations, and
maintenance solutions [3,5]. While promoting sustainable construction and bringing many benefits
to building residents and the community, several problems related to the applying of LEED are also
identified [6], such as encountering challenges for the project team and cost increasing [3]. Considerable
challenges of implementing a LEED building project were the expensive quests, higher construction
cost [7] and non-experience extra works for the construction team [5]. The additional charges might
come from hiring LEED consultants, Commissioning Authority (CxA), air-testing and flush-out test
contractors [8], which are entirely unfamiliar and expensive to the Vietnamese building project [3].
However, several studies indicated that LEED projects may have little incremental costs (2.5 to 9.4%)
but will significantly reduce the operating costs (about 31%) of the building [9]. The study by D.
Langdon (2007) and J.O. Choi (2015) also confirmed that this cost impact could be completely limited
by their previous similar project experience and commitment during project implementation [5,10].
The research of Y.H. Ahn (2015) showed that it is crucial to apply the Integrated Construction Process
(ICP) to collect the knowledge and ideas of all key stakeholders for successfully implementing green
buildings with an acceptable cost [4].
In addition, C.P. Cheng’s (2015) study mentioned that the better judgment of target credit selection
and the appropriate green design technologies largely depend on the experience of managers from
previous LEED projects [11]. However, construction projects are unique, and it is often difficult to
participate in similar projects, especially when the number of certified LEED projects is very limited
in Vietnam at present. Besides that, the new projects applying for LEED certification form 2018 have
to comply with the unique requirements of LEED version 4 with many considerable changes, which
might create several difficulties for the project team [3]. As a result, a useful guide for the green
building project in selecting LEED credits that are appropriate to the project goals, from the synthesis
and analysis of previous projects, would bring many significant benefits to the LEED projects and
promote the sustainable construction. Thus, this study was conducted to create a useful guideline for
the project and building developer for identifying the suitable project LEED credits/goals and its risk
by investigating and analyzing all similar projects that have received LEED certification in Vietnam.
This paper aims to:

(1) Identify the significantly awarded credits at LEED projects in Vietnam.

(2) Investigate the significant different credits between the different LEED certificate levels and
provide the recommendations for credits required for future LEED projects.
(3) Review and summarize the significant differences between LEED 2009 and LEED v4 to combine
with the analysis results and make more suitable guidelines and recommendations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Background of Research

“The most widely used green building rating system in the world,” “The framework to create
healthy, highly efficient and cost-saving green buildings,” and “The globally recognized symbol of
sustainability achievement” are the definitions of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) about the
“Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” (LEED) rating system [8]. Additionally, LEED is
the meaningful attempt of USGBC to create a global rating system, which guides technically to design
and deliver the green building. Thus, green building projects that comply with the LEED requirement
not only promote sustainable construction but also increase the project life cycle cost-effective health
benefits to users [3,6,12]. LEED is considered as the most globally popular green building rating tool
because of its overlooked variations between different climatic and environmental conditions, rules,
standards, and laws. The selection of LEED credits dramatically affects the results of the project, but it
is more difficult due to the rising tide of cost, schedule, and LEED experience. Thus, understanding
the relationships between decision-making factors and characteristics of LEED on various credits is
essential for project stakeholders and regulatory authorities [3,6]. As a result, many pieces of research

398
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

are conducted to guide better efficiency of the green building projects and encourage sustainable
construction. In particular, a significant number of them were conducted to support the design process
and identify appropriate LEED credits for the project during the early phase, when the design changes
are much higher in efficiency and less costly [3,4].
Cheng and Ma (2015) studied the relationship between LEED credits and green building
technologies/sustainability design strategies to improve the effectiveness of LEED credits selection [11].
M.A. Jun’s paper (2015) presented a methodology for identifying the target LEED credits based on
project information and climatic factors [13]. J. Ma’s study (2016) analyzed LEED credit achievements
in previous projects using data-driven techniques and provided useful instruction so as to help the
project team to understand and identify the appropriate LEED credits [14]. Jack C.P. Cheng’s paper
(2015) proposed a case-based reasoning (CBR) approach to find out the suitable case study base on the
similar previously certificated green building projects and suggestions on target LEED credits [11]. F.
Jalaei and A. Jrade’s study (2015) (BIM) explains how this integration would assist project teams in
making sustainability-related decisions [15]. P.H. Chen and T.C. Nguyen developed an application
by interacting web map service (WMS) technology and BIM to pre-calculate LEED awarded points
of the “Location and transportation” category [16]. The research of S. Pushkar (2018) pointed out
that several data analysis studies of previous LEED-certified projects have to consider the problem of
pseudoreplication [17]. Recently, when Wu et al. (2017) [6] and Wu et al. (2018) [18] analyzed previous
LEED certification project data, they used aggregated processes to achieve extremely low P-values.
Da Silva and Ruwanpura (2009) investigated LEED Canada certificated building data and found out
that material (MR) and energy and atmosphere (EA) criteria are not common at LEED projects in
Canada [19]. Cell and Beata (2009) presented that the lack of consideration in the design phase of a
green building project may have an adverse impact on the implementation phase [20]. J.-Y. Park’s
study (2017) developed an optimization algorithm that aims to determine the LEED awarded points
that can be achieved with minimum cost [12]. Madanayake and Ruwanpura (2012) suggested a method
for determining appropriate LEED credits based on cost, productivity, and environmental impact
information [21]. Juan, Gao, and Wang (2010) addressed a selection of green building technology
strategies by optimizing the trade-off between costs and achievements in different green building
rating systems [22]. Castro-Lacouture, Sefair, Flórez, and Medaglia studied the factors influencing
the selection of sustainable materials in the LEED project [23]. Boschmann and Gabriel proposed
(2007) the implementation and development of green technologies directly related to a particular LEED
credit [24]. Pushkar (2018) identified the significant differences in the choice of implementing LEED
credits among several countries, including SS, WE, EA, EQ, and ID [25]. In other words, it is highly
useful for analyzing the influence and development of green buildings in developed countries to
benchmark the Green Building regulation system of developing countries [26].
In summary, the previous studies have provided the LEED credits choosing by using various
methods of selection supporting the appropriate credit through the assistance of BIM, available previous
LEED building data, or decision-making strategies technic and so on. However, there is no previous
study which offers limited guidance for developing countries like Vietnam. Therefore, an analysis of
certified LEED projects is needed to promote the development of sustainable construction in Vietnam
by providing direction of goal-setting to designers and developers. In addition, the developers of the
Vietnam Green Building Council also have grounds to adjust their policies more appropriately for
promoting sustainable construction in Vietnam.

2.2. Comparison of LEED 2009 and LEED Version 4

Every few years, the USGBC offers a new version of LEED to capture new trends in the construction
industry, and embraces new opportunities for encouraging sustainable construction. [27]. There are
several versions of LEED being used in Vietnamese existing buildings, but the 2009 LEED version
has occupied for the majority of current certified projects and is applied to projects registered before
2018. The previous versions of LEED, which are LEED v2.2 and LEED 2009, both have six main

399
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

categories, including sustainable sites (SS), the water efficiency (WE), the energy and atmosphere (EA),
the material and resources (MR), the indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and the innovation in design
(ID) [6,25]. LEED 2009 consists of 6 major sets of criteria with 12 prerequisite credits and 42 optional
credits, and credits also have different performance strategies [11]. The newer version is the LEED v4
and LEED v4.1 that was announced in 2014 and mandatorily applied to all newly registered projects
from 2018 [8]. Currently, most current projects in Vietnam are certified LEED 2009, while new projects
need to comply with LEED v4 requirements. To apply for future projects, the results of this analysis
should be considered by checking the differences between LEED 2009 and LEED v4.
The updated version, LEED v4, still has the same total score (110 pts), but the SS (26 pts) criteria
group is divided into two smaller criteria groups, which are “Location and Transportation (LT)” (16 pts)
and SS (10 pts) [8,25,28]. The updated Location and Transportation criteria were published in LEED v4,
including some Sustainable Site credits of LEED 2009, such as protection and green transportation
parking, land usage and so on. Meanwhile, the new SS criteria group includes light pollution reduction,
site usage and protection, rainwater, and heat island credits [28]. In fact, the assessment of SS issues
is very similar to the assessment of LT+SS issues [25]. In LEED v4 EA, MR, EQ criteria, credits are
still included as in LEED 2009 but there are some changes in the detailed requirements and more
recommended green strategies [28]. Only one new credit, acoustic performance, was introduced in the
LEED NCv4 [25]. According to the USGBC report [28], although there is not much change in the score
distribution between categories, several credits have been added and some of its requirements have
been majorly changed in the new version. Svetlana Pushkar’s research evaluates that the majority of
LEED version 4 is similar to the previous LEED 2009 and that it is feasible to modify the algorithm for
LEED v4 extended credits [25].

3. Research Method

3.1. Scope of the Study

The objective of the study is investigating LEED-certified buildings data to find the association
between each LEED credits compliance performance and LEED certificate targeted level of the project.
From the results, we provided a guideline to the project team in making decisions on their green
strategies and the LEED credits decision that will be more cost-effective. The study also aims to
identify differences in green building projects in Vietnam and other developed countries as a basis
for adjusting Vietnam’s existing green building standards such as LOTUS (Vietnam Green Building
Council) and TCVN 09-2017 (Vietnam Ministry of Construction). Therefore, the population of the
study is all LEED projects in Vietnam, but the number of projects is minimal and mostly LEED NC
projects. The target of this study is collecting and analyzing all existing LEED NC projects (November
2019). Furthermore, similar to the other countries’ conditions, the number of LEED v4 projects in
Vietnam is also minimal [3], so data of the research is obtained from LEED 2009 projects in Vietnam.

3.2. Data Collection

Project data was collected from the official website of the U.S, Green Building Council. In an effort
to promote and disseminate the LEED standard system globally, the USGBC has published numerous
documents as well as data on their successful projects. At the time of the study, a total of 42 LEED
2009 NC projects were certified, of which only 36/42 projects had complete data on the credits received.
Despite the limited number of samples, the study was conducted over the entire population, and the
statistical results of the data were accepted as a normal distribution according to the central limit
principle [29] (p. 208).

3.3. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Green Building

Factors of project characteristics, location, and climate are critical to the selection of appropriate
investment strategies. The average annual temperature in Vietnam is from 22 ◦ C to 27 ◦ C. Every

400
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

year, there are about 100 rainy days with an average rainfall of 1500 mm to 2000 mm and the air
humidity is around 80% [30]. The majority of projects (28/36) investigated in this study are located
in the southern part of Vietnam, which has a humid tropical climate with a low amplitude of heat
fluctuation during the year, with high temperature and humidity. Therefore, most LEED projects are
not equipped with heating equipment. Furthermore, these projects are also mainly factory projects or
office buildings, where the developer is responsible for operating their project, and the energy-saving
strategies bring direct efficiency to their operating costs. Post-tropical humid weather with heavy
rainfall and the diversity of native species also offer many advantages in developing LEED strategies
related to greenery and irrigation. The sunshine hours in many areas of Vietnam are quite high, with
the number of sunshine hours being about 1500–2000 h [30]; also, the average annual radiant heat is
100 kcal/cm2 which provides many advantages for solar energy solutions. However, similar to many
developing countries, the shortage of various green materials also makes it more difficult to implement
LEED credits for material criteria.

3.4. Data Analysis

In this study, 2009 LEED credits are divided into two groups for analysis due to their characteristics.
The first group is the credits that only awarded a maximum of 1 point, meaning that the project team
can only decide to implement or not. The research will then investigate the credit of group 1 based
on the frequency of awarded credits for LEED-certified projects in Vietnam. In the second group, the
number of points awarded per credit is greater than 2, and the project may achieve different levels of
compliance to request based on the project’s conditions. For group 2, the credit achievement degree
(CAD) will be revised from W. Peng’s (2017) [6] study, and be calculated based on the following
Equation (1):
PCO
CAD = × 100% (1)
TPC
where CO is the point that credit obtained and TC equals to total points of credits. As such, the CAD
represents the level of fulfillment of LEED’s requirements.
In this study, the statistical tests used to analyze LEED awarded credits from collected data include
the Mean-Value Ranking test, One-sample t-test, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
and non-parametric effect size index (Figure 1). At first, in order to identify common LEED credits,
the study conducted the ranking techniques for first and second group credits. In the second step,
the One-sample t-test was used to determine the significant LEED awarded credits in the previous
Vietnamese LEED projects. The given hypothesis H0 is “the frequency of awarded credit is less than
50% in the Vietnamese LEED projects” with the confident index of 95%. In the third step, the normal
distribution test is implemented because the number of samples of LEED silver, gold LEED, and LEED
platinum projects is limited. Furthermore, the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that
data is not a normal distribution, and LEED data are presented in ordinal scales [17]. To investigate the
significant differences between the two groups with different LEED certificate levels of certification
and consider the problem of pseudoreplication, the statistical tests used are based on suggestions
of S. Pushkar’s (2018) study [25]. Following the non-parametric tests of S. Pushkar’s (2018) study,
Cliff’s δ and WMW tests [29] were used to compare the two unpaired groups. The data are presented
as the median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentile) [17]. Cliff’s δ is used to measure the
substantive significance (effect size) between two non-paired groups. Cliff’s δ [31] (p. 495) is calculated
following Equation (2) where x1 and x2 are the points in 2 compared groups respectively; n1 and n2
are the sizes of the sample groups, and # is the index times. The WMW test was used to determine the
statistical difference between the two unpaired groups. It should be noted that WMW tests can be
applied in two forms: approximate or extracted. If the sample size is more than 9, an approximate
WMW test has been used, and the extracted form for all else [32] (p. 56).

δ = #(x1 > x2) − #(x1 < x2)/(n1n2) (2)

401
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

Figure 1. The summary of the data analysis test framework of the study.

Finally, the Neo-Fisherian significance assessments (NFSAs) are used to interpret the signs and
magnitudes of the statistical effects [17]. Based on NFSAs, precise P-values were evaluated and shown
according to a three-valued logic as follows:

­ “Positive”: The credit seems to be a difference between two compared groups.

­ “Negative”: The credit does not seem to be a difference between two compared groups.
­ “Suspended”: The credit regards the difference between two compared groups.

4. Results

4.1. The Popularly Awarded LEED Credits in the Vietnamese Projects

The critical objective of this study is to investigate the credits that are commonly implemented
at LEED projects in Vietnam. As a result, the study suggested a list of LEED credits that should be
considered for future projects, which were shown through the analyzed result of ranking Technic
methods (in Table 1) and t-test (in Table 2). Please see the detailed description of the LEED credits and
the corresponding symbol in Appendix A.
As mentioned above, the 1st group are the credits that the project can only achieve or not. Thus,
the result of ranking technics of the 1st group, which were shown in Table 1, illustrated the ranking
based on credits’ frequency. If the credits’ frequency is similar, the credits have a smaller standard
deviation index that would be prioritized. Similar to the first group, Table 2 showed the ranking of the
second group of LEED credits based on the CAD index; the average points the creditors have set are
also presented. At LEED projects in Vietnam, the most popular 1st group credits include IDc2 (97.22%),
EQc4.2 (94.44%), and SSc1 (91.64%) compared to the opposite side of rarely awarded credits such as
SSc3 (0%), MRc6 (0%), and MRc7 (0%). In the second group of credits, the high popularity credits
are SSc4.3 (100%), SSc4.4 (97.22%), MRc5 (94.44%), WEc3 (93.75%), and WEc2 (91.67%), and the low
popularity credits were MRc1 (10.19%), and MRc3 (0%). We suggested that the inexperienced LEED
project teams should select the credits to consider for their projects based on the rankings in Table 1.

402
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

Table 1. (a) Ranking the popularity of 1st group LEED credits in Vietnam; (b) ranking the popularity of
2nd group LEED credits in Vietnam.

Rank ID Points Frequency STD Rank ID Points Frequency STD

1 IDc2 1 97.22 16.67 16 EQc3.2 1 36.11 48.71
2 EQc4.2 1 94.44 23.23 17 SSc5.1 1 33.33 47.81
3 SSc1 1 91.67 28.03 18 SSc6.2 1 33.33 47.81
4 EQc3.1 1 88.89 31.87 19 EQc4.4 1 30.56 46.72
5 SSc7.1 1 86.11 35.07 20 EQc7.1 1 30.56 46.72
6 SSc4.2 1 83.33 37.80 21 EQc7.2 1 27.78 45.43
7 SSc7.2 1 80.56 40.14 22 SSc6.1 1 25.00 43.92
8 EQc4.3 1 77.78 42.16 23 EQc1 1 22.22 42.16
9 EQc4.1 1 72.22 45.43 24 EQc5 1 19.44 40.14
10 SSc5.2 1 69.44 46.72 25 EQc6.2 1 5.56 23.23
11 EQc2 1 63.89 48.71 26 MRc1.2 1 2.78 16.67
12 EQc6.1 1 52.78 50.63 27 SSc3 1 0.00 0.00
13 EQc8.1 1 50.00 50.71 28 MRc6 1 0.00 0.00
14 SSc8 1 41.67 50.00 29 MRc7 1 0.00 0.00
15 EQc8.2 1 38.89 49.44
(a)
Max CAD Ave. Max CAD Ave.
Rank ID STD Rank ID STD
Points Mean Points Points Mean Points
1 SSc4.3 3 100.00 3.00 0.00 11 IDc1 3 72.22 2.17 22.57
2 SSc4.4 2 97.22 1.94 16.67 12 EAc3 2 69.44 1.39 46.72
3 MRc5 2 94.44 1.89 23.23 13 EAc4 2 69.44 1.39 46.72
4 WEc3 4 93.75 3.75 15.09 14 EAc1 19 53.36 10.14 30.85
5 WEc2 2 91.67 1.83 28.03 15 SSc2 5 27.78 1.39 45.43
6 WEc1 4 87.50 3.50 21.96 16 EAc2 7 25.00 1.75 41.03
7 MRc2 2 80.56 1.61 38.32 17 EAc6 2 19.44 0.39 40.14
8 MRc4 2 80.56 1.61 38.32 18 MRc1.1 3 10.19 0.31 29.62
9 SSc4.1 6 80.56 4.83 40.14 19 MRc3 2 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 EAc5 3 80.56 2.42 40.14
(b)

Table 2. The results of the normal distribution test and one-sample t-test.

1st Group 2nd Group

Sig. CAD Mean Sig.
ID N Frequency p-Value ID N p-Value
Value Value Value
SSc1 * 36 91.67 0.000 a 0.000 c SSc2 36 27.78 0.000 a 0.000 c
SSc3 36 0 -b -b SSc4.1 36 80.56 0.000 a 0.412
SSc4.2 * 36 83.33 0.000 a 0.000 c SSc4.3 * 36 1000.00 -b -b
SSc5.1 36 33.33 0.000 a 0.044 SSc4.4 * 36 97.22 0.000 a 0.000 c
SSc5.2 * 36 69.44 0.000 a 0.017 c WEc1 * 36 87.50 0.000 a 0.002 c
SSc6.1 36 25 0.000 a 0.002 c WEc2 * 36 91.67 0.000 a 0.001 c
SSc6.2 36 33.33 0.000 a 0.044 c WEc3 * 36 93.75 0.000 a 0.000 c
SSc7.1 * 36 86.11 0.000 a 0.000 c EAc1 * 36 53.36 0.063 0.000 c
SSc7.2 * 36 80.56 0.000 a 0.000 c EAc2 36 250.00 0.000 a 0.000 c
SSc8 36 41.67 0.000 a .324 EAc3 36 69.44 0.000 a 0.480
MRc1.2 36 2.78 0.000 a 0.000 c EAc4 36 69.44 0.000 a 0.480
MRc6 36 0 -b -b EAc5 36 80.56 0.000 a 0.412
MRc7 36 0 -b -b EAc6 36 19.44 0.000 a 0.000 c
EQc1 36 22.22 0.000 a 0.000 c MRc1.1 36 10.19 0.000 a 0.000 c
EQc2 36 63.89 0.000 a 0.096 MRc2 36 80.56 0.000 a 0.390
EQc3.1 * 36 88.89 0.000 a 0.000 c MRc3 36 00.00 -b -b
EQc3.2 36 36.11 0.000 a 0.096 MRc4 36 80.56 0.000 a 0.390
EQc4.1 * 36 72.22 0.000 a 0.006 c MRc5 * 36 94.44 0.000 a 0.000 c

403
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

Table 2. Cont.

1st Group 2nd Group

Sig. CAD Mean Sig.
ID N Frequency p-Value ID N p-Value
Value Value Value
EQc4.2 * 36 94.44 0.000 a 0.000 c IDc1 36 72.22 0.004 a 0.465
EQc4.3 * 36 77.78 0.000 a 0.000 c SSc2 36 27.78 0.000 a 0.000 c
EQc4.4 36 30.56 0.000 a 0.017 c SSc4.1 36 80.56 0.000 a 0.412
EQc5 36 19.44 0.000 a 0.000 c SSc4.3 * 36 1000.00 -b -b
EQc6.1 36 52.78 0.000 a 0.744 SSc4.4 36 97.22 0.000 a 0.000 c
EQc6.2 36 5.56 0.000 a 0.000 c WEc1 36 87.50 0.000 a 0.002 c
EQc7.1 36 30.56 0.000 a 0.017 c WEc2 36 91.67 0.000 a 0.001 c
EQc7.2 36 27.78 0.000 a 0.006 c
EQc8.1 36 50 0.000 a 10.000
EQc8.2 36 38.89 0.000 a 0.186
IDc2 * 36 97.22 0.000 a 0.000 c
a The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test p-value is less than 0.05. b The Standard deviation = 0, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov
test and t-test could not be calculated. c The t-test p-value is less than 0.05. * The awarded credits with a significant
popular rate in Vietnam.

As shown in Table 2, the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnow test determine that most of the data
collected are not a normal distribution. Therefore, the t-test is only performed for the whole sample
(number of samples >30), and its results are also presented in Table 2. The t-test was conducted to
identify the significantly awarded credits at LEED projects in Vietnam with a comparative value of
50%, and 95% of the confident index was set. The results of significantly awarded credits at LEED
projects in Vietnam are:

­ First group: SSc1, SSc4.2, SSc5.2, SSc7.1, SSc7.2, EQc3.1, EQc4.1, EQc4.2, EQc4.3, IDc2.
­ Secord group: SSc4.3, SSc4.4, WEc1, WEc2, WEc3, EAc1, MRc5.

4.2. The Difference between LEED Project Target Goal Levels

USGBC classifies buildings by four levels of LEED certification, including LEED certificated,
LEED Silver, LEED Gold, and LEED Platinum. The higher the certification level, the more the project
has to comply with LEED’s strict requirements, which means they have to spend more on sustainable
investments and additional work. Investigation of LEED credits that differ between these different
project groups on project goals is based on the results of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test and the
Cliff’s delta values. The approximate WMW test results and Cliff’s delta values of LEED credits
between the groups of silver LEED and gold LEED projects (n = 12) are shown in Tables 3a and 4a.
Similarly, Tables 3b and 4b presented the results of the extract WMW test and Cliff’s delta between the
groups of the LEED gold and LEED platinum projects (n = 7).

404
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

Table 3. The results of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test and Cliff’s delta indexes for the 1st group
credits. (a) Between the groups of LEED Silver and LEED Gold certification projects; (b) between the
groups of LEED Gold and LEED Platinum certification projects.

(a) LEED Silver vs. LEED Gold (b) LEED Gold vs. LEED Platinum
ID n Sig. Cliff’s Delta NFSAs ID n Sig. Cliff’s Delta NFSAs
SSc1 12 0.317 0.083 Negative SSc1 7 0.530 0.143 Negative
SSc3 12 1.000 0.000 Negative SSc3 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
SSc4.2 12 0.356 0.167 Negative SSc4.2 7 0.023 −0.571 Positive
SSc5.1 12 0.356 −0.167 Negative SSc5.1 7 0.122 −0.429 Suspended
SSc5.2 12 .688 −0.083 Negative SSc5.2 7 0.060 −0.429 Suspended
SSc6.1 12 0.356 0.167 Negative SSc6.1 7 0.530 0.143 Negative
SSc6.2 12 1.000 0.000 Negative SSc6.2 7 0.530 −0.143 Negative
SSc7.1 12 0.284 −0.167 Negative SSc7.1 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
SSc7.2 12 0.028 0.417 Positive SSc7.2 7 0.023 −0.571 Positive
SSc8 12 0.105 −0.333 Suspended SSc8 7 0.591 0.143 Negative
MRc1.2 12 0.317 −0.083 Negative MRc1.2 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
MRc6 12 1.000 0.000 Negative MRc6 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
MRc7 12 1.000 0.000 Negative MRc7 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
EQc1 12 1.000 0.000 Negative EQc1 7 0.141 −0.286 Suspended
EQc2 12 1.000 0.000 Negative EQc2 7 0.591 −0.143 Negative
EQc3.1 12 0.070 0.250 Suspended EQc3.1 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
EQc3.2 12 0.105 0.333 Suspended EQc3.2 7 0.530 −0.143 Negative
EQc4.1 12 0.028 −0.417 Positive EQc4.1 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
EQc4.2 12 0.148 0.167 Suspended EQc4.2 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
EQc4.3 12 0.140 −0.250 Suspended EQc4.3 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
EQc4.4 12 0.660 0.083 Negative EQc4.4 7 0.606 −0.143 Negative
EQc5 12 0.032 0.333 Positive EQc5 7 0.141 −0.286 Suspended
EQc6.1 12 0.418 −0.167 Negative EQc6.1 7 0.107 −0.429 Suspended
EQc6.2 12 0.317 0.083 Negative EQc6.2 7 0.317 −0.143 Negative
EQc7.1 12 0.187 0.250 Suspended EQc7.1 7 0.141 −0.286 Suspended
EQc7.2 12 0.356 0.167 Negative EQc7.2 7 0.141 −0.286 Suspended
EQc8.1 12 0.000 −0.750 Positive EQc8.1 7 0.060 0.429 Suspended
EQc8.2 12 0.216 −0.250 Negative EQc8.2 7 0.254 0.286 Negative
IDc2 12 0.317 −0.083 Negative IDc2 1.000 0.000 Negative

Table 4. The results of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test and Cliff’s delta indexes for the 2nd group
credits. (a) Between the groups of LEED Silver and LEED Gold certification projects; (b) between the
groups of LEED Gold and LEED Platinum certification projects.

(a) LEED Silver vs. LEED Gold (b) LEED Gold vs. LEED Platinum
ID n Sig. Cliff’s Delta NFSAs ID n Sig. Cliff’s Delta NFSAs
SSc2 12 0.356 −0.167 Negative SSc2 7 0.591 −0.143 Negative
SSc4.1 12 0.623 −0.083 Negative SSc4.1 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
SSc4.3 12 1.000 0.000 Negative SSc4.3 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
SSc4.4 12 0.317 0.083 Negative SSc4.4 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
WEc1 12 0.065 −0.333 Suspended WEc1 7 0.317 0.143 Negative
WEc2 12 0.070 −0.250 Suspended WEc2 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
WEc3 12 0.654 −0.076 Negative WEc3 7 0.142 −0.286 Suspended
EAc1 12 0.011 −0.611 Positive EAc1 7 0.020 −0.735 Positive
EAc2 12 0.776 0.049 Negative EAc2 7 0.001 −1.000 Positive
EAc3 12 0.680 0.083 Negative EAc3 7 0.141 −0.286 Suspended
EAc4 12 1.000 0.000 Negative EAc4 7 0.530 0.143 Negative
EAc5 12 0.356 −0.167 Negative EAc5 7 0.317 −0.143 Negative
EAc6 12 0.284 −0.167 Negative EAc6 7 0.530 −0.143 Negative
MRc1.1 12 0.482 −0.097 Negative MRc1.1 7 0.317 0.143 Negative
MRc2 12 0.683 −0.069 Negative MRc2 7 0.872 −0.041 Negative
MRc3 12 1.000 0.000 Negative MRc3 7 1.000 0.000 Negative
MRc4 12 0.638 −0.090 Negative MRc4 7 0.142 −0.286 Suspended
MRc5 12 1.000 0.000 Negative MRc5 7 0.317 −0.143 Negative
IDc1 12 0.738 0.076 Negative IDc1 7 0.030 −0.633 Positive

The summary of results of Tables 3a and 4a, which were the result of comparing two groups of
LEED Silver projects and the group of LEED Gold projects showed the five credits had significant

405
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

differences, including SSc7.2, EQc4.1, EQc 5, EQc 8.1, and EAc1. In addition, other credits have
the “suspended” status, such as SSc8, EQc3. 1, EQc3.2, EQc4.2, EQc4.3, etc., can be considered as a
secondary choice for getting the LEED Gold certificate. When comparing the difference in credits
achievement between the LEED Gold projects group and the LEED Platinum projects group, Tables 3b
and 4b illustrated the five credits which were identified with significant differences, including SSc4.2,
SSc7.2, EAc1, EAc2, and IDc1. The credits SSc5.1, SSc.2, EQc1, EQc5, etc., were also considered for the
second choice for getting the LEED Platinum certificate. When comparing Tables 3 and 4, there were
some duplicated credits such as EAc1, EQc5, EQc7.1, EQc7.1, EQc8.1, and SSc7.2. These credits are all
part of the second set of credits, so project teams need to consider the different levels of achievement of
these credits to achieve higher levels of credits.

5. Discussion

5.1. Comparison with the Well-Developed Countries

Table 5 is referenced from Jae-Yong Park’s study (2017), and compared with the results of this
study, the following points should be noted. The popular LEED credits of Vietnamese projects were
focused on Costless-Easy and Cost-Easy credits groups. Additionally, several Cost-Hard group credits
are popular such as WEc2, EAc1, EAc2, EQc4.3, with the reason being that these credits have a large
percentage of points in LEED and most of the LEED projects in Vietnam are LEED silver or gold.
A lot of Costless-Hard credits have not been implemented, reflecting the limited experience of LEED
consultants in Vietnam. Therefore, some of the credits that are costly but still implemented, such as
SSc5.2, SSc7.2, WEc1, WEc3, EQc4.1, EQc4.2, need to be carefully studied and judged before being
applied to the projected practice.

Table 5. Classification table of costs and difficulty level of LEED credits 2009 by Jae-Yong Park
(2017) [12].

Costless-Easy Costless-Hard Cost-Easy Cost-Hard

SSc1 * SSc3 SSc4.2 SSc6.1
SSc2 SSc7.1 * SSc5.1 SSc6.2
SSc4.1 SSc8 SSc5.2 * WEc2 *
SSc4.3 * EAc4 SSc7.2 * EAc1 *
SSc4.4 * MRc1.1 WEc1 * EAc2 *
MRc2 MRc1.2 WEc3 * EAc3
MRc4 MRc3 EAc6 EAc5
MRc5 * EQc2 MRc7 MRc6
EQc7.1 EQc3.1 * EQc3.2 EQc1
EQc7.2 EQc8.1 EQc4.1 * EQc4.3 *
EQc8.2 EQc4.2 * EQc4.4
EQc6.1 EQc5
EQc6.2
* are the significant popular credits at LEED projects in Vietnam.

In addition, LEED specialists need to study more and understand clearly the costless and
uncommon credits group to offer appropriate solutions. For example, SSc2 and SSc4.1 credits relate
to community connectivity planning, and it may not be feasible for many projects because of the
current urban conditions in Vietnam. The construction waste management, MRc2, is currently
only implemented by well-known contractors, so the Vietnamese government should have stricter
regulations to promote them. As a result of uncommon materials with sustainability certificates,
the credits for materials are not offered in the Vietnamese LEED project. The credits of SSc8, EQc8,
EQc2, EAc4, and SSc3 had not been implemented in many projects, and this predicted that the idea

406
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

contribution meetings did not work well. Therefore, the roles of LEED experts and the integrative
design process need to be addressed in the future.

5.2. Converting Results to LEED Version 4

Besides the significant changes, as mentioned in the literature review section, some of the credits
are combined or renamed, which included the following changes, such as the SSc7.1 and SSc7.2 credits
are combined into SSc5; the EQc4.1, EQc4.2, EQc4.3 credits are grouped into EQc2; and most credits
have changed names. Not only changing the names and aggregation of credits, but the content of these
credits also had specific changes that the project team needs to refer to before deciding on the selection
of sustainable credits for their LEED project in the future. Thus, after comparing and converting
common LEED credits of LEED 2009 projects in Vietnam, the list of LEED v4 credits proposed by this
study includes:

1. SSc1—Site Selection. (1 point)

2. LTc6—Bicycle facilities. (1 point)
3. SSc3—Open space. (1 point)
4. SSc5—Heat island reduction. (1 point)
5. EQc3—Construction indoor air quality management plan. (1 point)
6. EQc2—Low emitting materials. (2.75 points)
7. INc2—LEED Accredited Professional. (1 point)
8. LTc8—Green vehicles. (3.00 point)
9. LTc7—Reduced parking footprint. (1.95 points)
10. WEc1—Water Efficient Landscaping. (3.51 points)
11. WEc3—Water Use Reduction. (3.76 points)
12. WEc2—Innovative Wastewater Technologies. (1.84 points)
13. EAc2—Optimize energy performance. (10.38 points)
14. MRc3—Building product disclosure and optimization-sourcing of raw materials. (3.62 points)

6. Conclusions
The important contribution of LEED in driving green building in Vietnam is evidenced through
the increase in the number of recent LEED projects registered in recent years. More studying and a
deeper understanding of project objectives are needed for the development of green buildings without
much additional cost. Understanding the development characteristics of green buildings in Vietnam is
also significant for the Vietnamese government to establish appropriate Green Building guidelines and
regulations. Therefore, the main contribution of this study to the investigation of the credits earned by
LEED buildings in Vietnam, provide benchmarks for future LEED projects to improve. In summary,
the key points are:

­ The results of significantly awarded credits at LEED projects in Vietnam are identified and the
recommended LEED v4 credits are SSc1—Site Selection; LTc6—Bicycle facilities; SSc3—Open
space; SSc5—Heat island reduction; EQc3—Construction indoor air quality management plan;
EQc2—Low emitting materials; INc2—LEED Accredited Professional; LTc8—Green vehicles;
LTc7—Reduced parking footprint; WEc1—Water Efficient Landscaping; WEc3—Water Use
Reduction; WEc2—Innovative Wastewater Technologies; EAc2—Optimize energy performance;
and MRc3—Building product disclosure and optimization—sourcing of raw materials.
­ The significant different credits between the LEED Silver and the LEED Gold projects are SSc5
(SSc7.2), ECc2 (EQc4.1), EQc3 (EQc5), EQc7 (EQc8.1), and EAc2 (EAc1).
­ The significant different credits between the LEED Gold and the LEED Platinum projects are SSc1
(SSc4.2), SSc5 (SSc7.2), EAc2 (EAc1), EAc5 (EAc2), and INc1 (IDc1).

407
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

In addition, many limitations of research need to be mentioned. First, the number of LEED
certificated projects in Vietnam is minimal, and detailed statistical analyses for each type of credit, or
buildings in each region, are also not conducted. Thus, project teams need to have deeply researched
similar projects because of the uniqueness of construction works. Research data was also collected
from LEED v2009, and further research is needed based on data from new LEED v4 projects when the
number of LEED v4 projects in Vietnam is large enough.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization draft, D.H.P. and B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.H.P.;
writing—review and editing, D.H.P., A.C.A and J.L.; supervision, Y.A. and A.C.A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2019R1I1A1A01063207).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Credits and Symbols of Credits in LEED 2009 and LEED v4.
LEED 2009 LEED v4
ID Description Max Points ID Description Max Points
Sustainable sites 26 IPc1 Integrative process 1
SSc1 Site selection 1 Location & transportation 32
Development density and LEED for Neighborhood
SSc2 5 LTc1 16
community connectivity Development location
SSc3 Brownfield redevelopment 1 LTc2 Credit Sensitive land protection 1
Alternative
SSc4.1 transportation—public 6 LTc3 Credit High priority site 2
transportation access
Alternative
Credit Surrounding density and
SSc4.2 transportation—bicycle storage 1 LTc4 5
diverse uses
and changing rooms
Alternative
SSc4.3 transportation—low-emitting and 3 LTc5 Credit Access to quality transit 5
fuel-efficient vehicles
Alternative
SSc4.4 2 LTc6 Credit Bicycle facilities 1
transportation—parking capacity
Site development—protect or
SSc5.1 1 LTc7 Credit Reduced parking footprint 1
restore habitat
Site development—maximize
SSc5.2 1 LTc8 Credit Green vehicles 1
open space
Stormwater design—quantity
SSc6.1 1 Sustainable sites 10
control
Stormwater design—quality
SSc6.2 1 SSc1 Site assessment 1
control
Site development—protect or
SSc7.1 Heat island effect—non-roof 1 SSc2 2
restore habitat
SSc7.2 Heat island effect—roof 1 SSc3 Open space 1
SSc8 Light pollution reduction 1 SSc4 Rainwater Mgmt 3
Water efficiency 10 SSc5 Heat island reduction 2
WEc1 Water efficient landscaping 4 SSc6 Light pollution reduction 1
Innovative wastewater
WEc2 2 Water efficiency 11
technologies
WEc3 Water use reduction 4 Wc1 Cooling tower water use 2

408
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

Table A1. Cont.

LEED 2009 LEED v4
ID Description Max Points ID Description Max Points
Energy and atmosphere 35 Wc2 Water metering 1
EAc1 Optimize energy performance 19 Wc3 Outdoor water use reduction 2
EAc2 On-site renewable energy 7 Wc4 Indoor water use reduction 6
EAc3 Enhanced commissioning 2 Energy and atmosphere 33
Enhanced refrigerant
EAc4 2 EAc1 Enhanced commissioning 6
management
EAc5 Measurement and verification 3 EAc2 Advanced energy metering 1
EAc6 Green power 2 EAc3 Demand response 2
Material and resources 14 EAc4 Renewable energy production 3
Building reuse—maintain existing
MRc1.1 3 EAc5 Enhanced refrigerant Mgmt 1
walls, floors and roof
Building reuse—maintain interior
MRc1.2 1 EAc6 Green power and carbon offsets 2
nonstructural elements
MRc2 Construction waste management 2 EAc7 Optimize energy performance 18
MRc3 Materials reuse 2 Material and resources 13
MRc4 Recycled content 2 Mrc1 Building life-cycle impact reduction 5
MRc5 Regional materials 2 Building product disclosure and
Mrc2 optimization—environm-ental product 2
MRc6 Rapidly renewable materials 1
declarations
MRc7 Certified wood 1 Building product disclosure and
Mrc3
optimization—sourcing of raw materials 2
Indoor environmental quality 15
EQc1 Outdoor air delivery monitoring 1 Building product disclosure and
Mrc4
optimization—material ingredients 2
EQc2 Increased ventilation 1
Construction IAQ management
EQc3.1 1 Mrc5 Construction and demolition waste Mgmt 2
plan—during construction
Construction IAQ management
EQc3.2 1 Indoor environmental quality 16
plan—before occupancy
Low-emitting
EQc4.1 1 IEQc1 Enhanced IAQ strategies 2
materials—adhesives and sealants
Low-emitting materials—paints
EQc4.2 1 IEQc2 Low-emitting materials 3
and coatings
Low-emitting materials—flooring
EQc4.3 1 IEQc3 Construction IAQ Mgmt plan 1
systems
Low-emitting
EQc4.4 materials—composite wood and 1 IEQc4 IAQ assessment 2
agrifiber products
Indoor chemical and pollutant
EQc5 1 IEQc5 Thermal comfort 1
source control
Controllability of
EQc6.1 1 IEQc6 Interior lighting 2
systems—lighting
Controllability of
EQc6.2 1 IEQc7 Daylight 3
systems—thermal comfort
EQc7.1 Thermal comfort—design 1 IEQc8 Quality views 1
EQc7.2 Thermal comfort—verification 1 IEQc9 Acoustic performance 1
EQc8.1 Daylight and views—daylight 1 Innovation 6
EQc8.2 Daylight and views—views 1 INc1 Innovation 5
Innovation 8 INc2 LEED Accredited Professional 1
IDc1 Innovation in design 3
Regional priority credits 4
IDc2 LEED Accredited Professional 1
Regional priority credits 4

References
1. Nguyen, H.-T.; Skitmore, M.; Gray, M.; Zhang, X.; Olanipekun, A.O.J. Will green building development take
off? An exploratory study of barriers to green building in Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 8–20.
[CrossRef]
2. Kulp, S.A.; Strauss, B.H.J. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and
coastal flooding. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4844. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Pham, D.H.; Lee, J.; Ahn, Y.J. Implementing LEED v4 BD+ C Projects in Vietnam: Contributions and
Challenges for General Contractor. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449. [CrossRef]

409
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

4. Ahn, Y.H.; Jung, C.W.; Suh, M.; Jeon, M.H.J. Integrated construction process for green building. Procedia Eng.
2016, 145, 670–676. [CrossRef]
5. Choi, J.; Bhatla, A.; Stoppel, C.; Shane, J.J.S. LEED credit review system and optimization model for pursuing
LEED certification. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13351–13377. [CrossRef]
6. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Shou, W.; Chi, H.; Chong, H.-Y.; Sutrisna, M.J.R. A comprehensive analysis of the credits
obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 370–379. [CrossRef]
7. Dwaikat, L.N.; Ali, K.N.J. Green buildings cost premium: A review of empirical evidence. Energy Build. 2016,
110, 396–403. [CrossRef]
8. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction; U.S. Green Building Council:
Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
9. Nyikos, D.M.; Thal, A.E.; Hicks, M.J.; Leach, S.E. To LEED or not to LEED: Analysis of cost premiums
associated with sustainable facility design. Eng. Manag. J. 2012, 24, 50–62. [CrossRef]
10. Morris, P.; Langdon, D.J. What does green really cost. PREA Q. 2007, 55–60.
11. Cheng, J.C.; Ma, L.J. A non-linear case-based reasoning approach for retrieval of similar cases and selection
of target credits in LEED projects. Build. Environ. 2015, 93, 349–361. [CrossRef]
12. Park, J.-Y.; Choi, S.-G.; Kim, D.-K.; Jeong, M.-C.; Kong, J.-S. Credit optimization algorithm for calculating
LEED costs. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1607. [CrossRef]
13. Jun, M.; Cheng, J.C. Selection of target LEED credits based on project information and climatic factors using
data mining techniques. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2017, 32, 224–236. [CrossRef]
14. Ma, J.; Cheng, J.C. Data-driven study on the achievement of LEED credits using percentage of average score
and association rule analysis. Build. Environ. 2016, 98, 121–132. [CrossRef]
15. Jalaei, F.; Jrade, A. Integrating building information modeling (BIM) and LEED system at the conceptual
design stage of sustainable buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 18, 95–107. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, P.-H.; Nguyen, T.C. Integrating web map service and building information modeling for location and
transportation analysis in green building certification process. Autom. Constr. 2017, 77, 52–66. [CrossRef]
17. Pushkar, S. Sacrificial Pseudoreplication in LEED Cross-Certification Strategy Assessment: Sampling
Structures. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1353. [CrossRef]
18. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, X.; He, Q. Regional variations of credits obtained by LEED 2009
certified green buildings—A country level analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 20. [CrossRef]
19. Da Silva, L.; Ruwanpura, J.Y. Review of the LEED points obtained by Canadian building projects. J. Archit.
Eng. 2009, 15, 38–54. [CrossRef]
20. Cidell, J.; Beata, A. Spatial variation among green building certification categories: Does place matter? Landsc.
Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 142–151. [CrossRef]
21. Madanayake, H.S.P.; Ruwanpura, J.Y. Multi-criteria decision making to improve performance in construction
projects with LEED certification. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction
Challenges in a Flat World, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 21–23 May 2012; pp. 1899–1909.
22. Juan, Y.-K.; Gao, P.; Wang, J. A hybrid decision support system for sustainable office building renovation and
energy performance improvement. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 290–297. [CrossRef]
23. Castro-Lacouture, D.; Sefair, J.A.; Flórez, L.; Medaglia, A.L. Optimization model for the selection of materials
using a LEED-based green building rating system in Colombia. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1162–1170.
[CrossRef]
24. Zimmerman, A.; Kibert, C.J. Informing LEED’s next generation with The Natural Step. Build. Res. Inf. 2007,
35, 681–689. [CrossRef]
25. Pushkar, S. A Comparative Analysis of Gold Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New
Construction 2009 Certified Projects in Finland, Sweden, Turkey, and Spain. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1496.
[CrossRef]
26. Potbhare, V.; Syal, M.; Arif, M.; Khalfan, M.M.; Egbu, C. Emergence of green building guidelines in developed
countries and their impact on India. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2009, 7, 99–121. [CrossRef]
27. Kubba, S. LEED Practices, Certification, and Accreditation Handbook; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2009.
28. USGBC. Summary of Changes: LEED 2009 to v4—BD+C; USGBC: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
29. Hogg, R.V.; Tanis, E.A.; Zimmerman, D.L. Probability and Statistical Inference; Pearson: London, UK, 2015.
30. Tourism, G.D.o. Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Available online: http://asosai14.vn/80-1/viet-nam-dat-buoc-
con-nguoi.sav (accessed on 20 January 2020).

410
Sustainability 2020, 12, 852

31. Cliff, N. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 114, 494.
[CrossRef]
32. Marx, A.; Backes, C.; Meese, E.; Lenhof, H.-P.; Keller, A. EDISON-WMW: Exact dynamic programing solution
of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2016, 14, 55–61. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

411
sustainability

Article
Integrated Design Process for Modular Construction
Projects to Reduce Rework
Hosang Hyun 1 , Hyunsoo Kim 2 , Hyun-Soo Lee 3 , Moonseo Park 3 and Jeonghoon Lee 4, *
1 Institute of Engineering Research, Seoul National University, Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea;
[email protected]
2 Department of Architectural Engineering, Dankook University, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin-si,
Gyeonggi-do 16890, Korea; [email protected]
3 Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak-ro 1,
Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea; [email protected] (H.-S.L.); [email protected] (M.P.)
4 Technical Policy Research Team, Construction Engineer Policy Institute of Korea, Eonju-ro 650, Gangnam-gu,
Seoul 06098, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-10-8896-5956

Received: 26 November 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 10 January 2020

Abstract: In modular construction projects, unit production and onsite work are conducted
concurrently, enabling shorter duration, lower cost, and improved quality. Because of the nature of
the work, building design details should be determined early in the design phase, which requires
information from participants. However, the design process for stick-built construction does
not include such information, which leads to errors in design, such as omissions and conflicts
of information from participants, causing reworking in the design phase. To reduce errors, an
information flow should be identified representing when/what/how the information should be shared,
and with whom. This paper proposes an integrated design process based on the information flow. To
identify the flow, a precedence relationship between activities is represented using a dependency
structure matrix (DSM). Then, the order of activities is rearranged using a partitioning algorithm.
In this manner, unnecessary feedback and reverse information flow, which are related to errors, are
reduced. Finally, the rearranged activities are proposed as an integrated design process. To validate
the impact of the proposed process and methodology, interviews with experts were conducted. The
validation results suggest that the project delivery method should also be considered in the early
project phase in practical application.

Keywords: modular construction; rework; integrated design process; dependency structure matrix
(DSM); process optimization

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
The global construction industry suffers from various issues, such as labor shortage, low
productivity, and environmental pollution [1,2]. Modular construction has gained attention as
an effective approach for overcoming these problems because of its inherent benefits, such as improved
productivity, shorter project duration, higher quality, and better occupational safety, owing to the
controlled work environment of a factory [3–6]. Moreover, modular construction reduces waste by at
least 70% in comparison with the industry average [7,8]. Thus, it is a more sustainable construction
method [9–11].
In modular construction, a significant proportion of work in a project is conducted in a factory;
the produced units are transported and then assembled onsite [5,11]. Because production and onsite

Sustainability 2020, 12, 530; doi:10.3390/su12020530 413 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

work are conducted concurrently, project duration is reduced significantly [12]. Owing to the nature of
the work, design details, such as unit installation and the connection method, should be determined
early in the design phase to reduce errors such as omissions and conflicts and to start unit production
and onsite work simultaneously based on the agreed design [13]. The decision-making process for
finalizing the details requires integration of project participants in the early design phase; hence, the
complexity of information flows between the participants increase in comparison with the conventional
stick-built construction [13,14]. This complexity due to multilateral information exchange is a source
for errors resulting from omissions and conflicts in the design, which in serious cases may even lead
to redoing of the whole design process for rectification [13,15]. The feedback in the phase comprises
communication between participants to include the information into the design. However, when the
necessary participants for providing the information are not identified in the information flow before
the phase, omissions or conflicts may occur when the work planning is established after the design
phase, which may necessitate redoing of the whole design process for rectification [7,12,15–21]. For
example, if the Road Traffic Act regulations of an area are not considered in a related design step, the
size of units may need to be reworked for transportation, which can cause schedule and cost overruns.
In modular construction, the complexity involved makes identification of the information flows
difficult [14]. To facilitate the integration of participants and identification of the information flows
in the design phase of a modular project, an integrated design process is required to ensure that
the project is managed considering the entire project process, including design, unit production,
transportation, erection, and performance [22,23]. However, designs are still established based on
conventional stick-built construction methods, which are unsuitable for modular construction, and lack
of expertise and knowledge in the marketplace make it difficult to recognize the need for the integrated
design process [18,22,24]. This causes uncertainty in the design process, leading to unnecessary and
inappropriate feedback, which may affect project performance [12,18,19,25]. Consequently, the lower
performance caused by reworking results in a negative stigma and barrier in the usage of modular
construction [18].

1.2. Research Methodology

To address this problem, this paper proposes an integrated design process for modular construction
projects based on identified information flows between activities in the design and work planning
phases. The scope of the design process in this paper includes activities related to architectural,
mechanical, structural, and electrical design of buildings and site analysis in the early design phase.
It also includes selected activities from the related work planning phase that should be integrated
into the design phase to reduce rework. This is because the inability to make changes onsite is the
biggest barrier to using modular construction methods as it is costlier to rework than conventional
construction methods [2,6,12,22,26,27]. To select the activities, major issues causing rework in modular
construction are identified by analyzing daily reports of modular projects and reviewing existing
literature. Then, strategies for mitigating reworking are identified by reviewing descriptions of the
report and literatures. These strategies consist of activities that prevent the causes of errors, such
as omissions or conflicts in design, which should be included to reduce rework in the field such as
production and on-site if not considered at the design stage.
In suggesting an integrated design process, information flows and the relationship between
activities are first identified based on the precedence relationship. Then, as a methodology to facilitate
information flows, a dependency structure matrix (DSM) is derived. DSM has been used to represent
complex processes in systems and also used to alleviate the complexity by representing the information
flow using a matrix [28]. Based on the DSM, the sequence of activities is rearranged using the
partitioning algorithm. Through this rearrangement, information flows are optimized to reduce
feedback (or reverse information flows) between activities; the rearranged activity sequence can be
used as the integrated planning process because the process provides information to project participants:
(1) when the mitigation activities should be conducted, and (2) what information should be shared

414
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

with whom in the design phase. Finally, the rearranged activities are briefly described. It is expected
that adoption of the process outlined in this study will help reduce engineering rework (rework to
rectify the design), as well as field rework (rework to rebuild or reassemble building components).

2. Preliminary Study

2.1. Rework in Modular Construction Projects

Rework is simply defined as the unnecessary effort of redoing a process or activity that was
incorrectly implemented [17]. Rework significantly affects the cost, schedule, and quality of construction
projects. The direct costs alone are estimated to be 2–12% of the total construction cost; hence, rework
should be managed effectively [15,17,29–31]. The causal relationship and effects of rework are usually
analyzed to reduce rework in construction [15,16,20,21,31–33]. Typically, a significant proportion
of rework is caused by errors made during the design process [15,17]. These errors usually appear
downstream, and therefore have a negative impact on a project’s performance [15,17,20,21]. The
various causes of errors in the design phase include omissions from the project brief; ineffective or lack
of coordination; inaccurate, incomplete, or conflicting documents; or an unrealistic design schedule [15].
To reduce errors in the design phase, it is necessary to integrate, and effectively coordinate among, the
participants in the early design phase [16,17,29].
In modular construction, it is necessary for the project participants to be integrated in the early
design phase, not only to reduce rework, but also to determine design details, such as unit installation
and connection method [13]. Therefore, information from the participants, such as unit production and
onsite work manager, should be included and applied to the related design steps [18]. However, using
conventional stick-built construction design processes for integrating the participants may also lead to
rework in itself, although there may be no errors in the design [18,24]. This is because the stick-built
design processes do not suggest when/what/how the information from the other participants is applied.
Hence, issues with identification of information flow lead to unnecessary reverse information flows
and feedback, increasing the chances of omissions and conflicts between the completed design and
requirements from participants. For example, if a modular building structure is designed using the
stick-built construction process, and the deformation of units during lifting is not considered in the
design, damage to internal or external finishes caused by deformation may occur because the self-load
increases during lifting. The damaged finish would need to be reworked onsite [24].
In summary, (1) rework can occur without error in the design document that was established
using the stick-built construction design process; (2) information regarding both unit production
and onsite work should be applied to the related design step. Moreover, there are various details
such as installation and connection method for unit assembly that should be determined, for which
multilateral information exchange is required, which in turn increases the complexity of information
flows in the design processes, as depicted in Figure 1 [2,22]. Figure 1 shows the extra intermediate
process such as unit production, transportation compared to stick-built construction and feedbacks
between participants in early phase. This means increased project constraints and considerations
related to the extra process, which requires multilateral interactive communication [14]. The increased
communication results in increased complexity [34,35].

415
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

Figure 1. Increased complexity caused by interposed processes.

Figure 2 depicts the rework in structural components caused by omissions and conflict in
design [15,16]. The errors causing the rework were not detected before conducting the works, and
this proves that the information related to unit production and lifting were not applied to the design.
Owing to the nature of modular construction work, any changes made onsite are not only difficult
but also prohibitive in terms of cost [12,13,36]. In other words, if the design phase is not coordinated
properly, modular construction can cost much more than stick-built construction [2,6,12,22,26,27].

(a) Unit deformation

(b) Inappropriate
fire-proof paintjob
Connection for structural components and units

Figure 2. Examples of errors caused by omission in design.

In addition to the absence of an integrated process, there is currently limited expertise in modular
construction in the marketplace; hence, the approach to design is still largely based on traditional
methods [18,37,38]. This may lead to difficulty in identifying errors and omissions in the design,
especially with complex information flows [15,17]. Figure 3 depicts the impact of undetected omissions
in each design step. To alleviate the issue of lack of expertise, an integrated design process is required.

416
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

Figure 3. Impact of undetected omissions in each design step.

To support the design phase of modular constructions, several studies have been conducted
previously [36–40]. Nahangi et al., proposed an automated approach for monitoring the defection
and damage of modular units using laser scanned data [36]. Han et al., developed an optimization
model for tower crane operation that can be used in the planning phase [39]. Lei et al., suggested an
automated method for checking crane path, and the method could be used to prevent interference
during tower crane operation in the planning phase [40]. Olearczyk et al. proposed a methodology
for selecting tower crane capacity and location that can be used in the early planning phase [41].
To facilitate the decision making process in the design phase, Sharafi et al., developed a unified
matrix approach for the automated design of multi-story modular buildings to effectively compare
the building design alternatives in the early design phase considering architectural, structural, and
constructional aspects. By using the approach, design alternatives can be suggested considering
multidimensional relationship between units and spatial design that are able to achieve minimum
cost, maximum regularity, efficient building energy consumption [37]. Then, Sharafi et al., suggested a
list of critical decision making criteria that can be used for feasibility studies to select construction
methods, such as the modular construction and stick-built construction methods, and developed a
decision support system to facilitate the decision making process. By using the process, an appropriate
construction system and the level of modularity can be determined [38]. These studies proved the
importance of decision making in the early design phase and provided considerations that should be
included for efficient modular building design. Smith identified the major issues; suggested guidelines
for design, unit production, transportation, and onsite work planning; and analyzed the effect of design
and planning change in the early stages [12]. However, these studies did not analyze the information
relationship between activities in the design phase or an integrated design process. In summary, the
project participants should be integrated to reduce errors in the design phase. However, the errors
cannot be reduced only by participation and without the integrated design process. To reduce the
errors, this paper proposes an integrated design process to identify and facilitate the information flow
between participants.

2.2. Information Flow in the Design Process

To use the proposed process in the design phase, it should be established beforehand, and
information from participants should be applied to the process. Therefore, what information is
required at each design step and which activity generates the information needs to be identified. The
information may include considerations for unit production, transportation, onsite work, or the whole
project, which should be applied to the design. In addition to this, activities in each design step require
information in advance, and information from each participant requires preceding activities. Activities

417
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

that generate information have different precedence relationships, and feedback occurs between
participants. This multilateral information exchange increases the complexity of the information flows,
which acts as a source of errors—as identified earlier, omissions and conflicts. It has usually been
difficult to handle this complexity because of unawareness and limited expertise in information flow
management [18,22,24]. To alleviate the issue, information flows should be first identified, and then
feedback in the flow should be managed to facilitate the design process.
To identify the information flow in a process, network analysis and bar chart techniques for
planning construction work have been used extensively, but they are not capable of dealing with
iterations in the planning process, such as feedback processes between activities [42]. To represent and
solve the problem caused by information flow in a process, IDEF0 is used. In the IDEF0 model, an
activity can be divided into sub-activities. Moreover, the flow representing input or output data of
activities can be identified in the model, which is useful in modeling the system processes based on the
information relationship between activities [43]. However, IDEF0 also does not have the capability
to manage the feedback process and iterations in the system because the involved activity amount is
too large, and the graph in the model will become unclear [43–45]. DSM has been used in modular
building design [37,46]. Sharafi, Samali et al., used DSM for representing the connection type between
modules and 3-dimensional cost optimized building design can be suggested using the unified matrix
method in the paper. In the DSM, various interaction types are used for representing connection
types between components [37]. DSM has also been used to improve the workflow of the modular
unit production process based on the precedence relationship between activities on the production
line [46]. It has been used to identify information flows and iterations within a process and to schedule
activities with the objective of optimizing the task order. After the identification of information flow,
DSM rearranges the order of activities to reduce unnecessary feedbacks and reverse information flows,
thereby reducing engineering rework in the planning phase [42,47]. Therefore, DSM can be used to
identify and facilitate information flows in the integrated design process for modular construction and
to alleviate the complexity of the flow. In DSM, the relationship among activities can be characterized
by three fundamental building blocks: parallel (independent), sequential (dependent), and coupled
(interdependent), as shown in Figure 4. After the relationship is identified based on the relationship
type, process optimization is conducted to reduce feedbacks and iterations in the process. There are
various algorithms for process optimization, such as partitioning, tearing, clustering; an algorithm is
selected based on the optimization objective. In this paper, a partitioning algorithm, which can help
reduce feedback processes based on the information flow by reallocating the activity order, is used [42].
The partitioning algorithm manipulates the rows and columns in DSM to minimize feedbacks in the
rearranged DSM. In the partitioning process, the activity that can be conducted without input from
other activities is identified and placed at the top of the matrix; this process is iteratively conducted
until no such activity remains. After the previous step, the activity delivering no information to other
activity is identified and placed at the bottom of matrix and this process also repeated. Completion of
these process means the DSM is partitioned [28]. Then, to manage the remaining feedback or reverse
information flow, a clustering algorithm is used. The objective of clustering is to find subsets of DSM
elements that are called clusters. The clusters should contain most of the interaction between activities
internally and the clusters are generated based on the rule that the link or interaction between the
clusters should be eliminated or minimized [28]. Using the clustering algorithm, the number of clusters
can be minimized and it means a reduced number of feedback loops in the process. In modular projects,
the reduced number of clusters means the project participants groups for sharing information can also
be reduced and thus, improvement in the efficiency of information flow management.

418
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

Representation
Interaction Type Description
Graph DSM
‡ There is no information on the interaction
Parallel between activities, and each activity is
independent.

‡ This is a dependent relationship, where

Sequential activity A is the predecessor.
‡ Activity B is dependent on Activity A.
‡ Activities A and B exchange information and
have an interdependent relationship.
Coupled
‡ This relationship represents the occurrence
of feedback in the design process.

Figure 4. Information relationships in a DSM.

3. Information Flow Identification

3.1. Activities in Design Phase

To conceptualize an integrated design process, the information flow of the design process was
first identified. This identification was based on the precedence relationship of each activity in the
design phase. The precedence relationship includes activities that generate information, which is in
turn required to conduct activities in the design steps. Based on the identified information flow, a DSM
was established. It was then optimized using a partitioning algorithm to suggest an integrated design
process [46,47]. The process consists of activities involved in the design process of the conventional
stick-built construction. The scope of the process includes schematic design (SD), design development
(DD), and construction documentation (CD). The American Institute of Architecture (AIA) has defined
the typical building design process [48]. The activities in each design step were adopted from the
process of the AIA and limited to those activities related to the determination of architectural, structural,
electrical, and mechanical design. In this paper, the adopted activities were subdivided to represent the
interaction between architecture and architectural engineers, such as mechanical–structural engineer.
For example, article 3.2.5 in the AIA standard form agreement describes SD documents as follows:
“Preliminary selections of major building systems and construction materials shall be noted on the
drawings or described in writing”. This article describes building systems and materials that should
be provided in the SD documentation. However, the same comprehensive description cannot be used
for the proposed integrated design process because the activities in the description, such as selecting
building system and material, require different information to determine the specifications. Therefore,
the description is subdivided, and the subdivided activities related to, inter alia, the building system
and materials are listed in Table 1 from ID 5 to 8 [12,13,24,39].
All of the subdivided activities in each design step are listed in Table 1. The subdivided activities
are conducted similar to activities in the design process for a conventional stick-built construction. In
the SD phase, site layout planning is developed based on the site analysis results in the pre-design
phase. Then, materials and a structural system are applied to each building design alternative. The
alternatives are prepared to be selected for the DD phase, where the building design is selected among
design alternatives and, finally, the selected design is developed. In this phase, materials that will
be applied to the design are selected. Each project participant reviews the electrical, mechanical,
and structural systems through a feedback process between participants. In the CD phase, details
of the building components; mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP); and structural system are
documented. The document should be crosschecked by various participants because undetected errors
in this phase directly lead to rework in the unit production and onsite work.

419
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

Table 1. Activities in the design phase.

Design Phase ID Activities

1 Site analysis
2 Site layout planning
3 Establish design direction in terms of plan, section, and elevation
4 Building core planning
SD
5 Explore interior and exterior material
6 Review the strengths of materials, structural design criteria, and design load
Review alternatives of structural system design, such as size of components
7
(rough estimation of unit weight)
8 MEP planning and MEP space requirement review
9 Develop and modify the schematic design
10 Determine interior and exterior materials
11 Determine structural system design
12 Structural design analysis and structural calculation documentation
DD
13 Draft the locations and sizes of structural components
14 Bar arrangement drawing documentation
15 Determine MEP system
16 Review MEP and structural component interference
17 Prepare construction document of the design
18 Structural and MEP system adjustment and documentation
CD Architectural detail, specifications, structural calculation documentation
19
and incorporate subcontractor’s documentation
20 Principal structural parts finishing propriety review
21 Check errors and omissions in documentation and constructability review

3.2. Causes of Rework in Modular Constructions

As mentioned earlier, rework can be classified into two categories: engineering rework and field
rework [29,49,50]. The proposed integrated design process intends to reduce engineering rework,
which is rework made to rectify errors or omissions in the design phase. In this paper, it is assumed
that engineering rework in modular projects occurs when information from participants is omitted in
the design phase. To identify such information, many works were reviewed, focusing on modular
construction planning [12,13,24,36,39–41,51–56]. However, rework is also performed to rectify defects
after the design phase, such as the unit production, transportation, or onsite work phases. Rework
conducted in these phases is called field rework in this paper. Field rework also affects project
performance. A significant portion of the causes of field rework are from errors and omissions that are
not detected in the design phase [15,17]. An efficient measure to reduce field rework is to develop
improved design procedures by incorporating work planning to check causes [49]. In order to include
activities that should be integrated into the design process to reduce rework, causes of rework that are
not included in the existing literature are identified by analyzing daily reports of modular projects,
which document details of work activities and issues. These cases and their causes of rework are
collected from daily reports and other sources in the literature, as presented in Table 2. Then, activities
to mitigate rework are established. The mitigation plans related to the causes are derived from the
literature [12,13,24,36,39–41,51–56]. The mitigation plans are described in Table 3. Each mitigation
plan is an activity in the work plan for off/on-site work that should be integrated into the design
process. Activities in the mitigation plan consist of activities for reviewing or checking the causes,
and errors in design can be reduced by conducting the activities in the design phase. For example,
in Figure 2, rework was caused because a fireproof paint was applied to a unit assembly connection.
Fireproof paint should not be applied to such connections as the structural performance of the painted
connection may decrease. Therefore, the paint had to be removed from the connection and the units
had to be reassembled. This implies that the interference between fireproof painting and connection
was not marked in the shop drawing for unit manufacturing. To prevent rework, an activity whereby
errors and omissions in the design are checked is included, to be conducted while preparing shop
drawings in the manufacturing planning phase.

420
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

Table 2. Cases and causes of rework in modular construction projects.

Phase Cause Related Research

Interference between MEP and structural components [19,24,54]
Fireproof paint application to connection [24], daily report
Manufacturing Rework caused by error of activity order on manufacturing line [19,24], daily report
Excess manufacturing tolerance [36]
Quality deterioration in manufacturing process [24,36]
Damage and deformation in transportation [19,24,55]
Transportation Revision of design caused by omission of reviewing Road Traffic
[12,13,24]
Act in the design process
Interference between MEP and structural components, such as
[19,24,54], daily report
concrete foundations
Damage to unit caused by onsite work interference [24,39–41,51,52]
Shortage of passage space for workers in PIT [24], daily report
Onsite work
Occurrence of component tolerance errors [24,56], daily report
Occurrence of tolerance error in MEP [24,54], daily report
Unit deformation caused by unit lifting [12,24]
Damage caused by weather conditions on un-proofed components [24], daily report

Table 3. Mitigation plan for reducing rework.

Phase ID Activities in Rework Mitigation Plan

(Production plan) Determine and review the work activities for unit production in
22
the factory (determine factory work)
23 (Production plan) Prepare shop drawings and check interference of unit production
Manufacturing
24 (Production plan) Prepare unit production line design
25 (Quality management plan) Prepare manufacturing tolerance management plan
26 (Quality management plan) Prepare quality management plan
(Transportation plan) Prepare management plan for reducing deformation and
27
damage
Transportation
(Transportation plan) Review the Road Traffic Act regulations (check the weight and
28
size of unit)
29 (Onsite work plan) Determine onsite work activities
30 (Onsite work plan) Select tower crane location
31 (Onsite work plan) Select tower crane specification
32 (Onsite work plan) Prepare shop drawings and check for interference
Onsite Work 33 (Onsite work plan) Review constructability for onsite work
34 (Quality management plan) Prepare onsite work tolerance management plan
(Quality management plan) Prepare deformation management plan in unit lifting
35
process
(Quality management plan) Prepare unit proofing plan to reduce damage from
36
weather conditions

3.3. Identification of Information Flow for DSM

To develop the proposed integrated design process, including the rework mitigation plan, the
information flows between activities should be identified. Through this identification, the activities in
the process are rearranged to facilitate information flows using the partitioning algorithm. Through
the rearrangement, activities in the mitigation plan are allocated in the design process, and the type
and time of information from project participants to be shared are provided. Therefore, the integrated
process shows the procedure of the design process including the activities in the mitigation plan.
In Table 4, the information flow between activities in the designing and planning phases has been
identified [12,13,24,36,39–41,51–56]. Each activity in Table 4 has predecessors. The predecessor column
lists the IDs of the activities that must be conducted before each activity. In other words, the activity
can only start with the information obtained by completing the predecessor activities. For example, site
layout planning should be preceded by activities, such as site analysis, reviewing the Road Traffic Act
regulations, and tower crane location selection. However, when selecting the tower crane location, the
site layout planning is considered to be a predecessor, which implies that there is a feedback process
between the site layout planning and tower crane location selection. Therefore, when conducting

421
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

activities, activity information, such as building and crane location, should be exchanged and shared.
Moreover, the Road Traffic Act regulation review follows the activity of site layout planning while
also providing the site layout planning activity with information. The reverse information flow here
indicates that there is a possibility of engineering rework in the design phase. Feedback and reverse
information flows can be reduced by rearranging the activity order during the optimization of the
design process. The order is rearranged based on information flows.

Table 4. Activity relationship based on information flows.

Phase ID Activities Predecessor

1 Site analysis —
2 Site layout planning 1, 28, 30
3 Establish design direction in terms of plan, section, and elevation 2, 4, 28
4 Building core planning 3
Schematic 5 Explore interior and exterior material 3
design Reviewing the strength of material, structural design criteria, and
6 1, 3
design load
Reviewing alternatives of structural system designs, such as sizes
7 3, 6, 28
of component (rough estimation of unit weight)
8 MEP planning and MEP space requirement review 1, 3, 4
9 Develop and modify the schematic design 3, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16
10 Determine interior and exterior materials 9
11 Determine structural system design 6, 7, 9, 12
Structural design analysis and structural calculation
Design 12 11, 35
documentation
development
13 Draft the locations and sizes of structural components 9, 11, 12
14 Bar arrangement drawing documentation 13
15 Determine MEP system 1, 8, 9
16 Reviewing MEP and structural component interference 9, 13, 15
17 Prepare construction document of the design 9, 18, 20, 21
18 Structural and MEP system adjustment and documentation 11, 15, 17, 21
Construction Architectural details, specifications, and structural calculation
19 17, 18, 20
documentation documentation and incorporate subcontractor documentation
20 Principal structural parts finishing and propriety review 21
Check the errors and omissions in documentation and
21 17, 20
constructability review
Determine and review the work activities for unit production in
22 1, 17, 27, 28, 29
factory (determine factory work)
23 Prepare shop drawings and check interference in unit production 22
Manufacturing
24 Prepare unit production line design 23
25 Prepare manufacturing tolerance management plan 17, 22, 23, 26
26 Prepare quality management plan 22, 25
27 Prepare management plan for reducing deformation and damage 1, 22
Transportation
28 Review the Road Traffic Act regulations (weight and size of unit) 1
29 Determine onsite work activities 22
30 Select tower crane location 1, 2, 28
31 Select tower crane specification 17, 22, 30
32 Prepare shop drawings and check for interference 29, 33
Onsite Work
33 Review constructability for onsite work 29, 32
34 Prepare onsite work tolerance management plan 29
35 Prepare deformation management plan in unit lifting process 12
Prepare unit proofing plan to reduce damage from weather
36 17, 22
conditions

422
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

For the rearrangement, a DSM of the modular construction design process was developed based
on the information flow relationship in Table 4. Figure 5 illustrates the DSM. The marks above the
diagonal represent the reverse information flows. The optimization objective of the DSM is to move
as many marks as possible to below the diagonal [47]. Figure 6 depicts the rearranged activities and
information flow in the DSM after applying the partitioning algorithm. Then, activities with strong
interdependencies were grouped, and each group has feedback and reverse information flow between
activities. The blue boxes in Figure 6 indicate the groups, and to constitute the blue box, a clustering
algorithm was used. Although the number of feedback processes were reduced by the optimization,
some still remain. Activity groups A, B, C, and D require information flow management, because the
feedback processes are concentrated within the groups. As a quantitative result, the total number of
reverse information flows in the process was reduced from 23 to 18 after rearrangement of the activity
order. For example, the Road Traffic Act regulations review in the transportation planning phase was
reallocated to the SD phase. The reverse information flow of reviewing the regulation was reduced
from 4 to 0. This reduced reverse flow implies that the regulation review affects other activities in
the process. By allocating the regulation review to the early design phase, engineering rework in the
design and planning phases can be reduced. Given that the results of the SD phase affect the following
activities, reallocation in the early phase implies that the potential rework in the following phase can
also be reduced.

423
(OHPHQW1DPH ,'
6LWHDQDO\VLV
6LWHOD\RXWSODQQLQJ
(VWDEOLVKGHVLJQGLUHFWLRQLQWHUPVRISODQVHFWLRQDQGHOHYDWLRQ
%XLOGLQJFRUHSODQQLQJ
([SORUHLQWHULRUDQGH[WHULRUPDWHULDO
5HYLHZLQJWKHVWUHQJWKRIPDWHULDOVWUXFWXUDOGHVLJQFULWHULDGHVLJQORDG
5HYLHZLQJDOWHUQDWLYHVRIVWUXFWXUDOV\VWHPGHVLJQVXFKDVVL]HRIFRPSRQHQW

URXJKHVWLPDWLRQRIXQLWZHLJKW
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

0(3SODQQLQJDQG0(3VSDFHUHTXLUHPHQWUHYLHZ
'HYHORSDQGPRGLI\WKHVFKHPDWLFGHVLJQ
'HWHUPLQHLQWHULRUDQGH[WHULRUPDWHULDO
'HWHUPLQHVWUXFWXUDOV\VWHPGHVLJQ
6WUXFWXUDOGHVLJQDQDO\VLVDQGVWUXFWXUDOFDOFXODWLRQGRFXPHQWDWLRQ
'UDIWWKHORFDWLRQDQGVL]HRIVWUXFWXUDOFRPSRQHQW
%DUDUUDQJHPHQWGUDZLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQ
'HWHUPLQH0(3V\VWHP
5HYLHZLQJ0(3DQGVWUXFWXUDOFRPSRQHQWLQWHUIHUHQFH
3UHSDUHFRQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWRIWKHGHVLJQ
6WUXFWXUDODQG0(3V\VWHPDGMXVWPHQWDQGGRFXPHQWDWLRQ
$UFKLWHFWXUDOGHWDLOVSHFLILFDWLRQVVWUXFWXUDOFDOFXODWLRQGRFXPHQWDWLRQDQGLQFRUSRUDWHVXEFRQWUDFWRU¶V

GRFXPHQWDWLRQ
3ULQFLSDOVWUXFWXUDOSDUWVILQLVKLQJSURSULHW\UHYLHZ
&KHFNWKHHUURUVDQGRPLVVLRQVLQGRFXPHQWDWLRQDQGFRQVWUXFWDELOLW\UHYLHZ

424
'HWHUPLQHDQGUHYLHZWKHZRUNDFWLYLWLHVIRUXQLWSURGXFWLRQLQIDFWRU\'HWHUPLQHIDFWRU\ZRUN
3UHSDUHVKRSGUDZLQJDQGFKHFNWKHLQWHUIHUHQFHIRUXQLWSURGXFWLRQ
3UHSDUHXQLWSURGXFWLRQOLQHGHVLJQ
3UHSDUHPDQXIDFWXULQJWROHUDQFHPDQDJHPHQWSODQ
3UHSDUHTXDOLW\PDQDJHPHQWSODQ
3UHSDUHPDQDJHPHQW3ODQIRUUHGXFLQJGHIRUPDWLRQDQGGDPDJH
5HYLHZWKH5RDG7UDIILF$FWUHJXODWLRQZHLJKWDQGVL]HRIXQLW
'HWHUPLQHWKHRQVLWHZRUNDFWLYLWLHV
6HOHFWWRZHUFUDQHORFDWLRQ
6HOHFWWRZHUFUDQHVSHFLILFDWLRQ
3UHSDUHVKRSGUDZLQJDQGFKHFNWKHLQWHUIHUHQFH
5HYLHZFRQVWUXFWDELOLW\IRURQVLWHZRUN
3UHSDUHRQVLWHZRUNWROHUDQFHPDQDJHPHQWSODQ
3UHSDUHGHIRUPDWLRQPDQDJHPHQWSODQLQXQLWOLIWLQJSURFHVV
3UHSDUHXQLWSURRISODQWRUHGXFHWKHGDPDJHIURPZHDWKHUFRQGLWLRQ

Figure 5. Information flow identification using DSM.

(OHPHQW1DPH ,'
5KVGCPCN[UKU
4GXKGYVJG4QCF6TCHHKE#EVTGIWNCVKQP
YGKIJVCPFUK\GQHWPKV $
5GNGEVVQYGTETCPGNQECVKQP
5KVGNC[QWVRNCPPKPI
'UVCDNKUJFGUKIPFKTGEVKQPKPVGTOUQHRNCPUGEVKQPCPFGNGXCVKQP
$WKNFKPIEQTGRNCPPKPI
'ZRNQTGKPVGTKQTCPFGZVGTKQTOCVGTKCN
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

4GXKGYKPIVJGUVTGPIVJQHOCVGTKCNUVTWEVWTCNFGUKIPETKVGTKCFGUKIPNQCF
4GXKGYKPICNVGTPCVKXGUQHUVTWEVWTCNU[UVGOFGUKIPUWEJCUUK\GQHEQORQPGPV


TQWIJGUVKOCVKQPQHWPKVYGKIJV
/'2RNCPPKPICPF/'2URCEGTGSWKTGOGPVTGXKGY %
&GXGNQRCPFOQFKH[VJGUEJGOCVKEFGUKIP
&GVGTOKPGKPVGTKQTCPFGZVGTKQTOCVGTKCN
&GVGTOKPGUVTWEVWTCNU[UVGOFGUKIP
5VTWEVWTCNFGUKIPCPCN[UKUCPFUVTWEVWTCNECNEWNCVKQPFQEWOGPVCVKQP
&TCHVVJGNQECVKQPCPFUK\GQHUVTWEVWTCNEQORQPGPV
&GVGTOKPG/'2U[UVGO
4GXKGYKPI/'2CPFUVTWEVWTCNEQORQPGPVKPVGTHGTGPEG
2TGRCTGFGHQTOCVKQPOCPCIGOGPVRNCPKPWPKVNKHVKPIRTQEGUU
$CTCTTCPIGOGPVFTCYKPIFQEWOGPVCVKQP &
2TGRCTGEQPUVTWEVKQPFQEWOGPVQHVJGFGUKIP

425
5VTWEVWTCNCPF/'2U[UVGOCFLWUVOGPVCPFFQEWOGPVCVKQP
2TKPEKRCNUVTWEVWTCNRCTVUHKPKUJKPIRTQRTKGV[TGXKGY
%JGEMVJGGTTQTUCPFQOKUUKQPUKPFQEWOGPVCVKQPCPFEQPUVTWEVCDKNKV[TGXKGY
#TEJKVGEVWTCNFGVCKNURGEKHKECVKQPUUVTWEVWTCNECNEWNCVKQPFQEWOGPVCVKQPCPF

KPEQTRQTCVGUWDEQPVTCEVQTğUFQEWOGPVCVKQP '
&GVGTOKPGCPFTGXKGYVJGYQTMCEVKXKVKGUHQTWPKVRTQFWEVKQPKPHCEVQT[


&GVGTOKPGHCEVQT[YQTM
2TGRCTGOCPCIGOGPV2NCPHQTTGFWEKPIFGHQTOCVKQPCPFFCOCIG
&GVGTOKPGVJGQPUKVGYQTMCEVKXKVKGU
2TGRCTGUJQRFTCYKPICPFEJGEMVJGKPVGTHGTGPEGHQTWPKVRTQFWEVKQP
2TGRCTGWPKVRTQFWEVKQPNKPGFGUKIP
2TGRCTGOCPWHCEVWTKPIVQNGTCPEGOCPCIGOGPVRNCP
2TGRCTGSWCNKV[OCPCIGOGPVRNCP
5GNGEVVQYGTETCPGURGEKHKECVKQP
2TGRCTGUJQRFTCYKPICPFEJGEMVJGKPVGTHGTGPEG
4GXKGYEQPUVTWEVCDKNKV[HQTQPUKVGYQTM
2TGRCTGQPUKVGYQTMVQNGTCPEGOCPCIGOGPVRNCP
2TGRCTGWPKVRTQQHRNCPVQTGFWEGVJGFCOCIGHTQOYGCVJGTEQPFKVKQP

Figure 6. Rearranged activities after optimization.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

4. Integrated Design Process for Modular Construction

4.1. Schematic Design Phase

Through DSM optimization, activities in the design phase and rework mitigation plan were
rearranged and an integrated design process was suggested. In the process, activities are conducted
sequentially from above. The marks on the matrix refer to the relationship described in Figure 4 and
the marks on the diagonal line indicate feedback or reverse information flow. Using this process, it
is expected that reworks in modular projects will be reduced. In this section, each design step in
the design phase is explained, focusing on the rearranged activities and groups of activities. In the
schematic design step, the Road Traffic Act regulations review in transportation planning and tower
crane location selection in onsite work planning were included. When developing building design
alternatives, it is necessary to review the Road Traffic Act regulations [12,55]. If the design does not
meet the regulations, the building design is reworked because modular units must be transported to
the site.
In this step, activity group A indicates the feedback process between the site layout planning and
tower crane location selection. In the planning phase of the onsite work, the selection and positioning of
tower cranes on the construction site are essential, because heavy units must be lifted [39,51,52]. In the
tower crane operational plan, capacity is estimated based on a combination of the maximum distance
that the tower crane must reach and the weight of the material. By reducing the maximum distance,
the tower crane’s operational cost can be reduced. For example, in the SD phase, after estimating
the approximate weight of the unit, tower crane location alternatives are suggested considering the
alternative site layout planning. Then, the tower crane capacity can be estimated on the basis of the
combination of alternatives. If a tower crane with the required capacity cannot be obtained from a
crane rental company or if the operational cost is uneconomical, the weight of the unit, the location
of the crane, or the site layout plan are modified to meet the project objectives. After the design
process—along with the regulation review and tower crane operation—is completed, a building design
is selected from among the design alternatives by considering the feasibility and project objectives.

4.2. Design Development Phase

In this phase, the selected design from the schematic design phase is developed and the building
systems—such as architectural, structural, and MEP systems—are determined. Activity group B
shows the feedback process between activities to determine the building systems. To facilitate
information interchange between project participants, information flow management is required. In
this phase, when developing the MEP and structural design, interference between these activities often
occurs [55,56]. Therefore, to reduce rework caused by interference, an accurate design review between
activities is required, which implies that there will be feedback in this design process.
In this phase, onsite work planning is included to prevent the deformation of units [12,24]. When
lifting a unit onsite, deformation caused by self-load of the unit can occur. This can affect the quality
of unit and cause difficulties during the onsite unit assembly phase. To prevent this deformation, a
balance beam can be used; however, deformation may still occur for heavy units. There is also an
approved deformation range in the assembly phase. However, when the deformation exceeds the
approved range, rework to revise the deformation should be conducted. The higher the quality and
precision standards of the modular units, the higher the probability of running into common problems
when using less precise components onsite or when the precision of the unit decreases [18]. Therefore,
when selecting the structural system and conducting structural analysis of units, it is necessary to plan
for preventing deformation induced by self-load.

4.3. Construction Documentation Phase

In this phase, the results of the previous phase are developed, and details are determined. Then,
construction documents, such as drawings for details and specifications are prepared for manufacturing

426
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

and onsite work. In this phase, the participants in the design planning phase crosscheck the design
documents to rectify errors and omissions. The design document is used to prepare shop drawings for
unit production and onsite work. The quality of shop drawings is directly related to project quality.
Hence, interference between components or activities should be checked and rectified. Activity group
C shows the feedback process in this phase. Here, constructability, information interchange, and
rectification should be facilitated between participants [12,13,24].

4.4. Manufacturing, Transportation, and Onsite Work Planning Phase

In this phase, manufacturing, transportation, and onsite work plans, which are not included
in the previous design phases, are finalized based on the results of the CD phase. To improve the
efficiency of modular construction, the largest number of activities possible must be conducted in the
manufacturing process. After the manufacturing process, units are transported to the construction
site. It is necessary to establish the work plans according to the site environment and road conditions.
Therefore, the work activities conducted in the manufacturing process are selected considering the unit
deformation in transportation, damage to units, and site environment. Then, the remaining activities to
complete the project are conducted onsite. Given that the work proportions are determined depending
on the project characteristics, the proportions are flexible. This work activity distribution is shown by
the activity group D in Figure 6. In this group, manufacturing, transportation, and onsite work plans
are cross-checked and rectified by the participants. Therefore, it involves feedback processes between
activities, and therefore, cooperation is required between participants. Moreover, in addition to work
planning related to rework, other work planning for activities is also included in this phase.
The proposed design process can contribute to reducing rework in modular construction projects
by integrating the rework mitigation plans and work planning. To employ this planning process,
modular construction must be considered in the early project phase by the project client or in the early
design stage. Then, to facilitate the process and include project participants in the early design phase,
project delivery methods, such as integrated project delivery (IPD), should also be considered [12].
However, there are many hindrances to choosing modular construction, such as early design freeze,
limited experience, short overall project timescale, and lack of availability of advice in the early
phase [22]. Moreover, follow-on projects cannot use the same processes as previous projects, which
is a constraint caused by a lack of experience and knowledge [22]. To overcome this, a standardized
modular construction process is required. The proposed design process can be used to overcome the
constraints and reduce rework in modular construction.

5. Discussion
To facilitate information flow in the design process, an integrated design process was suggested
using DSM. To validate the process and effect on reducing errors in the design phase, an expert
interview was conducted. The expert group consisted of researchers and architects; experts with over
5 years of experience in modular construction. In the interview, the experts agreed that an integrated
design process is required to reduce errors in the design phase, and that the suggested process could
reduce the errors. Since each participant in the process is a non-professional in all of the other fields
(for example, a manager in a transportation company without knowledge of design processes), they
do not know to whom or at what stage they should provide relevant information. Therefore, error
can be reduced by informing them of what information should be provided to other participants and
when. However, they also mentioned that further investigation into the information relationship
between activities is required to find the unidentified relationship in this paper. For example, when
planning tower crane operation, the crane may be located near the building core to attach the crane to
the core. This means that the increased load caused by tower crane operation should be included in the
structural design of the building core, because of the heavy weight of the unit and crane. Therefore, this
unidentified relationship should be further investigated and included in the suggested design process.
Moreover, the above-mentioned experts who are to use the process should consider project delivery

427
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

methods at the beginning of the project, because some methods such as design-bid-building do not
allow early integration of participants. The expert interview results show the effect and necessity of
the process. However, there are limitations. In real projects, various decision-making criteria, such as
level of modularity and integration strategies, are applied in the design phase that affect the design
process, but these have not been considered in this paper, as they are outside the scope of study. In
this paper, the design process of the AIA was applied to the suggested process, but when applied to
other countries, legal considerations need to be reviewed. Moreover, to represent the information flow
more clearly, various types of relationship can be used, representing the type of information or subject
of information exchange, but the DSM in this paper used only 3 types of relationship. Thus, it can
only represent information flow as a binary system. Finally, to ensure the robustness of this research,
further validation of the process through application to a real project is required.

6. Conclusions
An integrated design process was developed using DSM and optimized using a partitioning
algorithm. Through process optimization, feedback and reverse information flows were reduced,
and thus, the complexity of the design process was alleviated. It is expected that rework in modular
projects can be reduced by using the proposed process. Additionally, by using the information flow
identification method proposed in this paper, other considerations for modular projects can also be
included in the process. However, the process has limitations in that (1) application of the process to
modular projects is required for validation; (2) the cases and causes of rework used are limited to only a
few cases in the daily report and literature; and (3) the process is not able to suggest information about
participants, i.e., who should be included for each activity in the planning process; and (4) although
many criteria affect the decision-making process in the design phase, such as quality, safety, cost and
constructability, the suggested design process in this paper focused on the information relationship
between activities, and thus, the effect of the suggested process on the criteria were not considered.
To overcome these limitations, other criteria affecting the design process should be included in the
integrated design process. Accordingly, a case study including more cases of rework and validation
will be conducted in future research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.H. and J.L.; methodology, H.H.; formal analysis, H.K. and H.-S.L.;
investigation, H.H.; resources, H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.H. and J.L.; writing—review and
editing, M.P., H.K, and H.-S.L.; project administration, H.-S.L.; funding acquisition, H.-S.L. All authors have
contributed substantially to the work reported. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Housing Environment Research Program funded by Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport of Government of Korea (Grant number 20RERP-B082884-07).
Acknowledgments: The authors would also like thanks to Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of
Government of Korea, Housing Environment Research Program, Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology
Advancement for supporting this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, Y.; Okudan, G.E.; Riley, D.R. Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in
concrete buildings. Automa. Constr. 2010, 19, 235–244. [CrossRef]
2. Lu, N. The current use of offsite construction techniques in the United States construction industry.
In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2009, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–7 April 2009; p. 96.
3. Boafo, F.E.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, J.-T. Performance of modular prefabricated architecture: Case study-based
review and future pathways. Sustainability 2016, 8, 558. [CrossRef]
4. Eastman, C.M.; Sacks, R. Relative productivity in the AEC industries in the United States for on-site and
off-site activities. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 517–526. [CrossRef]
5. Mullens, M.A. Factory Design for Modular Homebuilding: Equipping the Modular Factory for Success;
Constructability Press: Winter Park, FL, USA, 2011.

428
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

6. Shaked, O.; Warszawski, A. CONSCHED: Expert system for scheduling of modular construction projects.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 488–506. [CrossRef]
7. Lawson, R.M.; Ogden, R.G.; Bergin, R. Application of modular construction in high-rise buildings. J. Archit.
Eng. 2011, 18, 148–154. [CrossRef]
8. Shen, K.; Cheng, C.; Li, X.; Zhang, Z. Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis of Prefabricated Public Housing
in Beijing. Sustainability 2019, 11, 207. [CrossRef]
9. Whole Building Design Guide Sustainable (WBDG). Available online: http://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/
sustainable (accessed on 11 February 2019).
10. Jiang, Y.; Zhao, D.; Wang, D.; Xing, Y. Sustainable Performance of Buildings through Modular Prefabrication
in the Construction Phase: A Comparative Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5458. [CrossRef]
11. Lee, J.-H.; Kim, J.-S.; Lee, H.-J.; Lee, Y.-M.; Kim, H.-G. Small-Scale Public Rental Housing Development Using
Modular Construction—Lessons learned from Case Studies in Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1120.
[CrossRef]
12. Smith, R.E. Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2011.
13. Lawson, M.; Ogden, R.; Goodier, C. Design in Modular Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014.
14. Alvanchi, A.; Azimi, R.; Lee, S.; AbouRizk, S.M.; Zubick, P. Off-site construction planning using discrete
event simulation. J. Archit. Eng. 2011, 18, 114–122. [CrossRef]
15. Love, P.E.; Mandal, P.; Li, H. Determining the causal structure of rework influences in construction. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 1999, 17, 505–517. [CrossRef]
16. Love, P.E.; Li, H.; Mandal, P. Rework: A symptom of a dysfunctional supply-chain. Eur. J. Purch. Supply
Manag. 1999, 5, 1–11. [CrossRef]
17. Love, P.E.; Li, H. Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18,
479–490. [CrossRef]
18. Blismas, N.; Wakefield, R. Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite manufacture in Australia. Constr. Innov.
2009, 9, 72–83. [CrossRef]
19. Johnsson, H.; Meiling, J.H. Defects in offsite construction: Timber module prefabrication. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 2009, 27, 667–681. [CrossRef]
20. Love, P.E.; Holt, G.D.; Shen, L.Y.; Li, H.; Irani, Z. Using systems dynamics to better understand change and
rework in construction project management systems. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 425–436. [CrossRef]
21. Love, P.E.; Edwards, D.J. Determinants of rework in building construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manag. 2004, 11, 259–274. [CrossRef]
22. Blismas, N.G.; Pendlebury, M.; Gibb, A.; Pasquire, C. Constraints to the use of off-site production on
construction projects. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2005, 1, 153–162. [CrossRef]
23. Jiang, L.; Li, Z.; Li, L.; Gao, Y. Constraints on the promotion of prefabricated construction in China.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2516. [CrossRef]
24. Park, H.K.; Ock, J.-H. Unit modular in-fill construction method for high-rise buildings. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
2016, 20, 1201–1210. [CrossRef]
25. Pasquire, C.L.; Gibb, A.G. Considerations for assessing the benefits of standardisation and pre-assembly in
construction. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2002, 7, 151–161.
26. Al-Bazi, A.; Dawood, N. Developing crew allocation system for the precast industry using genetic algorithms.
Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 25, 581–595. [CrossRef]
27. Arif, M.; Espinal, D.; Broadway, R.S. Estimating, Planning and Controlling Labor in the Industrialized
Housing Factory. In IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings; Institute of Industrial Engineers-Publisher: Orlando,
FL, USA, 2002; p. 1.
28. Yassine, A.; Braha, D. Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurr. Eng.
2003, 1, 165–176. [CrossRef]
29. Hwang, B.-G.; Thomas, S.R.; Haas, C.T.; Caldas, C.H. Measuring the impact of rework on construction cost
performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 187–198. [CrossRef]
30. Josephson, P.-E.; Hammarlund, Y. The causes and costs of defects in construction: A study of seven building
projects. Autom. Constr. 1999, 8, 681–687. [CrossRef]
31. Smith, G.; Jirik, T. Making Zero Rework a Reality: A Comparison of Zero Accident Methodology to Zero Rework and
Quality Management; Research Report; Construction Industry Institute: Austin, TX, USA, 2006; pp. 203–211.

429
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

32. Burati, J.L., Jr.; Farrington, J.J.; Ledbetter, W.B. Causes of quality deviations in design and construction.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 34–49. [CrossRef]
33. Rahmandad, H.; Hu, K. Modeling the rework cycle: Capturing multiple defects per task. Syst. Dyn. Rev.
2010, 26, 291–315. [CrossRef]
34. Bruns, T.; Stalker, G. The Management of Innovation; Tavistock: London, UK, 1961; pp. 120–122.
35. Gidado, K. Project complexity: The focal point of construction production planning. Constr. Manag. Econ.
1996, 14, 213–225. [CrossRef]
36. Nahangi, M.; Safa, M.; Shahi, A.; Haas, C.T. Automated registration of 3D point clouds with 3D CAD models
for remote assessment of staged fabrication. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2014:
Construction in a Global Network, Atlanta, GA, USA, 19–21 May 2014; pp. 1004–1013.
37. Sharafi, P.; Samali, B.; Ronagh, H.; Ghodrat, M. Automated spatial design of multi-story modular buildings
using a unified matrix method. Autom. Constr. 2017, 82, 31–42. [CrossRef]
38. Sharafi, P.; Rashidi, M.; Samali, B.; Ronagh, H. Identification of factors and decision analysis of the level of
modularization in building construction. J. Archit. Eng. 2018, 24, 04018010. [CrossRef]
39. Han, S.H.; Hasan, S.; Bouferguène, A.; Al-Hussein, M.; Kosa, J. Utilization of 3D visualization of mobile
crane operations for modular construction on-site assembly. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 31, 04014080. [CrossRef]
40. Lei, Z.; Taghaddos, H.; Olearczyk, J.; Al-Hussein, M.; Hermann, U. Automated method for checking crane
paths for heavy lifts in industrial projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 04013011. [CrossRef]
41. Olearczyk, J.; Al-Hussein, M.; Bouferguène, A. Evolution of the crane selection and on-site utilization process
for modular construction multilifts. Autom. Constr. 2014, 43, 59–72. [CrossRef]
42. Austin, S.; Baldwin, A.; Li, B.; Waskett, P. Analytical design planning technique ADePT): A dependency
structure matrix tool to schedule the building design process. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 173–182.
[CrossRef]
43. Giaglis, G.M. A taxonomy of business process modeling and information systems modeling techniques. Int.
J. Flex. Manuf. Syst. 2001, 13, 209–228. [CrossRef]
44. Mayer, R.J.; Benjamin, P.C.; Caraway, B.E.; Painter, M.K. A framework and a suite of methods for business
process reengineering. Bus. Process Reeng. Manag. Perspect. 1995, 3, 245–290.
45. Wei, H.-Q. Concurrent design process analysis and optimization for aluminum profile extrusion product
development. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2007, 33, 652–661. [CrossRef]
46. Lee, J.; Park, M.; Lee, H.-S.; Kim, T.; Kim, S.; Hyun, H. Workflow dependency approach for modular building
construction manufacturing process using Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM). KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21,
1525–1535. [CrossRef]
47. Oloufa, A.A.; Hosni, Y.A.; Fayez, M.; Axelsson, P. Using DSM for modeling information flow in construction
design projects. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2004, 21, 105–125. [CrossRef]
48. AIA. The American Institute of Architects Document B101-Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Architect;
AIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
49. Fayek, A.R.; Dissanayake, M.; Campero, O. Developing a standard methodology for measuring and
classifying construction field rework. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2004, 31, 1077–1089. [CrossRef]
50. O’connor, J.T.; Tucker, R.L. Industrial project constructability improvement. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1986, 112,
69–82. [CrossRef]
51. Al-Hussein, M.; Alkass, S.; Moselhi, O. An algorithm for mobile crane selection and location on construction
sites. Constr. Innov. 2001, 1, 91–105. [CrossRef]
52. Han, S.; Al-Hussein, M.; Hasan, S.; Gökçe, K.U.; Bouferguene, A. Simulation of mobile crane operations in
3D space. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Berlin, Germany, 9–12 December
2012; pp. 1–12.
53. Han, S.; Bouferguene, A.; Al-Hussein, M.; Hermann, U. 3D-Based Crane Evaluation System for Mobile Crane
Operation Selection on Modular-Based Heavy Construction Sites. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017060.
[CrossRef]
54. Kalasapudi, V.S.; Tang, P.; Zhang, C.; Diosdado, J.; Ganapathy, R. Adaptive 3D imaging and tolerance analysis
of prefabricated components for accelerated construction. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 1060–1067. [CrossRef]
55. Hwang, B.-G.; Shan, M.; Looi, K.-Y. Key constraints and mitigation strategies for prefabricated prefinished
volumetric construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 183–193. [CrossRef]

430
Sustainability 2020, 12, 530

56. Shahtaheri, Y.; Rausch, C.; West, J.; Haas, C.; Nahangi, M. Managing risk in modular construction using
dimensional and geometric tolerance strategies. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 303–315. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

431
sustainability

Article
The Modelling of Roof Installation Projects Using
Decision Trees and the AHP Method
Augustinas Maceika 1,†,‡ , Andrej Bugajev 2, *,†,‡ and Olga R. Šostak 2,†,‡
1 The Faculty of Mechanics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio ave. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected]
2 The Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio ave. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† Current address: Sauletekio ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania.
‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.

Received: 15 November 2019; Accepted: 14 December 2019; Published: 19 December 2019

Abstract: In this work, the process of roofing projects’ execution is considered. The proper analysis
of this process is important to optimise the behaviour of a project’s participants and to perform
risk evaluation. The main result of this work is methodology, which can be used to optimise a project
owner’s decisions and potentially can be applied for risk control or integrated into expert systems.
This methodology includes the application of a decision tree and AHP (analytic hierarchy process)
method to perform the modelling for roof installation project selection. In the proposed approach,
a decision tree describes the process with nodes representing the states of a project. The tree includes
the decision on whether to sell the project results or not, which requires the estimation of the subjective
opinion of the project owner. These subjective values are used in the decision tree leaves. We propose
to perform this estimation with the AHP method and describe how to do it in this paper. A particular
example was considered. The proposed methodology was applied to that case, and all details of the
process and results are provided. Using the proposed methodology, the adapted version of a specific,
current situation model of project participants’ behaviours can be formed, allowing one to make the
most efficient decisions in the light of the existing constraints. The application of results can increase
the investor protection and contribute to the general sustainability of investments.

Keywords: decision tree; analytic hierarchy process; dynamic programming; sustainable investment;
project participants’ behaviour; roof installation projects

1. Introduction

1.1. The Background of the Research

In this research we consider roof installation projects, which can be defined as the organised,
temporary processes of constructing, renovating, refurbishing, etc., a roof. We investigate such projects
from the point of view of project owner (investor); thus, the profit is the goal function in optimisation
problems that arise as a part of the this research. The results and the methodology presented in this
work can be applied to some other similar building projects; however, we focus on this particular case
to overview the complete set of the properties that are typical for such types of projects.
The construction business is often associated with risky and contentious situations and
their solutions. Investors should avoid risky situations and the damage that they can cause.
Many construction projects include roof installation, replacement or repair processes. There is a
need for tools that will give a clear picture of the projects’ implementation situation and find out
about the results of the various options. One of the tools, selected to investigate by the authors of

Sustainability 2020, 12, 59; doi:10.3390/su12010059 433 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

this article, is the decision tree, which can be used to analyse the behaviours of the participants in the
selection and implementation of the roof installation projects and to make the most efficient decisions.
The second tool is the analytic hierarchy process, which is used to provide a decision tree based on
subjective opinion data from the roof installation project owner.
Human beings need to make decisions based on several different criteria in order to solve many
problems around themselves [1]. When assessing roofing projects, it is important to choose a set
of criteria that will be relevant to decision-making, taking into account the project life cycle stages.
One of the important criteria is length of construction time. The results of cost performance (deviation)
investigation with respect to the length of construction time implies that cost performance is project
specific and it is difficult to conclude based on certain attributes; the most important thing is to
consistently evaluate and have a closer look on cost development and establish a learning platform to
overcome unexpected changes [2].
Other criteria can be related to the social costs of construction. Attempts to investigate the
social costs of building constructions in urban residential areas are still insufficient due to probable
difficulties and complexities of including the third parties; however, in the decision making process
for construction projects, apart from economic sense of it, decision-makers need to be provided with
other useful information: analytical and procedural assessments to comment on the convenience of the
expected environmental impacts once the proposed project is implemented, and a social assessment to
find out if the consequences of developing the proposed project are socially acceptable [3].
Additional costs may arise from conflicts with third parties. To analyse this situation, stochastic
dynamic programming can be used. That enables a broad analysis of the dependencies between the
optimal investor’s strategy and the probabilities that third parties will select a certain strategy [4].
One of the implementations of dynamic programming is the decision tree approach, which is useful
because this method enables the analysis of the step-by-step project execution process, including
evaluation of the behaviour of the participants. It is also suitable for analysing the possible choice
alternatives.
For project evaluation, it is important to select appropriate methodology. Advancements
(framework and methodology for evaluating project competencies and project key performance
indicators (KPIs); relationship determined between the different project competencies and grouping
them using factor analysis; applying of advanced modelling techniques through the joint application
of prioritised fuzzy aggregation, factor analysis, and fuzzy neural networks (FNNs) to identify the
relationship between the different project competencies and project KPIs) should allow construction
practitioners to identify and monitor the relationships between evaluation criteria of project
competencies’ and project KPIs throughout the project lifecycle to ensure better project performance [5].
One of proposed multiple criteria techniques is based on the decision tree for determining the
project, using various types of criteria for comparisons of alternate strategies [6]. When a single
strategy is the best with respect to all criteria, the problem is trivial; however, in most situations it is
faced with conflicting criteria. A common approach to address such a problem consists of two phases:
determining a set of efficient strategies and selecting the best of those strategies [6].

1.2. The Relationship to the Agency, Stakeholder and Stewardship Theories

Next, in order to establish the relationships between the main participants of the roof installation
projects, agency, stakeholder and stewardship topics will be overviewed.
For decision making it is important to find interaction the mechanisms between the project
owner (principal) and the managers, consultants and supervisors (agents), taking into account
environmental conditions.
A social psychological perspective on agency relations and solution mechanisms reveals that
each agency problem (each solution of an agency problem) becomes a problem of social power to the
principal (agent) if she (he) changes her (his) beliefs, attitudes, or behaviour as a result of the action,
or presence of the agent (principal) [7]. An analysis of one agency problem after the other revealed

434
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

that in all situations in which an agency problem exists, the principal possesses quantitatively more
bases of power than the agent; in the hidden intentions and hidden action-situations, she additionally
possesses those power bases with a broader range; agency theory assumes implicitly an asymmetry in
power in favour of the principal [7].
The nature of relationship between the client and agent has been presented as the model of “one
servant of two masters” based on to the triangular relationship between the client, the construction
company and its project manager [8].
In this field of research, an agent-based simulation that conceptualises insights from behavioural
economics to increase understanding of price formations in housing markets was used, and it was
found that the model produces the most favourable results when there are agents with extremely
myopic expectations in the market and when other agents mimic them [9].
Analysis of stakeholders’ impacts on the creation and successful implementation of roof
installation projects is the part of decision tree development. For this reason, a number of works about
the methodology and results devoted to stakeholder theory were analysed.
In the work of this field, through the application of focus group study, 13 stakeholder
groups were identified across the lifecycles of net zero energy homes, including home buyers,
sales personnel, financial institutions, developers, designers and drafting personnel, estimators,
project managers/coordinators, regulators, superintendents, inspectors, trades/suppliers, net zero
energy home occupants and warranty staff [10]. According to another source, eleven groups of
stakeholders were identified; namely, employees, customers, shareholders, creditors, suppliers
and partners, environment and resources agencies, local communities, government, competitors
and non-governmental organisations [11]. In this work, corporate social responsibility (CSR) indicators
were extracted for each performance issue by analysing environment, health and safety, human
resources, supply chain management, customers and communities, governance and ethics aspects of
construction enterprises [11].
The value of good stakeholders’ management is visible from the work, where the findings from the
interviews emphasised the need for a “proactive” stakeholder management approach which takes into
account both the views of primary and secondary stakeholders, and there, through building internal
capabilities for secondary stakeholder management, organisations have to recognise the importance of
creating the right vision for major public infrastructure and construction projects and delivering not
just assets but bringing extra value either at national, regional or local level [12].
The effects of underlying collaboration between designers and contractors were examined and
the results show that the best means to promote the collaboration is “reducing collaboration costs”,
followed by “increasing the collaboration benefits” and “decreasing the loss caused by a lack of
collaboration” [13].
In one article, off-site manufacturing stakeholders’ business information was analysed and
59 sustainability perceptions were identified, covering the social, environmental and economic
sustainability dimensions. Among them, "high quality" and a "customer-focused approach and
customisation" were most valued [14].
In the other article, relevant governance criteria are introduced which can be used to judge on
extents to which stakeholder participation effectively contributes to increased urban sustainability.
They include legitimacy, accountability, representation, responsibility and transparency; moreover,
a literature review was conducted, from which outcomes are presented across three categories of
stakeholder participation—stakeholder based initiatives, government based initiatives and science
based initiatives, outcomes which have briefly been assessed with respect to the governance
criteria [15].
For our investigation, the model for analysing stakeholder conflicts in urban redevelopment
projects is important too, because some roofing projects can be related to renovation.
The proposed stakeholder salience theory and Pawlak’s conflict theory are useful, and generated

435
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

an action scheme that mitigates stakeholder conflicts and maximises project benefits [16]—which can
be taken into account during roofing project developments.
The people themselves and the environment they live in, their homes and neighbourhoods, if
located around the building construction zones, are exposed to adverse impacts of the construction
activities [3]. In return, people react via altering their daily routine to resolve or alleviate the exposed
disruptions to their common life patterns and the cost of this reaction is defined as the social costs
associated with building construction projects. As the definition of social cost implies, there are costs
caused by constructions that are to be paid by the third parties [3].
The cradle to cradle (C2C) theory propounds that environmental impact reduction can provide
a positive economic impulse to stakeholders; current sustainability strategies focus on reducing
the negative environmental impacts of buildings. The systems theory of C2C, however, aims at a
positive impact; this could suggest that the state-of-the-art becomes inadequate when adopting C2C
as a strategy for improvement, focusing on closed or continuous materials, and energy and water
cycles [17].
Stewardship theory concept provides that the managers of different organisations participating in
roof installation projects must act responsibly, taking into account stakeholders needs.
In the field of stewardship theory, an opinion given is that understanding the institutional framing,
underpinnings and logic of mega projects can provide the key to successful delivery of solutions in
water, transportation, energy, communications, health, education and a variety of related sectors,
through the development of best practices for building social, organisational and political legitimacy
that can enhance the security and stability of the role that such projects play in an increasingly
interconnected world [18].
Organisational support, customer pressure and regulatory pressure have significant positive
effects on the adoption of environmental practices in construction projects; moreover, environmental
practices have a positive effect on the environmental and economic performances of construction firms.
This result may be even more important for managers of construction firms to convince stakeholders
that investments in environmental practices will not reduce competitiveness and may even increase
profitability while simultaneously benefiting the environment [19].
Local governments, community-based organisations, foundations, neighbourhood and other
advocacy groups, construction companies, investors, commercial banks, tenants and their brokers,
ecologists, media and unions, all are the participants of the city development and city stakeholders,
and they should be able to create feasible projects which generate benefits and reduce the risk involved
in urban development [20].
Following the analysis of the literature and the existing construction practice situation, the main
parties involved in the selection and implementation of roof installation projects were identified and
are presented in Figure 1.

6WDWH
RUJDQL]DWLRQV

3URMHFWRZQHU ,QWHUHVWHG
%XLOGLQJGHVLJQ LQYHVWRUFXVWRPHU FRPPXQLW\
FRPSDQ\

6XSSOLHUV
FRQVWUXFWLRQ &RQVWUXFWLRQ
EXVLQHVV FRPSDQ\
SDUWQHUV
FRQVXOWDQWV
VXSHUYLVRUV

Figure 1. The main participants in the selection and implementation of the roof installation projects.

436
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

The project owner (investor, customer) is connected with other participants who are interested in
the results of a roofing project’s implementation. For successful project creation and implementation,
the project owner must initiate a number of processes to ensure that the communication network
between the participants in the process will be developed.

1.3. The Importance of Roofing Projects

As new construction develops and the renovation process is under way, one of the most complex
and responsible building elements—the roof—requires additional attention and effort to achieve
a more sustainable state. In studies of whole-building lifecycle assessments, it has been mentioned that
the most significant components added during renovation are the roof access floors, and new windows,
while the new construction scenario was overwhelmingly burdened by manufacturing intensive
structural (concrete and steel) and envelope components (brick and terracotta walls) [21]. The roof
renovation process can be important for energy-saving changes and the social network or professionals
can influence the decision to implementing the energy renovation measures [22]. As measures on both
occupant behaviour and physical improvement have influences on energy saving to various extents,
effective renovation strategies should be developed by combining both building technologies and
behavioural changes [23].

1.4. The Problem Statement

We discussed the information about connections between participants, possible events along with
their probabilities and monetary and time costs during those events. However, in raw form, such
information is not suitable for direct analysis. Thus, there is a need for software layer between the
human and raw data.
The end goal of the investor’s activity is profit. The process during which the profit is achieved
can be described as Markov decision process. Such a process can be described as a decision tree where
the nodes represent states (events) which are connected between by edges representing the transitions
between those states. It might look like some classical approaches, such as typical Markov decision
process modelling methods, might solve that problem and was already developed a long time ago
(see, for example, [24]). However, to apply classical Markov decision process modelling, the values for
all states must be given. In the considered case the values describing the final states depend on:

• The costs of all previous states.

• The accumulated costs due to time, passed during some of the previous states; i.e., some
time-dependent project costs.
• The evaluation of the project value that must be properly addressed using multi-criteria evaluation
techniques.

The goal of this research was to provide a methodological approach for roofing projects evaluation.
When there are decision nodes, first, an optimal investor behaviour strategy must be formed. Thus,
this brings forth the optimisation problem that is needed to be addressed. In this article, it is done by
taking the profit value as a goal function. Two abstraction levels of the problem can be considered:

• Evaluating a single project.

• Choosing the best project out of all possible alternatives.

Choosing a project out of all possible alternatives might be a non-trivial task, which depends on
many circumstances. For example, there are individual risks thresholds that can be taken for different
investors—larger companies can take larger risks if they are part of a bigger expected profit.
If the investor chooses between different projects using some trivial technique, for example, by
comparing the expected profit values of different alternatives, then the choice can be easily automated
as well; i.e., the choice between projects becomes a part of the investor’s strategy. Thus, in this work

437
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

we consider the most general case when different projects are evaluated and are followed by the choice
between alternatives.
If the there is a need to apply some non-trivial (risk evaluation) technique for comparison of
different projects, the approach provided is suitable to process every single project separately and
extract the profit distribution—the information that can be applied for further analysis.
As it was mentioned already, roofing project evaluation involves the estimation of the subjective
value of the construction object. Thus, the modelling of such a process must include some kind of the
evaluation method, such as AHP. The existing solutions [25] for modelling of similar processes
do not support such evaluation. Moreover, some process costs occur as additional costs with
some probabilities; however, the occurrences of these costs do not change the structure of the tree.
So including these costs into a decision tree would require duplicating some of branches of a tree.
That should not be done by the user, since it can be done automatically.

1.5. The Methods of the Research

As it was mentioned before, the modelled process is Markov decision process, so a decision tree is
a natural representation of it. However, differently from a typical Markov process, the current model
lacks of information which must be derived (preprocessed); thus, we developed solutions in the most
flexible and elegant form to process tree data structure—recursive algorithms. It is important to note
that preprocessing does not introduce any additional computational errors. Thus, the final result is the
exact solution due to the Bellman [26] principle which can be read as the optimal solution is the best
out of optimal subsolutions, also known as dynamic programming.
The AHP method is suitable for application to the current problem due to a small number of
evaluated parameters; it will be shown later. Also, the number of alternatives is small. It is equal to
two. We will show that in conjunction with a decision tree, we can isolate the multi-criteria part of
the problem to a single project evaluation. Two alternatives will be considered: to sell a project or not.
Moreover, instead of direct usage of AHP method we will solve the inverse problem: the value of the
price attribute will be chosen so that it will fit the threshold after which the decision change. i.e., the
AHP method is directly used for the price evaluation instead of a typical usage to perform a decision.
It will affect the decision via decision tree. Thus, we need to fit a single parameter for a monotonic
function (for it to be equal to 0.5). We derived an explicit formula for that.
It should be emphasised that in AHP method the criteria hierarchy and weight value allocations
are important. When more criteria are taken into consideration, the interrelations between criteria can
be altered, and alternative hierarchies may influence the weights allocation [27]. The simplicity and
the relative ease of use of the AHP method do not mean that it provides poor results [28]. Moreover,
AHP method is widely used and is well-studied, making the results robust and interesting for a wide
range of researchers. This widespread use is due to its ease of applicability and the structure of AHP
which follows the intuitive way in which managers solve problems [29].
This research is dedicated to covering the already mentioned drawbacks of the existing
solutions and show how apply the proposed methodology to roofing projects. This work makes
the following contributions:

1. We analysed the participants and other specificities of a roofing project and showed how to
describe such a process as a decision tree describing a Markov decision process.
2. We propose a modelling approach to evaluate the roofing project. The model was based on
another work in [25], where the modelling did not support the specificity of the roofing project.
3. We propose to deal with the subjective evaluation of the projects’ values using the AHP method;
the details of its application for such projects are provided.

This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we present an example of roofing project’s

execution process and provide the details on algorithmic formalisation to perform the modelling of
such process. The application of the model and the solution of the case study problem are provided in

438
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

Section 3. At the end of the paper, we discuss the practical value and the conclusions of the research
(Sections 4 and 5).

2. The Creation of Mathematical Model

2.1. The Description of the Studied Case and Construction of the Decision Tree
For modelling, the case of the situation where an investor can make decisions to carry out a
roof installation project or not and to choose type of the project to select, depending on the risk
assessment and the behaviour of participants, was investigated. Each situation, presented in decision
tree, was related to the losses or incomes, and to the time used to resolve the situation, taking into
account the risk as probability. Also the decisions about consultants and construction supervisor,
building design company, project, construction company, suppliers and construction business partners
selection were investigated. The decisions to sell the implemented project or not, in the model, were
based on the market price of similar objects and the opinion of the project owner on how much the
projects’ results were worth for him in monetary units.
The model was provided with option that the project owner would be able to hire consultants
which would receive a constant hourly wage, so the cost of consulting would depend on the duration
of the project, were the consultants to be hired. It is also anticipated that the risk of project activities
can be reduced by consulting.
The project owner has the opportunity to choose a building design company from two possibles.
It is also foreseen that each building design company will prepare four roof installation projects, two
expensive, and two of average prices, so in the model, eight projects were presented. Four of them were
medium-priced roof projects: when an inexpensive roof with a simple loft was installed. The other
four projects were expensive roof projects with a fully equipped loft and comfortable living space.
It was taken into account that there can be losses related to the situations when additional investment
is needed to correct a project, and alignment with the interested community and state organisations
is necessary.
Another step was the choice of construction company. It was anticipated that for a single project
it would be possible to select one from two construction companies.
Each building company was associated with the choice of two possible options of suppliers and
construction business partners’ organisations. Evaluation of losses due to additional investment if
construction and supply organisation fails was included into the model.
The main decisions that must performed at the different project implementation stages are
provided on the left part of the Figure 2. On the right part of the Figure 2 are what losses must be
evaluated during the associated decisions.
The graph for the considered example is provided in Figure 3. Different types of nodes were used:

1. Decision nodes which are represented by rectangle shapes:

• Of blue colour—the decision on whether the project owner should sell the product or not;
• Of white colour with a yellow frame—the rest of decisions that should be made during
the project.
2. End nodes that are represented by red rectangles.
3. Probability nodes represented by green ovals.

We also provide the zoomed-in fragment of the whole graph in Figure 4.

The detailed information about the data is provided in Appendix A and will be commented in
more detail in the next section.

439
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

'HFLVLRQZKHWKHUWRLPSOHPHQWWKHSURMHFWRUQRW (YDOXDWLRQRISUREDEOH
ORVHVLIFRQGLWLRQVWR
H[LVWLQJURRIVLWXDWLRQZLOO
EHXQIDYRXUDEOHLQWKHFDVH
'HFLVLRQZKHWKHUWRKLUHFRQVXOWDQWVDQG
ZKHQWKHSURMHFWZLOOEHQRW
FRQVWUXFWLRQVXSHUYLVRURUQRW
LPSOHPHQWHG

'HFLVLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJGHVLJQFRPSDQ\ (YDOXDWLRQRISUREDEOH
VHOHFWLRQ DGGLWLRQDOLQYHVWPHQWWR
FRUUHFWWKHSURMHFW

6HOHFWLRQRIWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFW (YDOXDWLRQRISUREDEOH
DGGLWLRQDOLQYHVWPHQWIRU
DOLJQPHQWZLWKLQWHUHVWHG
FRPPXQLW\

6HOHFWLRQRIWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQFRPSDQ\
(YDOXDWLRQRISUREDEOH
DGGLWLRQDOLQYHVWPHQWIRU
DOLJQPHQWZLWKWKHVWDWH
6HOHFWLRQRIWKHVXSSOLHUVDQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV
FRQVWUXFWLRQEXVLQHVVSDUWQHUV¶

(YDOXDWLRQRISUREDEOH
DGGLWLRQDOLQYHVWPHQWLI
7KHHYDOXDWLRQSURMHFWVVXFFHVVRUIDLOXUH FRQVWUXFWLRQFRPSDQ\IDLOV

(YDOXDWLRQRISUREDEOH
'HFLVLRQVZKHWKHUWRVHOOWKHSURMHFWRUQRW DGGLWLRQDOLQYHVWPHQWLI
WKLVSDUWZDVGHVLJQHGWRXVHWKH$+3PHWKRG VXSSO\RUJDQL]DWLRQIDLOV
IRUSURMHFWRZQHUVXEMHFWLYHRSLQLRQ

Figure 2. The main decisions at different stages of project’s execution.

S0-1-1

S2 S2
S1-1-1
2 2
S2-1-2 S2-1-1
2 1

S3-2-2 S3-2-1 S3-Ϯ-2 S3-1-2

S4-4-2 S4-4-1 S4-3-2 S4-3-1 S4-2-2 S4-2-1 S4-1-2 S4-1-1

S5-8-2 S5-8-1 S5-7-2 S5-7-1 S5-6-2 S5-6-1 S5-5-2 S5-5-1 S5-4-2 S5-4-1 S5-3-2 S5-3-1 S5-2-2 S5-2-1 S5-1-2 S5-1-1

S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7
S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7
S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7 S7
32 26 24 22 20 18 S7 16 14 12 10 8
S7 15 6 2
30 28 25 21 13 11 7 4
31 29 23 19 9 5 3 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 17 2 2 2 2 2
27 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2

S7-11-1 S7-9-1 S7-7-1 S7-5-1 S7-3-1

S7-29-1 S7-21-1 S7-19-1 S7-17-1 S7-15-1 S7-13-1 S7-1-1
S7-31-1 S7-27-1 S7-25-1 S7-23-1
S7-8-1 S7-6-1 S7-4-1 S7-2-1
S7-32-1 S7-30-1 S7-28-1 S7-26-1 S7-24-1 S7-22-1 S7-20-1 S7-18-1 S7-16-1 S7-14-1 S7-12-1 S7-10-1

S8 S8 S8 S8
S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8
S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8
S8 S8 5
23 11 9 7 6 1
32 31 29 27 21 19 15 12 10 8 4 3 2
30 28 26 25 22 20 18 17 16 14 13
24 2
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
S8 S8 S8
S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8
S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8
S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 7 5
11 2 1
32 31 27 23 21 19 17 15 12 10 9 8 6 4 3
29 28 26 25 24 22 20 18 13
30 16 14 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1

Figure 3. The graph for the example considered.

440
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

S0-1-1
S1-1-2

S1-1-1
S2-2-2 S2-2-1
S2-1-2

S3-2-1

S4-3-1
S5-5-2 S5-5-1

S6-9-2 S6-9-1
S6-10-2 S6-10-1

S7-20-2 S7-19-2 S7-18-2 S7-17-2

S7-20-1 S7-19-1 S7-18-1 S7-17-1

S8-20-1 S8-20-2 S8-19-1 S8-19-2 S8-18-1 S8-18-2 S8-17-1 S8-17-2

Figure 4. The zoomed-in fragment of the graph.

2.2. The Mathematical Model

The decision tree nodes represent the states which the project may be at. The transition between
states will be referred to as an event. Which data will be stored at the node corresponds to the state the
event transits to. Each task level consists of profit/loss values, which depend on the monetary value
obtained at the previous state and probability of events or selection, optimising value (profit) for the
customer. Since the decision tree has been divided into separate levels, the profit/loss is equal to the
previous level’s value (profit)/loss after evaluation of probability or decision made.
The objective is to maximise profit for the roof installation project owner, where a solution of decision
strategy is defined by Xijk = 0 or 1 (integer input variables), i = 1, 2, 3; . . . g (the number of the decision
tree level); j = 1, 2, 3, . . . m (the number of the branch group in the decision tree level); k = 1, 2, 3, . . . n
n
(the number of the branch in the decision tree branch group); Xijk ≥ 0; ∑ Xijk = 1; if Xijk = 1– decision
k=1
to take the action ijk; if Xijk = 0—decision do not to take the action ijk; if Pijk – probability of events,
n
Pijk ≥ 0; ∑ Pijk = 1; S(i−1) jk value (profit)/losses received after evaluation; for each decision tree branch
k=1
group if decision must to be done:
n
S(i−1) jk = ∑ Sijk Xijk ; (1)
k =1

or if there are probabilities of events:

n
S(i−1) jk = ∑ Sijk Pijk . (2)
k =1

Also, each node in the tree has a duration parameter tijk (measured in days). And if in decision
tree position was the probability of events Pijk , the expected time was also counted. The calculations
provided total time for each branch of the tree, and the time planed for consultants and construction
supervisor activity, if they were hired.
The basic element of our data structure (a tree) is a node with connections to parent and children
nodes (Figure 5).

441
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

parent

node

child
1
child
2 ... child m

Figure 5. The relationships between a node and its parent and children nodes.

A more detailed description is presented in Algorithm 1, where the symbol “//” denotes
comments that describe the corresponding fields.

Algorithm 1: Data structure.

struct {
int type; //node type
float p; //the probability for this node to be selected by parent
float price; //the price of event
float time; //the time before event starts
float ap; //the probability of additional cost and duration
float aprice; //the additional pricefloat atime; //the additional time
float tariff; //the additional price per daynode* parent; //the pointer to parent node
vector< node* > children; //the list of children
float priceTotal; //accumulated price
float timeTotal; //accumulated time
float value; //node expected profit value
float extime; //node expected time
} node;

There are 12 fields in the provided structure in total. First eight are known from the data directly,
some notes on these fields:

1. Field type describes the type of a node which can be either equal to 1, which means the investor
decision node, or equal to 0, which means all other nodes.
2. Field tari f f denotes the cost which will be paid for every day of the project that after the node
with this field is selected; i.e., the corresponding event activates the tariff mode, in our case
primarily due to paying to consultations. Note, that the negative values of this field may stop the
tariff mode period; however, for our particular case it will be not needed. I.e., it will be active
until the project ends.
3. The pointers to the parent and the children nodes are defined by the graph edges.

As for the last four fields—they are computed by algorithms provided in this paper.
Note, that in all functions presented it is assumed that the arguments are passed by reference;
i.e., the changes of arguments are seen outside of these functions. We propose the algorithm that
consists of these steps:

1. Apply the AHP method to evaluate the values on leafs—we use field price with negative values
for that.
2. Calculate total times (field timeTotal) and costs (field priceTotal) up to the moment when events
are finished—this is implemented in the function CalcPars in Algorithm 2.
3. Evaluate end-node scenarios (calculate field value) and select optimal strategy—function
CalcValues in Algorithm 3.
4. Create profit (field value) distribution by calculating different scenario probabilities. A simple
implementation is provided in Algorithm 4.

442
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

Algorithm 2: Costs parameters calculation algorithm.

Function CalcPars(node)
node.timeTotal = node.time + node.ap ∗ node.atime
node.priceTotal = node.price + node.ap ∗ node.aprice
if node.parent != NULL then
node.timeTotal += node.parent.timeTotal
node.priceTotal += node.parent.priceTotal
end
for each node t in node.children do
CalcPars(t)
end
end

Algorithm 3: Scenario profit evaluation and strategy selection algorithm.

Function CalcValues(node)
for each node t in node.children do
CalcValues(t)
end
if node.children = NULL then
node− > extime = node− > timeTotal
else
if node.type = 1 then
for each node t in node.children do
t.p = 0
end
best = arg max t.value
t∈node.children
best.p = 1
end
n = node.children.size
n
node.value = ∑ node.children[i ].p · node.children[i ].value
i =1
n
node.extime = ∑ node.children[i ].p · node.children[i ].extime
i =1
end
end

Algorithm 4: Probabilities calculation algorithm with distribution extraction.

Function CalcProbs(node, distribution)
if node.parent = NULL then
node.probTotal = 1
else
node.probTotal = node.p ∗ node.parent.probTotal
end
if node.children.size() > 0 then
for each node t in node.children do
CalcProbs(t)
end
else
distribution.add(node.value, node.probTotal )
end
end

The algorithms were based on the results presented in [25]. We additionally included the support
of additional costs with probabilities. There are two main techniques that were applied:

443
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

1. Pre-order tree-traversal, when the calculations must be performed from top to the down of the
tree; i.e., when each node must inherit the calculations part from the parent node.
2. Post-order tree-traversal, when the calculations must be performed from down to top; i.e., each
node must collect the results from it’s children and aggregate the result for itself—it is the
implementation of a dynamic programming method.

Because the decision tree was limited to a monetary criterion, it was decided to search for
additional approaches to take in consideration project owner’s opinion, based on multi-criteria
decision-making. In this field a lot of methods are created and used. For example, [30] proposed to use
discrete stochastic multi-criteria decision-making method, based on distance from average solution,
to handle many real-life decision-making problems.
We applied the AHP method to evaluate the roof installation projects taking into account the
suitability for the chosen problem solution and the benefits visible from the works, where: subjective
weightings were analysed by using the AHP computer software programme the Expert Choice 11 [31];
the AHP method was adopted in order to rank assessment themes and identify the priorities of
the study’s participating stakeholders [32]; a hierarchical structure for pavement alternatives was
constructed and individual pairwise comparison was done by the experts [33].
It was found that the decision tree requires additional data about the value of the project, as it is
subjectively perceived by the owner of the roof installation project. This data can be obtained by using
the AHP method developed by T.L. Saaty [34].
The steps to use the AHP method to evaluate the price of the object:

1. Weighting of the criteria for AHP. For this step we need to form the matrix for pair-wise
Clm elements: ⎡ ⎤
C11 C12 ... C1z
⎢ C ⎥
⎢ 21 C22 ... C2z ⎥
⎢ ⎥; (3)
⎣ ... ... ... ... ⎦
Cz1 Cz2 ... Czz
each entry in the matrix is positive (Clm > 0) and reciprocal (Clm = 1/Clm , ∀, m = 1, 2, ...z).
Then it is necessary to divide each element in the matrix by its column total:

Clm
Ylm = z ; (4)
∑ Clm
l =1

where z is the number of criteria.

Then, it is possible to generate normalised, pair-wise matrix:
⎡ ⎤
Y11 Y12 ... Y1z
⎢ Y ⎥
⎢ 21 Y22 ... Y2z ⎥
⎢ ⎥. (5)
⎣ ... ... ... ... ⎦
Yz1 Yz2 ... Yzz

If to divide the sum of normalised row of matrix by the number of criteria:

z
∑ Ylm
m =1
Wl = ; (6)
z

444
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

we will have weighted matrix: ⎡ ⎤

W1
⎢ W ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥, (7)
⎣ ... ⎦
Wz
the values of which represent different criteria weights.
To estimate the correctness of estimation (whether the evaluations for importance between
different criteria are consistent), a consistency vector is calculated by dividing the weighted sum
vector by criterion weight:

1
Cν1 = [C W + C12 W2 + ... + C1z Wz ] ;
W1 11 1

1
Cν2 = [C W + C22 W2 + ... + C2z Wz ] ;
W2 21 1
...
1
Cνz = [C W + Cz2 W2 + ... + Czz Wz ] . (8)
Wz z1 1

Eigen value λmax is calculating by averaging the value of the consistency vector:

1 z
z l∑
λ = Cνl , (9)
max =1

a consistency index (CI):

λmax − z
CI = , (10)
z−1
where λmax is the maximal eigen value.
Consistency ratio:
CI
CR = , (11)
RI
where RI is the random index.
In practice, a CR of 0.1 or below is considered acceptable. Any higher value at any level indicates
that the judgements warrant re-examination.
2. Evaluation of the criteria for the projects A–H. An overall assessment of alternatives (to sell the
object or not) for each of the project was planned to carry out without criteria of compliance with
economic logic weighed by scores, because this criterion would be found for the situation where
both alternatives are equal.
3. Finding the scores of economic logic for selling and reserving, for the roof owner, results in the
same value (solution values are equal to 0.5 weighed and normalised points, because in this case
we have only two alternatives). Here we assume a solution to be the value of the choice for the
first alternative. To derive a formula we can exploit the fact that there are only two alternatives
and write the solution in the simplified form
z
Wm Vm
F= ∑ V +1
; (12)
m =1 m

here, Vm is the m-th criteria evaluation before the normalisation. Next, we express the score value
of the first criteria

445
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

z
a Wm Vm
V1 =
1−a
,a = F− ∑ V +1 /W1 . (13)
m =2 m

Substituting the needed value F = 0.5 gives the desired result—the subjective price evaluation
measured in score. In general the achieved result is not integer; therefore, we convert it into
the price monetary value using linear interpolation of the values in table 2. Note that the
aforementioned table points are presented in a typical-for-AHP way—integers from −9 to 9,
excluding 0, so before interpolation. we must perform additional mapping and use the value

−1/V1 , when V1 < 1

V̄ (V1 ) = (14)
V1 , otherwise.

3. The Application of The Model

Compliance with the psychological and social needs, economics logic, strategic objectives and best
location variant criteria were chosen. It was done after a practical case study of construction projects
and analysis of literature sources, in which the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, outdoor spa,
swimming pool, garden, parking spaces, state of repair, architecture style, socioeconomic profile
of neighbourhood, energy efficiency, distance [35], situation in the labour market, labour supply
cost, amenities and neighbourhood quality [36], appropriative control of the green building project
development [37], distance from the city centre and quality of the site [38], structural attributes,
accessibility, public and private service amenities [39], city structure and house location [40] and
strategy to rent [41], were factors for house pricing and housing strategy development. The goal of the
AHP method, its criteria and its alternatives are presented in the Figure 6. Here are some comments
about the criteria:

• The content of the criterion of compliance with the psychological and social needs is related
to the situation of neighbourhood, habitual place, status, way of life, appearance, romanticism
and history.
• Compliance with the economic logic criterion is related to the price of the object. It may also be
related to energy consumption, maintenance, resale value and other costs—but for simplicity we
did not include those.
• Compliance with the strategic objectives criterion is related to the owner’s plans—whether the
object will be rented, sold or used for living.
• Compliance with best location variant criterion is related to the quality of the site, accessibility
and public and private service amenities.

In order to determine the weights of the criteria, the project owner had to assess which criterion
were more important, and how important, with a score from 1 to 9 granting the alternative to sell the
project and from −9 to −1 does not allow sale. The weights obtained after the calculations are given in
the Table 1.
Then the project owner had to determine the scale for valuation of eight projects from A to H,
where points are related to the monetary value for him if not to sell the projects. The monetary value
dependence on score is presented in linear form in Table 2.
Evaluation of the criteria was done by the project owner (decision to sell the object or not), and is
presented in Table 3. Positions of compliance with economics logic were not evaluated by the project
owner, because this number would be found by using the algorithm, whereby, knowing the non-linear
dependency between the scores of the economic logic parameter (the score from 1 to 9 for alternative to
sell the project and from −9 to −1 to not sell) and the evaluation of each project’s alternatives without
a compliance with economics logic parameter (on 0 to 1 scale), we can determine a economic logic
parameter where both alternatives are the same; i.e., 0.5 weighed scores. This is clearly a subjective
assessment. Knowing the scores, we can set the compliance with economic logic parameter from the

446
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

scale system presented in Table 2. This is clearly a subjective assessment of the limit project value for
owner if not to sell the roof for each project is presented in Table 4.
For comparison, the sale price for each project roof, based on analogues, is presented in Table 4.
This data was incorporated into the decision tree branches.
The Algorithm 3 was applied to the tree, it was found that the best option for the consumer
in economic terms would be to implement the project and sell the roof. The most effective way
is from position S8−12−1 to S0−1−1 , with a value of 5891.58 Euros. This is an average price project
variant C, with a market sale price of 28,468 Euros. The cost of the project implementation would
be of 22,576.4 Euros. The risk and additional costs were reduced by the choice of consultants and
construction supervisor, although for them it was necessary to spend a considerable amount of money.
The other organisations participating in the project chose taking into account the minimum cost for
project C implementation. The duration of the project was found—171.003 days, which takes into
account the probabilities of probable time losses. The tariff for consulting was 6.25 Euros per day.
Expensive projects were not selected because the best option was D, with the value of 3345 Euros,
which is less than for the project C. The results of modelling for these expensive projects showed that
the owner does not sell the roof, but its installation costs are higher and the projects last longer.
Based on the results, if one does not to take the project activity, expected loses can be of 1000 Euros.

7KHEHVWYDULDQWIRU

*RDO
SURMHFWRZQHU

&RPSOLDQFH &RPSOLDQFH &RPSOLDQFH &RPSOLDQFH

ZLWKWKH ZLWK ZLWK ZLWKEHVW
&ULWHULD SV\FKRORJLFDO HFRQRPLFV VWUDWHJLF ORFDWLRQ
DQGVRFLDO ORJLF REMHFWLYHV YDULDQW
QHHGV

$OWHUQDWLYHV 7RVHOODQ 1RWWRVHOODQ

REMHFW REMHFW

Figure 6. AHP hierarchy for roofing project.

Table 1. Weights for the criteria.

Compliance with the Compliance with Economics Logic Compliance with Compliance with
Criteria
Psychological and Social Needs Economics Logic Strategic Objectives Best Location Variant
Weights 0.1376 0.3935 0.3935 0.0754

Table 2. The scale to connect points system and monetary value of the project.

Points System Projects A-H Value Scale for the Owner in Euros
A B C D E F G H
9 16,694 34,800 17,694 36,000 15,194 32,300 16,194 33,500
8 17,694 37,300 18,694 38,500 16,194 34,800 17,194 36,000
7 18,694 39,800 19,694 41,000 17,194 37,300 18,194 38,500
6 19,694 42,300 20,694 43,500 18,194 39,800 19,194 41,000
5 20,694 44,800 21,694 46,000 19,194 42,300 20,194 43,500
4 21,694 47,300 22,694 48,500 20,194 44,800 21,194 46,000
3 22,694 49,800 23,694 51,000 21,194 47,300 22,194 48,500

447
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

Table 2. Cont.

Points System Projects A–H Value Scale for the Owner in Euros
A B C D E F G H
2 23,694 52,300 24,694 53,500 22,194 49,800 23,194 51,000
1 24,694 54,800 25,694 56,000 23,194 52,300 24,194 53,500
−1 24,694 54,800 25,694 56,000 23,194 52,300 24,194 53,500
−2 25,694 57,300 26,694 58,500 24,194 54,800 25,194 56,000
−3 26,694 59,800 27,694 61,000 25,194 57,300 26,194 58,500
−4 27,694 62,300 28,694 63,500 26,194 59,800 27,194 61,000
−5 28,694 64,800 29,694 66,000 27,194 62,300 28,194 63,500
−6 29,694 67,300 30,694 68,500 28,194 64,800 29,194 66,000
−7 30,694 69,800 31,694 71,000 29,194 67,300 30,194 68,500
−8 31,694 72,300 32,694 73,500 30,194 69,800 31,194 71,000
−9 32,694 74,800 33,694 76,000 31,194 72,300 32,194 73,500

Table 3. Evaluation of the criteria by the customer (decision to sell the object or not).

Criteria Projects A-H Alternatives Evaluation in Points

A B C D E F G H
Compliance with the psychological and social needs −3 −5 −3 −5 −3 −5 −3 −5
Compliance with strategic objectives −2 −2 −1 −1 −3 −3 −2 −2
Compliance with best location variant 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Compliance with economics logic, points from AHP,
2.60 3.02 1.25 1.41 4.14 5.05 2.60 3.02
when both alternatives are equal

Table 4. Final alternatives to sell or not data for entering into decision tree (to select best variant).

Criteria Projects in Euros

A B C D E F G H
Limit value if we reserve for ourselves from AHP 23,095 49,748 25,444 54,981 20,053 42,183 22,595 48,448

4. Discussion
The authors of the article proposed the methodology, which lets one model the behaviour of roof
installation project participants, and they applied it to the example case. Application of the results
is useful:

1. If it is necessary to select the economically best project from a set of possible alternatives.
2. If it is necessary to take into account the stages involved in the project and the needs of the main
stakeholders, and review different scenarios.
3. If individual parameters (criteria) need to be assessed and transferred to monetary value.

We showed how to isolate the multi-criteria part of the problem and model it separately from the
decision tree. Instead of including it into a tree processing logic, we derived the threshold value of the
price which is on the edge between the solution to sell the roof or not, and we used this value as the
subjective price evaluation which was added to the profit value—it affected the decision via single
criteria Markov process modelling.
There were some assumptions made that might be revised; for example, in Algorithm 3 the
formula best = arg max t.value was used, which means a branch of a tree is evaluated by the
t∈node.children
expected profit value alone; however, for an investor the most important thing might be the profit per

448
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

time unit. Still, the proposed approach is flexible enough and easy to enough modify to support such
an evaluation as well; instead of t.value the value t.value/t.extime can be used. Some more advanced
techniques could be used for risk analysis, etc. However, it might break the conditions which are
necessary for the Bellman [26] principle leading to the loss of the optimality. But even without those
conditions it might lead to a decent heuristic with a reasonably good results. That might be the subject
of the future research.
The proper (advanced) risk evaluation techniques are out of scope of this research. The project
selection from several alternatives might be done outside of the proposed methodology—it lets us
evaluate different projects separately, which can be followed by processing with some advanced risk
evaluation tools.
Regarding AHP sensitivity analysis, we donot apply the AHP directly. We solve the inverse
problem to extract the threshold value for the object price. Next, we apply this price as a price
evaluation in Markov process modelling; this is where the choice of the project is performed.
This means, that even if the choice of the project is sensitive to some criteria evaluation, then the
actual difference of profit values will be small. A sensitive choice would mean small difference in
profit values. Therefore, it is not reasonable to apply the sensitivity analysis in the scope of the current
research. Such analysis could be useful to determining the importance of different criteria; however,
that is out of scope of the current research.

5. Conclusions
1. A combination of decision tree and AHP techniques covered the needs of this research; i.e., the
decision tree directly describes the real process, and AHP lets one estimate some of the states of
this process, which are not known initially. More specifically—it lets one perform a multi-criteria
evaluation of the subjective prices of the projects (for each of them separately) according to the
project owner’s opinion.
2. The proposed approach lets one perform modelling with a large number of possible alternatives
automatically. Therefore, the number of alternatives and the size of the tree itself depends on
the user and is limited by a human factor alone. A limited number of possible alternatives can
be reviewed, as the process of creating alternatives is rather labour-intensive and may take a lot
of time.
3. The probabilistic parameters of the model are related to the market situation; however, the project
decisions evaluated at the current moment and the situation during the project implementation
can change. This risk can be controlled by extending the tree with possible scenario nodes; thus,
it can be easily be performed by a user.
4. The estimation of the information that is necessary to fill the model by the data can be a non-trivial
task. For example, in order to apply the proposed methodology, it is necessary to evaluate
the costs of each project implementation. In addition, some project details may be unknown,
and some data should be evaluated without exact information as well. However, the proposed
methodology supports non-determinism, which partially solves the aforementioned problems.
Technically, it means that instead of a single scenario, a few possible scenarios can be used with
given probabilities.
5. Evaluation and implementation of the project is directly linked to the specific project owner; he
can have personal reasons to consider why and how valuable the project is for him. The AHP
method enables one to include this information into a model.
6. In this work, the computational part of the methodology is provided in the flexible form of general
algorithm description through pseudo code. This lets one implement the technique easily, using
general-purpose programming languages, such as Java, Python, C++, etc. Thus, the results
provided here can be easily integrated into other systems, such as business management,
insurance and expert systems.

449
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

Author Contributions: O.R.Š. and A.M. formulated the problem, and collected and analysed the data; A.B.
created appropriate algorithms, implemented them in C++ and wrote pseudocode. All authors contributed to
performing experiments, analysis of results and writing the paper equally.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Description of the transition from one state to another in the decision tree, part 1.

Description of Behavioural Options and Probable

Marking of the Edges Si−1jk -Sijk
Events
S0−1−1 -S1−1−1 Project owner decided to carry out the project
S0−1−1 -S1−1−2 Project owner refuses the project
Project owner decided to hire the consultants and
S1−1−1 -S2−1−1
supervisor
Project owner decided do not to hire the consultants
S1−1−1 -S2−1−2
and supervisor
The loses if conditions to existing roof situation are
S1−1−2 -S2−2−1
unfavourable
The loses if conditions to existing roof situation are
S1−1−2 -S2−2−2
favourable
Project owner decided to select the building design
S2−1−1 -S3−1−1
company “A” (with consulting)
Project owner decided to select the building design
S2−1−1 -S3−1−2
company “B” (with consulting)
Project owner decided to select the building design
S2−1−2 -S3−2−1
company “A” (without consulting)
Project owner decided to select the building design
S2−1−2 -S3−2−2
company “B” (without consulting)
Project owner decided to select the medium price
S3−1−1 -S4−1−1 ; S3−1−1 -S4−1− 2 ; S3−1− 2 -S4− 2 −1 ; project “A” or expensive project “B” for building
S3−1− 2 -S4− 2 − 2 ; S3− 2 − 1 -S4− 3 −1 ; S3− 2 − 1 -S4− 3 − 2 ; design company “A” (with consulting); “C” or “D”
S3−2−2 -S4−4− 1 ; S3−2−2 -S4−4−2 for “B” (with consulting); “E” or “F” for “A” (without
consulting); “G” or “H” for “B” (without consulting)
S4−1−1 -S5−1−1 ; S4−1−1 -S5−1−2 ; S4−1− 2 -S5−2−1 ;
Project owner decided to select the construction
S4−1− 2 -S5−2−2 ; S4− 2 −1 -S5−3−1 ; S4− 2 −1 -S5−3−2 ;
company “AA” or “AB” for project “A”; “BA” or “BB”
S4− 2 − 2 -S5−4−1 ; S4− 2 − 2 -S5−4−2 ; S4− 3 −1 -S5−5−1 ;
for “B”; “CA” or “CB” for “C”; “DA” or “DB” for “D”;
S4− 3 −1 -S5−5−2 ; S4− 3 − 2 -S5−6−1 ; S4− 3 − 2 -S5−6−2 ;
“EA” or “EB” for “E”; “FA” or “FB” for “F”; “GA” or
S4− 4 −1 -S5−7−1 ; S4− 4 −1 -S5−7−2 ; S4−4−2 -S5−8− 1 ;
“GB” for “G”; “HA” or “HB” for “H”
S4−4−2 -S5−8−2
S5−1−1 -S6−1−1 ; S5−1−1 -S6−1− 2 ; S5−1− 2 -S6− 2 −1 ;
S5−1− 2 -S6− 2 − 2 ; S5− 2 −1 -S6− 3 −1 ; S5− 2 −1 -S6− 3 − 2 ; Project owner decided to select the supply company
S5− 2 − 2 -S6− 4 −1 ; S5− 2 − 2 -S6− 4 − 2 ; S5− 3 −1 -S6− 5 −1 ; “AA” or “AB” for construction company “AA”; “AA”
S5− 3 −1 -S6− 5 − 2 ; S5− 3 − 2 -S6− 6 −1 ; S5− 3 − 2 -S6− 6 − 2 ; or “AB” for “AB”; “BA” or “BB” for “BA”; “BA” or “BB”
S5− 4 −1 -S6− 7 −1 ; S5− 4 −1 -S6− 7 − 2 ; S5− 4 − 2 -S6− 8 −1 ; for “BB”; “CA” or “CB” for “CA”; “CA” or “CB” for
S5− 4 − 2 -S6− 8 − 2 ; S5− 5 −1 -S6− 9 −1 ; S5− 5 −1 -S6− 9 − 2 ; “CB”; “DA” or “DB” for “DA”; “DA” or “DB” for “DB”;
S5− 5 − 2 -S6− 10 −1 ; S5− 5 − 2 -S6− 10 − 2 ; S5− 6 −1 -S6−11 −1 ; “EA” or “EB” for “EA”; “EA” or “EB” for “EB”; “FA” or
S5− 6 −1 -S6−11 − 2 ; S5− 6 − 2 -S6− 12 −1 ; S5− 6 − 2 -S6− 12 − 2 ; “FB” for “FA”; “FA” or “FB” for “FB”; “GA” or “GB” for
S5− 7 −1 -S6−13 −1 ; S5− 7 −1 -S6−13 − 2 ; S5− 7 − 2 -S6− 14 −1 ; “GA”; “GA” or “GB” for “GB”; “HA” or “HB” for “HA”;
S5− 7 − 2 -S6− 14 − 2 ; S5− 8 −1 -S6−15 −1 ; S5− 8 −1 -S6−15 − 2 ; “HA” or “HB” for “HB
S5− 8 − 2 -S6− 16 −1 ; S5− 8 − 2 -S6− 16 − 2

450
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

Table A2. Description of the transition from one state to another in the decision tree, part 2.

S6−1−1 -S7−1−1 ; S6−1− 2 -S7− 2 −1 ; S6− 2 −1 -S7− 3 −1 ; S6− 2 − 2 -S7− 4 −1 ;

S6− 3 −1 -S7− 5 −1 ; S6− 3 − 2 -S7− 6 −1 ; S6− 4 −1 -S7− 7 −1 ; S6− 4 − 2 -S7− 8 −1 ;
S6− 5 −1 -S7− 9 −1 ; S6− 5 − 2 -S7− 10 −1 ; S6− 6 −1 -S7− 11 −1 ; S6− 6 − 2 -S7− 12 −1 ;
S6− 7 −1 -S7−13 −1 ; S6− 7 − 2 -S7− 14 −1 ; S6− 8 −1 -S7− 15 −1 ; S6− 8 − 2 -S7− 16 −1 ; Variant of project implemented
S6− 9 −1 -S7−17 −1 ; S6− 9 − 2 -S7− 18 −1 ; S6− 10 −1 -S7− 19 −1 ; S6− 10 − 2 -S7− 20 −1 ; with success
S6−11 −1 -S7− 21−1 ; S6−11 − 2 -S7− 22 −1 ; S6− 12 −1 -S7− 23 −1 ; S6− 12 − 2 -S7− 24 −1 ;
S6−13 −1 -S7− 25 −1 ; S6−13 − 2 -S7− 26 −1 ; S6− 14 −1 -S7− 27 −1 ; S6− 14 − 2 -S7− 28 −1 ;
S6−15 −1 -S7− 29 −1 ; S6−15 − 2 -S7− 30 −1 ; S6− 16 −1 -S7− 31 −1 ; S6− 16 − 2 -S7− 32 −1
S6−1−1 -S7−1− 2 ; S6−1− 2 -S7− 2 − 2 ; S6− 2 −1 -S7− 3 − 2 ; S6− 2 − 2 -S7− 4 − 2 ;
S6− 3 −1 -S7− 5 − 2 ; S6− 3 − 2 -S7− 6 − 2 ; S6− 4 −1 -S7− 7 − 2 ; S6− 4 − 2 -S7− 8 − 2 ;
S6− 5 −1 -S7− 9 − 2 ; S6− 5 − 2 -S7− 10 − 2 ; S6− 6 −1 -S7− 11 − 2 ; S6− 6 − 2 -S7− 12 − 2 ;
S6− 7 −1 -S7−13 − 2 ; S6− 7 − 2 -S7− 14 − 2 ; S6− 8 −1 -S7− 15 − 2 ; S6− 8 − 2 -S7− 16 − 2 ; Variant of project implemented
S6− 9 −1 -S7−17 − 2 ; S6− 9 − 2 -S7− 18 − 2 ; S6− 10 −1 -S7− 19 − 2 ; S6− 10 − 2 -S7− 20 − 2 ; with total fail
S6−11 −1 -S7− 21− 2 ; S6−11 − 2 -S7− 22 − 2 ; S6− 12 −1 -S7− 23 − 2 ; S6− 12 − 2 -S7− 24 − 2 ;
S6−13 −1 -S7− 25 − 2 ; S6−13 − 2 -S7− 26 − 2 ; S6− 14 −1 -S7− 27 − 2 ; S6− 14 − 2 -S7− 28 − 2 ;
S6−15 −1 -S7− 29 − 2 ; S6−15 − 2 -S7− 30 − 2 ; S6− 16 −1 -S7− 31 − 2 ; S6− 16 − 2 -S7− 32 − 2
S7−1−1 -S8−1−1 ; S7− 2 −1 -S8− 2 −1 ; S7− 3 −1 -S8− 3 −1 ; S7− 4 −1 -S8− 4 −1 ;
S7− 5 −1 -S8− 5 −1 ; S7− 6 −1 -S8− 6 −1 ; S7− 7 −1 -S8− 7 −1 ; S7− 8 −1 -S8− 8 −1 ;
S7− 9 −1 -S8− 9 −1 ; S7− 10 −1 -S8− 10 −1 ; S7− 11 −1 -S8− 11 −1 ; S7− 12 −1 -S8− 12 −1 ;
Project owner decided to sell
S7− 13 −1 -S8− 13 −1 ; S7− 14 −1 -S8− 14 −1 ; S7− 15 −1 -S8− 15 −1 ; S7− 16 −1 -S8− 16 −1 ;
the object and gain the profit or
S7−17 −1 -S8−17 −1 ; S7− 18 −1 -S8− 18 −1 ; S7− 19 −1 -S8− 19 −1 ; S7− 20 −1 -S8− 20 −1 ;
loses
S7− 21 −1 -S8− 21 −1 ; S7− 22 −1 -S8− 22 −1 ; S7− 23 −1 -S8− 23 −1 ; S7− 24 −1 -S8− 24 −1 ;
S7− 25 −1 -S8− 25 −1 ; S7− 26 −1 -S8− 26 −1 ; S7− 27 −1 -S8− 27 −1 ; S7− 28 −1 -S8− 28 −1 ;
S7− 29 −1 -S8− 29 −1 ; S7− 30 −1 -S8− 30 −1 ; S7− 31 −1 -S8− 31 −1 ; S7− 32 −1 -S8− 32 −1
S7−1− 1 -S8−1− 2 ; S7− 2 − 1 -S8− 2 − 2 ; S7− 3 − 1 -S8− 3 − 2 ; S7− 4 − 1 -S8− 4 − 2 ;
S7− 5 − 1 -S8− 5 − 2 ; S7− 6 − 1 -S8− 6 − 2 ; S7− 7 − 1 -S8− 7 − 2 ; S7− 8 − 1 -S8− 8 − 2 ;
S7− 9 − 1 -S8− 9 − 2 ; S7− 10 − 1 -S8− 10 − 2 ; S7− 11 − 1 -S8− 11 − 2 ; S7− 12 − 1 -S8− 12 − 2 ;
Project owner decided not to
S7− 13 − 1 -S8− 13 − 2 ; S7− 14 − 1 -S8− 14 − 2 ; S7− 15 − 1 -S8− 15 − 2 ; S7− 16 − 1 -S8− 16 − 2 ;
sell the object and gain the
S7−17 − 1 -S8−17 − 2 ; S7− 18 − 1 -S8− 18 − 2 ; S7− 19 − 1 -S8− 19 − 2 ; S7− 20 − 1 -S8− 20 − 2 ;
value from holding
S7− 21 − 1 -S8− 21 − 2 ; S7− 22 − 1 -S8− 22 − 2 ; S7− 23 − 1 -S8− 23 − 2 ; S7− 24 − 1 -S8− 24 − 2 ;
S7− 25 − 1 -S8− 25 − 2 ; S7− 26 − 1 -S8− 26 − 2 ; S7− 27 − 1 -S8− 27 − 2 ; S7− 28 − 1 -S8− 28 − 2 ;
S7− 29 − 1 -S8− 29 − 2 ; S7− 30 − 1 -S8− 30 − 2 ; S7− 31 − 1 -S8− 31 − 2 ; S7− 32 − 1 -S8− 32 − 2

References
1. Dahooie, J.H.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Firoozfar, H.; Vanaki, A.; Mohammadi, N.; Brauers, W.K.M. An improved
fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision making based on objective weighting method
(CCSD) and its application to technological forecasting method selection. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019,
79, 114–128. [CrossRef]
2. Belay, A.M.; Torp, O. Do Longer Projects Have Larger Cost Deviation Than Shorter Construction Projects?
Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 262–269. [CrossRef]
3. Çelik, T.; Kamali, S.; Arayici, Y. Social cost in construction projects. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017,
64, 77–86. [CrossRef]
4. Šostak, O.R.; Vakrinien, S. Mathematical modelling of dispute proceedings between investors and third
parties on allegedly violated third-party rights. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2011, 17, 126–136. [CrossRef]
5. Omar, M.N.; Fayek, A.R. Modeling and evaluating construction project competencies and their relationship
to project performance. Autom. Constr. 2016, 69, 115–130. [CrossRef]
6. Nowak, M. Defining project approach using decision tree and quasi-hierarchical multiple criteria method.
Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 791–799. [CrossRef]
7. Saam, N.J. Asymmetry in information versus asymmetry in power: Implicit assumptions of agency theory?
J. Socio-Econ. 2007, 36, 825–840. [CrossRef]
8. Sha, K. Incentive strategies for construction project manager: A common agency perspective.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 37, 461–471. [CrossRef]
9. Ozbakan, T.A.; Kale, S.; Dikmen, I. Exploring House Price Dynamics: An Agent-Based Simulation with
Behavioral Heterogeneity. Comput. Econ. 2019, 54, 783–807. [CrossRef]

451
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

10. Li, H.X.; Patel, D.; Al-Hussein, M.; Yu, H.; Gül, M. Stakeholder studies and the social networks of NetZero
energy homes (NZEHs). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 9–17. [CrossRef]
11. Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhao, X.J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for
construction enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 277–289. [CrossRef]
12. Di Maddaloni, F.; Davis, K. Project manager’s perception of the local communities’ stakeholder
in megaprojects. An empirical investigation in the UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 542–565. [CrossRef]
13. Xu, X.; Li, C.Z.; Wang, J.; Huang, W. Collaboration between designers and contractors to improve building
energy performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 20–32. [CrossRef]
14. Hu, X.; Chong, H.Y.; Wang, X. Sustainability perceptions of off-site manufacturing stakeholders in Australia.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 346–354. [CrossRef]
15. Soma, K.; Dijkshoorn-Dekker, M.; Polman, N. Stakeholder contributions through transitions towards
urban sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 438–450. [CrossRef]
16. Yu, T.; Liang, X.; Shen, G.Q.; Shi, Q.; Wang, G. An optimization model for managing stakeholder conflicts in
urban redevelopment projects in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 537–547. [CrossRef]
17. van Dijk, S.; Tenpierik, M.; van den Dobbelsteen, A. Continuing the building’s cycles: A literature review and
analysis of current systems theories in comparison with the theory of Cradle to Cradle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2014, 82, 21–34. [CrossRef]
18. Biesenthal, C.; Clegg, S.; Mahalingam, A.; Sankaran, S. Applying institutional theories to
managing megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 43–54. [CrossRef]
19. Yusof, N.; Awang, H.; Iranmanesh, M. Determinants and outcomes of environmental practices in Malaysian
construction projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 345–354. [CrossRef]
20. Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A.; W˛egrzyn, J. Understanding of Public–Private Partnership Stakeholders as a
Condition of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1194. [CrossRef]
21. Hasik, V.; Escott, E.; Bates, R.; Carlisle, S.; Faircloth, B.; Bilec, M.M. Comparative whole building life cycle
assessment of renovation and new construction. Build. Environ. 2019, 106218. [CrossRef]
22. Broers, W.; Vasseur, V.; Kemp, R.; Abujidi, N.; Vroon, Z. Decided or divided? An empirical analysis of the
decision-making process of Dutch homeowners for energy renovation measures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019,
58, 101284. [CrossRef]
23. Santangelo, A.; Yan, D.; Feng, X.; Tondelli, S. Renovation strategies for the Italian public housing stock:
Applying building energy simulation and occupant behaviour modelling to support decision-making process.
Energy Build. 2018, 167, 269–280. [CrossRef]
24. Stonebraker, J.S.; Kirkwood, C.W. Formulating and solving sequential decision analysis models with
continuous variables. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1997, 44, 43–53. [CrossRef]
25. Bugajev, A.; Šostak, O. An algorithm for modelling the impact of the judicial conflict-resolution process on
construction investment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 182. [CrossRef]
26. Bellman, R.E.; Dreyfus, S.E. Applied Dynamic Programming; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA,
2015.
27. Si, J.; Marjanovic-Halburd, L.; Nasiri, F.; Bell, S. Assessment of building-integrated green technologies:
A review and case study on applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 106–115. [CrossRef]
28. Kokaraki, N.; Hopfe, C.J.; Robinson, E.; Nikolaidou, E. Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria
decision-making methods using building performance simulation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019,
112, 991–1007. [CrossRef]
29. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. Insight 2009,
22, 201–220. [CrossRef]
30. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J. Stochastic EDAS
method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2017,
33, 1627–1638. [CrossRef]
31. Khalil, N.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Baharum, M.R. Ranking the indicators of building performance and
the users’ risk via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 567–576.
[CrossRef]

452
Sustainability 2020, 12, 59

32. Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Lou, E.C.W.; Wong, P.F.; Wood, R.; Che-Ani, A.I. Developing weighting system for
refurbishment building assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach.
Energy Policy 2018, 112, 280–290. [CrossRef]
33. Zheng, X.; Easa, S.M.; Yang, Z.; Ji, T.; Jiang, Z. Life-cycle sustainability assessment of pavement maintenance
alternatives: Methodology and case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 659–672. [CrossRef]
34. Saaty, T.L. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Snalytic Hierarchy Process;
RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Volume 6, 2000.
35. Fuerst, F.; Warren-Myers, G. Does voluntary disclosure create a green lemon problem? Energy-efficiency
ratings and house prices. Energy Econ. 2018, 74, 1–12. [CrossRef]
36. Picarelli, N. There is no free house. J. Urban Econ. 2019, 111, 35–52. [CrossRef]
37. Ahmad, T.; Aibinu, A.A.; Stephan, A.; Chan, A.P. Investigating associations among performance criteria in
Green Building projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019. [CrossRef]
38. d’Acci, L. Quality of urban area, distance from city centre, and housing value. Case study on real estate
values in Turin. Cities 2019, 91, 71–92. [CrossRef]
39. Li, H.; Wei, Y.D.; Wu, Y.; Tian, G. Analyzing housing prices in Shanghai with open data: Amenity, accessibility
and urban structure. Cities 2019, 91, 165–179. [CrossRef]
40. Chen, C.S.; Chiu, Y.H.; Tsai, L. Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historic buildings through multicriteria
decision-making. Habitat Int. 2018, 81, 12–23. [CrossRef]
41. Waltl, S.R. Variation across price segments and locations: A comprehensive quantile regression analysis of
the Sydney housing market. Real Estate Econ. 2019, 47, 723–756. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

453
sustainability

Article
LDA-Based Model for Defect Management in
Residential Buildings
Byeol Kim 1 , Yonghan Ahn 1 and Sanghyo Lee 2, *
1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 55, Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangrok-gu,
Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea; [email protected] (B.K.); [email protected] (Y.A.)
2 Division of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kangwon National University, 346, Jungang-ro, Samcheok-si,
Gangwon-do 25913, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-33-570-6527

Received: 11 November 2019; Accepted: 13 December 2019; Published: 16 December 2019

Abstract: This study systematically analyzes various defect patterns that occur during the warranty
period of residential buildings using the loss distribution approach (LDA). This paper examines
16,108 defects from 133 residential buildings where defect disputes occurred between 2008 and 2018 in
South Korea. The analysis results showed that the defect losses were relatively high in reinforcement
concrete (RC) work (3/5/10 years), waterproof work (5 years), and finish work (2 years). It is shown
that RC work has a high frequency of defects, such as cracks in concrete in public spaces affected
by external factors. In addition, it was analyzed that the type of defect needed high repair cost
because the area where the defect—such as incorrect installation and missing task—occurred, needed
construction again. According to the level of frequency and severity, losses were divided within
four zones to provide detailed strategies (by period). This will effectively contribute to minimizing
unnecessary losses from defects as quantifying the losses of defects.

Keywords: defects liability period; risk matrix; residential buildings; loss distribution approach

1. Introduction
The proportion of people living in cities is expected to reach 66% among the global population by
2050. For this trend, apartments are becoming a major residential type in many countries, including
Vietnam, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States [1,2].
As the functionality of apartments becomes more complex and higher, the importance of
quality management is increasing [3]. The quality control of apartments aims to maintain a
high-quality construction environment so that many residents can live in a safe, comfortable, residential
environment [4]. In particular, defect management is critical to maintaining the building performance [5].
Thus, defect management can contribute to the sustainability and durability of residential buildings.
However, the construction of apartments causes defects due to the complex interconnections
of various work types, unexpected design mistakes, material defects, faults during construction,
and environmental factors [6]. Various stakeholders suffer practical damage because significant costs
are incurred to solve these defects [7]. Many efforts have been continuously made to ensure the quality
and to prevent poor construction of housing [8]. However, conflicts and disputes between residents
and contractors can arise due to differences in the interpretations and perceptions of defects that occur
after the houses are transferred [9]. Many countries have institutionalized the defect liability period
(DLP) to minimize the social losses caused by the defects [10–13]. In the case of the United Kingdom,
the DLP is arbitrarily implemented, while in Japan, the DLP is mandatory. As such, DLP in each
country operates at various standards.
The DLP obligates the contractor to repair any defects that occur within a set period; however,
the obligation is terminated after the set period. Due to this characteristic of the DLP, the contractor

Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201; doi:10.3390/su11247201 455 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

should identify various defect risks, including the lack of knowledge of residents, daily wear and
tear, and construction failures, while managing the defects efficiently during the warranty period.
Furthermore, occupants need to recognize any defects that may occur within the DLP and secure their
rights to minimize the defects [12].
Therefore, it is essential for stakeholders to recognize the defect occurrence pattern preemptively to
take a rational decision about the defect repair for the DLP [14]. Many studies have attempted to analyze
the causes of defect generation in residential buildings. However, these studies simply investigated the
importance of defects by summarizing the frequency of the defects and their costs [15–18]. The defect
frequency can be recognized as loss-occurring events and the repair cost of a defect can be interpreted
as the weight of loss. This means that if the frequency and cost of defects are considered at the same
time, the defect occurrence pattern can be analyzed in a more integrated manner.
This study aims to systematically analyze the patterns and profiles of various defects that occur
during the DLP of residential buildings by using the loss distribution approach (LDA).

2. Literature Review
A defect is generally, “a state of a product that does not have the quality or performance that it must
normally have. Defects of apartments include cracks, settlements, damage, swelling, leakage, or other
flaws due to construction errors. This can result in problems in the safety, function, or aesthetics of the
building or facilities” [19,20]. There are two main methods to minimize the loss resulting from defects.
The first is to prevent defects in advance. Defects are caused by mutually complex factors throughout
the process of design, construction, materials, and maintenance [21]. To prevent them, a fundamental
analysis about the causes of defects that have occurred is required. In this respect, existing studies have
examined the characteristics of defect generation by reclassifying the defect cases based on various
criteria [13,16,22,23]. To prevent defects practically, the fundamental causes should be analyzed based
on the types of recognized defects. In this context, various studies on the causes of defects have been
conducted [18,24]. In order to identify the cause of the defects that occur in various forms, research has
been conducted regarding the classification of the defects behavior [17,25–27]. Moreover, some studies
analyzed defect occurrence patterns by thoroughly tracking the causal relations by considering such
factors as objects, locations, and work types, as well as direct causes [28,29]. These studies suggested
design errors, human errors, financial problems, pressing schedules, materials, and maintenance as the
main causes of defects. However, defects are caused by complex nonlinear causal relations between
various factors. The mechanism of these complex causes are major obstacles to managing the defect
risks because they can change dynamically during time or depend on the project type. In other words,
the methods to prevent the construction defects of apartments ultimately have limitations and defects
inevitably occur [15,30].
The second method for minimizing the loss from defects is to find rational response measures
to defects. Since most industrial products have a warranty system for the product’s quality for a
certain period, buildings also have a quality assurance system. It is common practice for a construction
company, which is the business entity, to take responsibility for the quality assurance of the apartment
in the event of defects for a certain period of time [11]. In this regard, existing studies revealed the
measures to efficiently operate the warranty system [10,12,31]. Davey et al. (2006) derived the problems
during the DLP and emphasized the need for a short-term processing plan to effectively respond
to the defects that occur during the handover stage. To address this issue, they proposed measures
such as improving the management during the DLP as well as improving the procedures through the
cooperation of contractors, consultants, and customers [12]. Hopkin et al. (2016) surveyed UK major
stakeholders in regard to the defect frequency to determine the most important types of defects and
to identify which defects must be focused on after defects have occurred [32]. However, there are
differences in the perspectives about defects that occur during DLP among the major stakeholders that
were analyzed [9]. Hence, defect occurrence patterns need to be analyzed in consideration of the DLP.

456
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

Efficient defect resolution is difficult due to a fierce clash of opinions and conflicts about the
adequacy of the incurred defect repair cost. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the rationality of
the criteria, the scope of the defect judgment, and the detailed criteria for estimating the defect costs.
Mills et al. (2009) discussed the characteristics of major defects based on the defect repair costs for
buildings constructed between 1977 and 1983 and quantified the effects of the types of contractors
and buildings [15]. Furthermore, Hughes et al. (2000) researched the budget range that must be
prepared to protect users and to complete the contractor’s project by calculating the cost required
to resolve the defects [31]. However, these studies were specifically based on an individual analysis
without considering other detailed factors such as the tasks, components, and location in an integrated
manner. From this background, the present study analyzes the various defect profiles that occur during
the DLP to explore reasonable directions for efficient quality control and dispute reconciliation for
residential buildings.

3. Materials and Method

The causes of defects that have occurred in residential buildings include: the neglect of supervision;
pressing schedules; construction by inexperienced workers; defects in materials; and inadequate
inspection. In other words, defects are operation risks mainly caused by humans or process errors.
In the financial sector, which already has a high level of risk measurement and management systems,
the loss distribution approach (LDA) is a representative method for measuring and managing rising
operational risks. LDA is used mainly in sales organizations to assess objective loss estimates through
statistical analysis based on existing loss data. As a method that finds the distribution characteristics of
operational risks using a vast amount of data generated, the LDA is considered as the most sophisticated
and accurate risk measurement method.
This paper establishes a process for measuring defect risks based on the LDA process used to
measure the operational risks in the financial field (Figure 1). There are four steps of measurements
when measuring the operational risks using the LDA. In step 1, a defect classification system is
constructed in 3D. In the existing financial sector, the operating risk frequency distribution and
severity distribution are estimated for each of the eight business areas and seven loss cases. That is,
56 areas (8 Business Line (BL) * 7 Loss event type LET) are combined with each other to generate a
loss distribution. Then, the cost for responding to the operational risks is calculated using the loss
distribution. At this time, the areas are reclassified according to the detailed measurement level and
items of the measurement target. In this study, areas were classified based on 11 work types, 7 defect
occurrence locations, and 11 defect types (11 * 7 * 11). The data is collected in step 2. The collected
data was frequency and severity data corresponding to each cell. In step 3, the frequency and severity
distribution of the defect are estimated based on the data. The loss distribution is calculated by
combining the two estimated distributions using Monte Carlo simulation. The severity data was scaled
according to the size of the apartments and defined as the defect cost versus the total floor area. Finally,
in step 4, the risk profiles are organized by the service year based on the calculated loss distribution.
Afterwards, the overall analysis is performed.
To estimate the loss frequency and severity distribution, which was step 3 in the LDA measurement
process, the distribution of each item is set. For the frequency distribution, which is a discrete
distribution, the most representative Poisson distribution is used. In contrast, the severity distribution
is a continuous distribution, which is set as a model with a tail distribution with log-normal distribution,
Weibull distribution, gamma distribution, and Pareto distribution. To set the severity distribution for
each cell in this study, the best fit test was performed for each distribution. Then, the loss distribution
was set by performing Monte Carlo simulation 100,000 times using the parameters of the frequency
and severity distributions for each cell. After that, the confidence levels of all of the distributions were
set ranging from 0% to 100% and the risk level was checked. The loss distribution for each cell was
derived through this process and was combined to identify and analyze the defect risk profile of each
item classified by the DLP, work type, or space.

457
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

Step 1 : 3D defect classification

Work type • Literature review

• Creating 11 work types x 7 components x
11 defect types matrix
Component Defect type • Line: Work types and components by service period
• Column: Defect occurrence position

Step 2 : Data collection

Defect type
Work Compo- • Collect data and assign it to each cell
types nents Affected … Water
functionality leak 1) Frequency: The number of times a defect
Exterior D(1,1,1) … D(1,1,11)
RC occurs for each defect in a single project
Common D(1,2,1) … D(1,2,11)
… … … … … 2) Severity: The amount of loss caused by a defect
Misellaneous Bathroom D(1,4,1) … D(1,2,11) in a single project

Fitting
Step 3.1 : Estimating frequency Step 3.2 : Estimating severity
distribution by cell distribution by cell
Prob. (%) Prob. (%)

• Continuous distribution
• Discrete distribution
(log-normal distribution,
(Poisson distribution)
Weibull distribution etc.)
Frequency Severity

Convolution
Step 3.3 : Estimating loss distribution by cell

Work Compo- Defect type • Extract one random number from the frequency distribution
types nents A B C
• The amount of loss corresponding to the extracted random
C1 number is extracted from the severity distribution
W1 • One-time loss size is calculated by adding up the loss
C2
amount extracted from the severity distribution
• Repeat the above process a specified number of times
W2 C3
(100,000 times) to create a loss distribution

Anaylsis

Step 4.1 : Analysis of loss Step 4.2 : Analysis of total loss

distribution by year distribution

Work Compo- Defect type Work Compo- Defect type

types Period nents types Period nents
A B C A B C

W1
2 C1 2yr W1
2 C1
3 C2 3 C2

W2 3
C1 3yr W2 3
C1
C2 C2
C1 C1
W3 5 5yr W3 5
C2
C2

• Defect loss profile analysis by year • Totally Defect loss profile analysis

Figure 1. Conducting estimations with the loss distribution approach.

In the process of analyzing defect risks using the LDA, a lack of data may occur in each cell of
the 3D defect matrix constructed in accordance with the defect classification system. In this case,

458
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

the reliability may drop due to the neutrality of the parameter estimates. To prevent this problem,
the minimum data corresponding to each cell should be obtained in the setting step of the frequency
and severity distributions. Each cell must not be set too broadly or in too much detail. In addition,
the range of cells should be classified in consideration of the classification system for the items to
be measured. In consideration of this, Table 1 presents the work type-defects liability period, which
was classified into 11 categories. These include: reinforced concrete (Rc) (3); Rc (5); Rc (10); masonry
(5); finish (2); insulation (3); waterproof (5); mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) (3); door and
windows (3); furniture (2); and miscellaneous (3), as suggested by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
and Transport of South Korea. The defect locations were classified into seven categories: exterior;
common area; garage; hall/corridor; balcony; room/entrance; and bathroom/kitchen. The types of
defects were reclassified into 11 categories: affected functionality; broken; corrosion; crack; detachment;
incorrect installation; missing task; surface appearance; excess moisture; entrapped water; and water
leak (11 work types-liability periods* 7 locations *11 defects). As a result, each cell was classified as
shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Defect classification.

Defect
Description Writer(s)
Classification
Materials/components that must be replaced because its
Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Affected functionality is completely affected.
Macarulla et al. (2013), Rotimi et al. (2015)
functionality Materials/components that must be repaired but not necessarily
[16,17,22,24]
replaced because its functionality is partially affected.
Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Macarulla et al. (2013),
Materials/components physically and forcibly separated into
Broken Georgiou et al. (2010), Rotimi et al. (2015),
pieces or split.
Chong et al. (2006), Chong et al. (2005)
[16,17,22–24,27,30]
All defects caused by living beings as molds. Macarulla et al. (2013), Rotimi et al. (2015)
Corrosion
Corrosion of metals or the carbonation of concrete. [22,24]
Forcada et al. (2013),
Crack Cracks in construction elements. Macarulla et al. (2013), Rotimi et al. (2015),
Chong et al. (2005) [16,22,24,30]
Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Macarulla et al. (2013), Rotimi et al. (2015),
Detachment Materials/components that are not fixed in their position.
Chong et al. (2006), Chong et al. (2005)
[16,17,22,24,27,30]
Materials/components are not well positioned or do not satisfy Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Incorrect
project specifications or do not have the characteristics Macarulla et al. (2013), Rotimi et al. (2015)
installation
they should. [16,17,22,24]
Works that are not completed/done, although the project or Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Missingtask
specifications are supposed to be collocated or completed/done. Macarulla et al. (2013) [16,17,22]
Protuberance on a level surface.
Opposite effect to a bump.
Surface uneven or uniform e.g., in shape or texture, an uneven Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Surface color, uneven ground, uneven margins, wood with an Macarulla et al. (2013), Rotimi et al. (2015),
appearance uneven grain. Chong et al. (2006), Chong et al. (2005)
The result of a collision or abrasion. [16,17,22,24]
Surface with a powdery deposit caused by the evaporation of
water when there is a certain level of dissolved salts.
Wetness caused by moisture, including rising dampness. Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Excess moisture
Penetration damp and condensation. Macarulla et al. (2013), [16,17,22]
Entrapped
Water that does not drain. Macarulla et al. (2013) [22]
water
Forcada et al. (2013), Forcada et al. (2013),
Water Defects related to water that seeps through walls, slabs,
Macarulla et al. (2013), Chong et al. (2005)
leak roofs, etc.
[16,17,22,30]

459
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

Table 2. Risk matrix of the different types of defects and work types.

Work Types a Defects c

(Liability Period) Locations b
Af Br Co Cr De Ii Mt Sa Em Ew Wl
Ex d(1,1,1) d(1,1,2) d(1,1,3) d(1,1,4) d(1,1,5) d(1,1,6) d(1,1,7) d(1,1,8) d(1,1,9) d(1,1,10) d(1,1,11)
Ca d(1,2,1) d(1,2,2) d(1,2,3) d(1,2,4) d(1,2,5) d(1,2,6) d(1,2,7) d(1,2,8) d(1,2,9) d(1,2,10) d(1,2,11)
Ga d(1,3,1) d(1,3,2) d(1,3,3) d(1,3,4) d(1,3,5) d(1,3,6) d(1,3,7) d(1,3,8) d(1,3,9) d(1,3,10) d(1,3,11)
Rc
Hc d(1,4,1) d(1,4,2) d(1,4,3) d(1,4,4) d(1,4,5) d(1,4,6) d(1,4,7) d(1,4,8) d(1,4,9) d(1,4,10) d(1,4,11)
(3)
Ba d(1,5,1) d(1,5,2) d(1,5,3) d(1,5,4) d(1,5,5) d(1,5,6) d(1,5,7) d(1,5,8) d(1,5,9) d(1,5,10) d(1,5,11)
Re d(1,6,1) d(1,6,2) d(1,6,3) d(1,6,4) d(1,6,5) d(1,6,6) d(1,6,7) d(1,6,8) d(1,6,9) d(1,6,10) d(1,6,11)
Bk d(1,7,1) d(1,7,2) d(1,7,3) d(1,7,4) d(1,7,5) d(1,7,6) d(1,7,7) d(1,7,8) d(1,7,9) d(1,7,10) d(1,7,11)
Ex d(2,1,1) d(2,1,2) d(2,1,3) d(2,1,4) d(2,1,5) d(2,1,6) d(2,1,7) d(2,1,8) d(2,1,9) d(2,1,10) d(2,1,11)
Ca d(2,2,1) d(2,2,2) d(2,2,3) d(2,2,4) d(2,2,5) d(2,2,6) d(2,2,7) d(2,2,8) d(2,2,9) d(2,2,10) d(2,2,11)
Ga d(2,3,1) d(2,3,2) d(2,3,3) d(2,3,4) d(2,3,5) d(2,3,6) d(2,3,7) d(2,3,8) d(2,3,9) d(2,3,10) d(2,3,11)
Rc
Hc d(2,4,1) d(2,4,2) d(2,4,3) d(2,4,4) d(2,4,5) d(2,4,6) d(2,4,7) d(2,4,8) d(2,4,9) d(2,4,10) d(2,4,11)
(5)
Ba d(2,5,1) d(2,5,2) d(2,5,3) d(2,5,4) d(2,5,5) d(2,5,6) d(2,5,7) d(2,5,8) d(2,5,9) d(2,5,10) d(2,5,11)
Re d(2,6,1) d(2,6,2) d(2,6,3) d(2,6,4) d(2,6,5) d(2,6,6) d(2,6,7) d(2,6,8) d(2,6,9) d(2,6,10) d(2,6,11)
Bk d(2,7,1) d(2,7,2) d(2,7,3) d(2,7,4) d(2,7,5) d(2,7,6) d(2,7,7) d(2,7,8) d(2,7,9) d(2,7,10) d(2,7,11)
Ex d(3,1,1) d(3,1,2) d(3,1,3) d(3,1,4) d(3,1,5) d(3,1,6) d(3,1,7) d(3,1,8) d(3,1,9) d(3,1,10) d(3,1,11)
Ca d(3,2,1) d(3,2,2) d(3,2,3) d(3,2,4) d(3,2,5) d(3,2,6) d(3,2,7) d(3,2,8) d(3,2,9) d(3,2,10) d(3,2,11)
Ga d(3,3,1) d(3,3,2) d(3,3,3) d(3,3,4) d(3,3,5) d(3,3,6) d(3,3,7) d(3,3,8) d(3,3,9) d(3,3,10) d(3,3,11)
Rc
Hc d(3,4,1) d(3,4,2) d(3,4,3) d(3,4,4) d(3,4,5) d(3,4,6) d(3,4,7) d(3,4,8) d(3,4,9) d(3,4,10) d(3,4,11)
(10)
Ba d(3,5,1) d(3,5,2) d(3,5,3) d(3,5,4) d(3,5,5) d(3,5,6) d(3,5,7) d(3,5,8) d(3,5,9) d(3,5,10) d(3,5,11)
Re d(3,6,1) d(3,6,2) d(3,6,3) d(3,6,4) d(3,6,5) d(3,6,6) d(3,6,7) d(3,6,8) d(3,6,9) d(3,6,10) d(3,6,11)
Bk d(3,7,1) d(3,7,2) d(3,7,3) d(3,7,4) d(3,7,5) d(3,7,6) d(3,7,7) d(3,7,8) d(3,7,9) d(3,7,10) d(3,7,11)
Ex d(4,1,1) d(4,1,2) d(4,1,3) d(4,1,4) d(4,1,5) d(4,1,6) d(4,1,7) d(4,1,8) d(4,1,9) d(4,1,10) d(4,1,11)
Ca d(4,2,1) d(4,2,2) d(4,2,3) d(4,2,4) d(4,2,5) d(4,2,6) d(4,2,7) d(4,2,8) d(4,2,9) d(4,2,10) d(4,2,11)
Ga d(4,3,1) d(4,3,2) d(4,3,3) d(4,3,4) d(4,3,5) d(4,3,6) d(4,3,7) d(4,3,8) d(4,3,9) d(4,3,10) d(4,3,11)
Ma
Hc d(4,4,1) d(4,4,2) d(4,4,3) d(4,4,4) d(4,4,5) d(4,4,6) d(4,4,7) d(4,4,8) d(4,4,9) d(4,4,10) d(4,4,11)
(5)
Ba d(4,5,1) d(4,5,2) d(4,5,3) d(4,5,4) d(4,5,5) d(4,5,6) d(4,5,7) d(4,5,8) d(4,5,9) d(4,5,10) d(4,5,11)
Re d(4,6,1) d(4,6,2) d(4,6,3) d(4,6,4) d(4,6,5) d(4,6,6) d(4,6,7) d(4,6,8) d(4,6,9) d(4,6,10) d(4,6,11)
Bk d(4,7,1) d(4,7,2) d(4,7,3) d(4,7,4) d(4,7,5) d(4,7,6) d(4,7,7) d(4,7,8) d(4,7,9) d(4,7,10) d(4,7,11)
Ex d(5,1,1) d(5,1,2) d(5,1,3) d(5,1,4) d(5,1,5) d(5,1,6) d(5,1,7) d(5,1,8) d(5,1,9) d(5,1,10) d(5,1,11)
Ca d(5,2,1) d(5,2,2) d(5,2,3) d(5,2,4) d(5,2,5) d(5,2,6) d(5,2,7) d(5,2,8) d(5,2,9) d(5,2,10) d(5,2,11)
Ga d(5,3,1) d(5,3,2) d(5,3,3) d(5,3,4) d(5,3,5) d(5,3,6) d(5,3,7) d(5,3,8) d(5,3,9) d(5,3,10) d(5,3,11)
Fi
Hc d(5,4,1) d(5,4,2) d(5,4,3) d(5,4,4) d(5,4,5) d(5,4,6) d(5,4,7) d(5,4,8) d(5,4,9) d(5,4,10) d(5,4,11)
(2)
Ba d(5,5,1) d(5,5,2) d(5,5,3) d(5,5,4) d(5,5,5) d(5,5,6) d(5,5,7) d(5,5,8) d(5,5,9) d(5,5,10) d(5,5,11)
Re d(5,6,1) d(5,6,2) d(5,6,3) d(5,6,4) d(5,6,5) d(5,6,6) d(5,6,7) d(5,6,8) d(5,6,9) d(5,6,10) d(5,6,11)
Bk d(5,7,1) d(5,7,2) d(5,7,3) d(5,7,4) d(5,7,5) d(5,7,6) d(5,7,7) d(5,7,8) d(5,7,9) d(5,7,10) d(5,7,11)
Ex d(6,1,1) d(6,1,2) d(6,1,3) d(6,1,4) d(6,1,5) d(6,1,6) d(6,1,7) d(6,1,8) d(6,1,9) d(6,1,10) d(6,1,11)
Ca d(6,2,1) d(6,2,2) d(6,2,3) d(6,2,4) d(6,2,5) d(6,2,6) d(6,2,7) d(6,2,8) d(6,2,9) d(6,2,10) d(6,2,11)
Ga d(6,3,1) d(6,3,2) d(6,3,3) d(6,3,4) d(6,3,5) d(6,3,6) d(6,3,7) d(6,3,8) d(6,3,9) d(6,3,10) d(6,3,11)
In
Hc d(6,4,1) d(6,4,2) d(6,4,3) d(6,4,4) d(6,4,5) d(6,4,6) d(6,4,7) d(6,4,8) d(6,4,9) d(6,4,10) d(6,4,11)
(3)
Ba d(6,5,1) d(6,5,2) d(6,5,3) d(6,5,4) d(6,5,5) d(6,5,6) d(6,5,7) d(6,5,8) d(6,5,9) d(6,5,10) d(6,5,11)
Re d(6,6,1) d(6,6,2) d(6,6,3) d(6,6,4) d(6,6,5) d(6,6,6) d(6,6,7) d(6,6,8) d(6,6,9) d(6,6,10) d(6,6,11)
Bk d(6,7,1) d(6,7,2) d(6,7,3) d(6,7,4) d(6,7,5) d(6,7,6) d(6,7,7) d(6,7,8) d(6,7,9) d(6,7,10) d(6,7,11)
Ex d(7,1,1) d(7,1,2) d(7,1,3) d(7,1,4) d(7,1,5) d(7,1,6) d(7,1,7) d(7,1,8) d(7,1,9) d(7,1,10) d(7,1,11)
Ca d(7,2,1) d(7,2,2) d(7,2,3) d(7,2,4) d(7,2,5) d(7,2,6) d(7,2,7) d(7,2,8) d(7,2,9) d(7,2,10) d(7,2,11)
Ga d(7,3,1) d(7,3,2) d(7,3,3) d(7,3,4) d(7,3,5) d(7,3,6) d(7,3,7) d(7,3,8) d(7,3,9) d(7,3,10) d(7,3,11)
Wa
Hc d(7,4,1) d(7,4,2) d(7,4,3) d(7,4,4) d(7,4,5) d(7,4,6) d(7,4,7) d(7,4,8) d(7,4,9) d(7,4,10) d(7,4,11)
(5)
Ba d(7,5,1) d(7,5,2) d(7,5,3) d(7,5,4) d(7,5,5) d(7,5,6) d(7,5,7) d(7,5,8) d(7,5,9) d(7,5,10) d(7,5,11)
Re d(7,6,1) d(7,6,2) d(7,6,3) d(7,6,4) d(7,6,5) d(7,6,6) d(7,6,7) d(7,6,8) d(7,6,9) d(7,6,10) d(7,6,11)
Bk d(7,7,1) d(7,7,2) d(7,7,3) d(7,7,4) d(7,7,5) d(7,7,6) d(7,7,7) d(7,7,8) d(7,7,9) d(7,7,10) d(7,7,11)
Ex d(8,1,1) d(8,1,2) d(8,1,3) d(8,1,4) d(8,1,5) d(8,1,6) d(8,1,7) d(8,1,8) d(8,1,9) d(8,1,10) d(8,1,11)
Ca d(8,2,1) d(8,2,2) d(8,2,3) d(8,2,4) d(8,2,5) d(8,2,6) d(8,2,7) d(8,2,8) d(8,2,9) d(8,2,10) d(8,2,11)
Ga d(8,3,1) d(8,3,2) d(8,3,3) d(8,3,4) d(8,3,5) d(8,3,6) d(8,3,7) d(8,3,8) d(8,3,9) d(8,3,10) d(8,3,11)
Me
Hc d(8,4,1) d(8,4,2) d(8,4,3) d(8,4,4) d(8,4,5) d(8,4,6) d(8,4,7) d(8,4,8) d(8,4,9) d(8,4,10) d(8,4,11)
(3)
Ba d(8,5,1) d(8,5,2) d(8,5,3) d(8,5,4) d(8,5,5) d(8,5,6) d(8,5,7) d(8,5,8) d(8,5,9) d(8,5,10) d(8,5,11)
Re d(8,6,1) d(8,6,2) d(8,6,3) d(8,6,4) d(8,6,5) d(8,6,6) d(8,6,7) d(8,6,8) d(8,6,9) d(8,6,10) d(8,6,11)
Bk d(8,7,1) d(8,7,2) d(8,7,3) d(8,7,4) d(8,7,5) d(8,7,6) d(8,7,7) d(8,7,8) d(8,7,9) d(8,7,10) d(8,7,11)
Ex d(9,1,1) d(9,1,2) d(9,1,3) d(9,1,4) d(9,1,5) d(9,1,6) d(9,1,7) d(9,1,8) d(9,1,9) d(9,1,10) d(9,1,11)
Ca d(9,2,1) d(9,2,2) d(9,2,3) d(9,2,4) d(9,2,5) d(9,2,6) d(9,2,7) d(9,2,8) d(9,2,9) d(9,2,10) d(9,2,11)
Ga d(9,3,1) d(9,3,2) d(9,3,3) d(9,3,4) d(9,3,5) d(9,3,6) d(9,3,7) d(9,3,8) d(9,3,9) d(9,3,10) d(9,3,11)
Dw
Hc d(9,4,1) d(9,4,2) d(9,4,3) d(9,4,4) d(9,4,5) d(9,4,6) d(9,4,7) d(9,4,8) d(9,4,9) d(9,4,10) d(9,4,11)
(3)
Ba d(9,5,1) d(9,5,2) d(9,5,3) d(9,5,4) d(9,5,5) d(9,5,6) d(9,5,7) d(9,5,8) d(9,5,9) d(9,5,10) d(9,5,11)
Re d(9,6,1) d(9,6,2) d(9,6,3) d(9,6,4) d(9,6,5) d(9,6,6) d(9,6,7) d(9,6,8) d(9,6,9) d(9,6,10) d(9,6,11)
Bk d(9,7,1) d(9,7,2) d(9,7,3) d(9,7,4) d(9,7,5) d(9,7,6) d(9,7,7) d(9,7,8) d(9,7,9) d(9,7,10) d(9,7,11)
Ex d(10,1,1) d(10,1,2) d(10,1,3) d(10,1,4) d(10,1,5) d(10,1,6) d(10,1,7) d(10,1,8) d(10,1,9) d(10,1,10) d(10,1,11)
Ca d(10,2,1) d(10,2,2) d(10,2,3) d(10,2,4) d(10,2,5) d(10,2,6) d(10,2,7) d(10,2,8) d(10,2,9) d(10,2,10) d(10,2,11)
Ga d(10,3,1) d(10,3,2) d(10,3,3) d(10,3,4) d(10,3,5) d(10,3,6) d(10,3,7) d(10,3,8) d(10,3,9) d(10,3,10) d(10,3,11)
Fu
Hc d(10,4,1) d(10,4,2) d(10,4,3) d(10,4,4) d(10,4,5) d(10,4,6) d(10,4,7) d(10,4,8) d(10,4,9) d(10,4,10) d(10,4,11)
(2)
Ba d(10,5,1) d(10,5,2) d(10,5,3) d(10,5,4) d(10,5,5) d(10,5,6) d(10,5,7) d(10,5,8) d(10,5,9) d(10,5,10) d(10,5,11)
Re d(10,6,1) d(10,6,2) d(10,6,3) d(10,6,4) d(10,6,5) d(10,6,6) d(10,6,7) d(10,6,8) d(10,6,9) d(10,6,10) d(10,6,11)
Bk d(10,7,1) d(10,7,2) d(10,7,3) d(10,7,4) d(10,7,5) d(10,7,6) d(10,7,7) d(10,7,8) d(10,7,9) d(10,7,10) d(10,7,11)

460
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

Table 2. Cont.

Work Types a Defects c

(Liability Period) Locations b
Af Br Co Cr De Ii Mt Sa Em Ew Wl
Ex d(11,1,1) d(11,1,2) d(11,1,3) d(11,1,4) d(11,1,5) d(11,1,6) d(11,1,7) d(11,1,8) d(11,1,9) d(11,1,10) d(11,1,11)
Ca d(11,2,1) d(11,2,2) d(11,2,3) d(11,2,4) d(11,2,5) d(11,2,6) d(11,2,7) d(11,2,8) d(11,2,9) d(11,2,10) d(11,2,11)
Ga d(11,3,1) d(11,3,2) d(11,3,3) d(11,3,4) d(11,3,5) d(11,3,6) d(11,3,7) d(11,3,8) d(11,3,9) d(11,3,10) d(11,3,11)
Mi
Hc d(11,4,1) d(11,4,2) d(11,4,3) d(11,4,4) d(11,4,5) d(11,4,6) d(11,4,7) d(11,4,8) d(11,4,9) d(11,4,10) d(11,4,11)
(3)
Ba d(11,5,1) d(11,5,2) d(11,5,3) d(11,5,4) d(11,5,5) d(11,5,6) d(11,5,7) d(11,5,8) d(11,5,9) d(11,5,10) d(11,5,11)
Re d(11,6,1) d(11,6,2) d(11,6,3) d(11,6,4) d(11,6,5) d(11,6,6) d(11,6,7) d(11,6,8) d(11,6,9) d(11,6,10) d(11,6,11)
Bk d(11,7,1) d(11,7,2) d(11,7,3) d(11,7,4) d(11,7,5) d(11,7,6) d(11,7,7) d(11,7,8) d(11,7,9) d(11,7,10) d(11,7,11)
a Rc = reinforced concrete; Ma = masonry; Fi = finish; In = insulation; Wa = waterproof; Me = MEP; Dw = door and

windows; Fu = furniture; Mi = miscellaneous. b Ex = exterior; Ca = common area; Ga = garage; Hc = hall/corridor;

Ba = balcony; Re = room/entrance; Bk = bathroom/kitchen. c Af = affected functionality; Br = broken; Co = corrosion;
Cr = crack; De = detachment; Ii = incorrect installation; Mt = missing task; Sa = surface appearance; Em = excess
moisture; Ew = entrapped water; Wl = water leak.

4. Analysis

4.1. Data Collection and Setting the 3D Defect Classification

This study has analyzed 16,108 defects from 133 residential buildings where defect disputes
occurred in South Korea between 2008 and 2018. As shown by the frequency of each defect type
in Table 3, cracks (28.50%) were the most frequent defect type, followed by missing tasks (14.23%),
detachments (10.91%), affected functionalities (9.87%), and surface appearance (9.86%). Severity data
was analyzed by correcting the defect costs by the gross floor area (GFA). Water leaks (30.30%) had the
highest defect cost. Incorrect installation (27.18%), surface appearance (13.86%), missing tasks (11.19%),
and cracks (6.16%) required relatively high defect costs.

Table 3. Defect frequency and the cost for each defect type.

Defect Frequency Defect Frequency Rate Defect Cost/G.F.A Defect Cost/G.F.A Rate
Category
(Number) (%) ($/m2 ) (%)
Affected
11.44 9.87 0.46 0.78
functionality
Broken 4.46 3.85 0.54 0.91
Corrosion 3.34 2.88 1.33 2.25
Crack 33.02 28.50 3.64 6.16
Detachment 12.64 10.91 2.92 4.94
Incorrect
9.16 7.91 16.07 27.18
installation
Missing task 16.49 14.23 6.61 11.19
Surface appearance 11.42 9.86 8.20 13.86
Excess moisture 1.89 1.63 0.71 1.20
Entrapped water 3.22 2.78 0.72 1.22
Water leak 8.77 7.57 17.91 30.30
Total 115.85 100.00 59.11 100.00
Note: unit is number of projects.

4.2. Estimating Loss Distributions by the Cell

Each country has a warranty system to protect consumers from damage due to defects after
completion of the construction and occupancy. The warranty system of South Korea requires the
contractor to deposit 3% of the total construction cost for repairing defects to the public agency after
completion. When defects occur, the occupants use the deposit for any necessary repairs for the DLP
for each facility that was constricted. The contractor is responsible for the repair of the defect even
if the repair cost exceeds the deposit. On the other hand, if the repair cost is less than the deposit,
afterwards, the balance is returned to the contractor. In view of this, the profile of the defect risk for
each DLP was analyzed and the step-by-step management measures are derived.
In this study, the frequency and severity distribution of each cell in the above risk matrix was set
based on the classified data. The Poisson distribution was set as the frequency distribution because

461
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

it is most widely used in discrete distribution. Furthermore, among the continuous distributions,
including log-normal distribution, Weibull distribution, gamma distribution, and Pareto distribution,
the distribution that has the best fit was set for the severity distribution of each cell. Then, the defect
loss distribution of each cell was derived by performing a Monte Carlo simulation based on these
frequency and severity distributions while considering the DLP of each cell.
First, a general analysis on the defect loss distribution was performed. Figure 2 illustrates the
scatter chart for each cell based on the results of the frequency and severity distributions. Scatter
chart analysis can be used to suggest defects risk profile analysis and application method. The finish
work has a very high defect frequency by the missing task of public locations and was a typical case
of HFLS (high-frequency, low-severity). The defects of finish work of buildings in public locations
showed a high likelihood due to differences between the design drawings and the actual work or
poor construction.

Figure 2. Frequency and severity scatter chart of the defects.

The RC work had a very high defect frequency due to cracks in public locations, which was found
to be a typical case of HFLS (high-frequency, low-severity). Cracks in structures in public locations,
such as the exterior, garage, and common areas, are natural phenomenon caused by aging. However,
cracks can be regarded as serious defects. If cracks are not repaired, external factors accelerate the
deterioration and aging of the defective parts and lead to continuous defects.
By contrast, the MEP work showed a very high defect frequency in private locations and was
found to be a typical case of HFLS. Furthermore, the MEP work showed a high loss of malfunction
defects. This defect is caused by a combination of construction factors such as missing equipment or
modified construction, and mechanical factors such as poor product operation.
The waterproof work showed a very high defect cost in public locations, which was a typical case
of LFHS (low-frequency high-severity). In particular, poor waterproof finishing in places exposed to
the outside, such as underground parking lots and rooftops, can cause serious damage to the structure;
thus, responsible quality control is required on the part of the contractor.
Next, a detailed analysis was performed of the defect loss distribution by the DLP. Table 4
lists the cells with 10 of the highest average values of the defect loss distribution for defects
occurring within two years of the DLP. Figure 3 shows a scatter chart for the average values of
the frequency/severity distributions for each cell that occurred within two years of the DLP. For the
finish work, the losses of missing tasks, incorrect installations, and detachments occurred at all locations

462
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

including shared/exclusive spaces. These defects are considered to have occurred due to the neglect
of supervision at the site as well as work by inexperienced workers. Furthermore, the frequency of
occurrence seems to be high because it is easier to recognize defects. Table 5 outlines the characteristics
of the defect risks by defect type, location, and work type for defects occurring within two years of
the DLP. This presents management measures by phase including the design, construction, handover,
post-handover, and occupancy phase. Defects for finish work, which occur in private spaces, had
higher defect losses due to problems associated with the contractor’s management rather than misuse
by the occupants. Furthermore, the finish process should be completed before the handover phase
because the defects can be easily seen by the occupants or contractor.

Table 4. Ranking the defects loss occurring within two years of the defect liability period (DLP).

Ranking Work Types Location Defects Average

1 Finish Bathroom/Kitchen Incorrect installation 0.370
2 Finish Hall/Corridor Missing task 0.309
3 Finish Bathroom/Kitchen Missing task 0.279
4 Finish Room/Entrance Incorrect installation 0.208
5 Finish Room/Entrance Detachment 0.183
6 Finish Room/Entrance Broken 0.181
7 Finish Bathroom/Kitchen Detachment 0.174
8 Finish Hall/Corridor Incorrect installation 0.134
9 Finish Common area Missing task 0.131
10 Finish Garage Missing task 0.125
Note: average means the mean value of loss distribution statistics.

Figure 3. Frequency and severity scatter chart of a defect occurring within two years of the DLP.

Table 5. Defect risk management strategies occurring within two years of the DLP.

Defect Characteristics
Risk Zone Defect Risk Management Strategies
Cell No Phase
HFLS d(5,2,7)
Construction of components is required after disassembly, because incorrect
d(5,7,6)
installations and missing tasks appear as major defects.
d(5,4,7)
Construction Thorough management during construction is required because of a serious defect that
d(5,7,7)
LFLS prevents the building from performing its function and role at all, or demolishing is
d(5,6,6)
required simultaneously with construction depending on the field situation.
d(5,4,6)
d(5,3,7)
d(5,6,5) Defects such as detachment and breakage need to be reviewed through visual
LFLS d(5,6,2) Handover inspection, along with careful management of the construction status by reviewing the
d(5,7,5) design documents and design change documents during the inspection of use.

463
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

Table 6 lists the cells with 12 of the highest average values of the defect loss distribution for defects
occurring after 2 years and before 3 years of the DLP. Figure 4 shows the scatter chart for the average
frequency/severity distributions for each cell for defects that occurred after 2 years and before 3 years
of the DLP. This analysis confirmed that the RC work was associated with relatively high losses due to
cracks, surface appearance, and detachment defects in the exterior. It is a consequence of the exterior
walls that are exposed to outside conditions and have a higher probability of occurrence of defects due
to external factors such as typhoons, daily/seasonal temperature and humidity variations, sun exposure,
etc. MEP work has a high loss of missing tasks and affected functionality defects. These defects occur
during a series of construction of various components within the building because some elements
are not constructed or due to poor connection between components. Furthermore, they can also be
caused by the malfunction or unconformities of the product itself. In practice, MEP operations often
occur in the early stages because they are easily recognizable by the user. However, the reason why it
is significantly higher within three years compared to other periods is that the proportion of other
defects falls significantly within the three years.

Table 6. Ranking of the defect loss occurring within three years of the DLP.

Ranking Work Types Location Defects Average

1 RC Exterior Crack 0.923
2 RC Exterior Surface appearance 0.428
3 RC Exterior Detachment 0.138
4 MEP Common area Missing task 0.134
5 RC Exterior Water leak 0.111
6 MEP Balcony Missing task 0.081
7 MEP Bathroom/Kitchen Missing task 0.076
8 Insulation Bathroom/Kitchen Incorrect installation 0.066
9 Insulation Room/Entrance Excess moisture 0.062
10 Door and Windows Room/Entrance Affected functionality 0.060
11 MEP Bathroom/Kitchen Affected functionality 0.057
12 MEP Entrance Affected functionality 0.056
Note: average means the mean value of loss distribution statistics.

Figure 4. Frequency and severity scatter chart of a defect occurring within three years of the DLP.

These affected functionality defects also caused a high loss in doors and windows. Along with
the MEP work, this is likely caused by defective or damaged furniture or windows installed in
exclusive spaces. Focusing on the highest loss in doors and windows is not the defects that the user is
responsible for.

464
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

Defects caused by poor quality insulation are also high. In the event of defects in the insulation
work, the area was first removed and the area was constructed again.
If a crack or damage occurs in a structure at a public location such as an outer wall, a series of defects
such as poor surface appearance or water leakage defects may occur. As a result, an immediate response
is necessary to reduce the defect loss. Moreover, high defect losses caused by incorrect installations
and missing tasks can be minimized through management and supervision in the construction phase.
The affected functionality defect of MEP construction and the excess moisture defect of insulation
work are caused by complex factors in all life cycles of construction. To prevent these in advance,
the potential defects need to be examined from the design phase (Table 7).

Table 7. Defect risk management strategies occurring within three years of the DLP.
Defect Characteristics
Risk Zone Defect Risk Management Strategies
Cell No Phase
HFLS d(1,1,4)
Post-Handover Secondary defects can occur from cracks and damage in the main structure. An early response
d(1,1,8)
and Occupancy at the beginning of a defect is effective to reduce serial losses.
LFHS d(1,1,5)
d(1,1,11)
d(8,2,7)
d(8,5,7) Thorough management and supervision in the construction phase is required to reduce the
LFLS Construction
d(8,7,7) losses of incorrect installations and missing tasks.
d(6,7,6)

d(6,6,9) Management measures are required, such as constructability review in the design phase of
Design, MEP work and close collaboration between work types in the construction phase.
LFLS d(9,6,1) Construction, and
d(8,7,1) Water leakage due to poor insulation work has a significant effect on the satisfaction of
Handover occupants, causing severe inconvenience. Hence, continuous management measures such as
d(8,6,1)
thorough design, appropriate method, and proper material selection are required.

Table 8 lists the cells with high average values for the defect loss distribution for defects that
occurred after 3 years and before 5 years of the DLP. Figure 5 shows a scatter chart of the average
values of the frequency/severity distributions for each cell for the defects that occurred after 3 years
and before 5 years of the DLP. In particular, the RC work had relatively high losses of crack and water
leak defects in the common area and garage. This is different from the pattern of 3 years of the DLP
with a high loss of crack defects in the RC work due to internal and external factors. The structure of
the apartments consists of concrete, which inevitably causes cracks because concrete is a construction
material composite, made of different elements. In particular, cracks in underground parking lots
cause water leaks, which can significantly affect the durability of the building. Therefore, a strategy is
required to prevent defects that may occur in the future through early detection of potential defect
sites through frame inspections during the finish work (Table 9).

Table 8. Ranking of the defects loss occurring within five years of the DLP.

Ranking Work Types Location Defects Average

1 RC Garage Crack 0.706
2 Water proof Garage Incorrect installation 0.319
3 Water proof Garage Missing task 0.307
4 RC Exterior Crack 0.167
5 Water proof Balcony Water leak 0.136
6 RC Garage Water leak 0.135
7 RC Balcony Crack 0.120
8 RC Garage Surface appearance 0.103
9 RC Garage Incorrect installation 0.101
10 Water proof Exterior Water leak 0.086
11 RC Common area Crack 0.073
Note: average means the mean value of loss distribution statistics.

Waterproof work featured high losses of incorrect installations and missing task defects in the
garage. This appears to be linked to the crack and water leak defects in the RC work. The incorrect
installations and missing tasks of waterproof work causes water tightness and surface defects. In reverse
order, when cracks are generated, the vicious circle of water leaks, corrosion of the reinforcement

465
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

materials, and crack enlargement are repeated. Thus, thorough management is required to reduce
incorrect installation of waterproof work with LFHS characteristics. This is because such defects are
caused by poor construction. Water leak defects in waterproof work with LFLS characteristics too are
caused by poor construction. However, it is also caused by other defects such as cracks. It is related to
places affected by external factors such as exterior or balcony. Therefore, an immediate response to the
defect in the early stage is required to reduce the defect losses (Table 9).

Figure 5. Frequency and severity scatter chart of a defect occurring within five years of the DLP.

Table 9. Defect risk management strategies occurring within five years of the DLP.

Defect Characteristics Defect Risk Management

Risk Zone
Cell No Phase Strategies
d(2,3,4) Cracks/damage occurs in structures such as underground parking lots.
HFLS
d(2,2,4) RC work of the underground parking lot can be visually inspected. Thus, a
Handover, strategy to discover potential defects early through thorough defect inspection in
d(2,1,4)
Post-Handover and the handover phase is required.
d(2,3,11)
Occupancy Crack defect can lead to a series of other defects such as surface defects and
LFLS d(2,5,4)
water leakage. Therefore, an immediate response in the early stage of a defect
d(2,3,8)
is required.
d(2,3,6)

Crack/water leakage occurs in parts that have contact with the

d(7,5,11) Post-Handover outside environment.
LFLS
and Occupancy This can lead to other defects such as crack enlargement and reinforcement
d(7,1,11)
corrosion. Thus, an early response to the defect is critical to reduce the
defect losses.
d(7,3,6) Reconstruction is required because incorrect installation and missing tasks
LFHS Construction
appear as the main defects.
d(7,3,7)

Table 10 lists the cells with high average values of the defect loss distribution for defects that
occurred after 5 years and before 10 years of the DLP. Figure 6 illustrates a scatter chart of the average
values of the frequency/severity distributions for each cell for defects that occurred after 5 years and
before 10 years of the DLP. The analysis results show that in the case of the RC work, various defects
including crack, surface appearance, water leakage, detachment, and corrosion occurred in various
exterior and interior parts such as halls/corridors and the garage. In particular, the crack defect losses
were high for the outer wall. This is because the RC work, which is the largest type of construction
work, has additional accessory processes and repair work in high places. These crack defects caused
high losses in the halls/corridors, the garage, common areas, as well as the outer walls. Since this is
a defect due to the negligence of the business entity, the business entity should perform the repair.
Crack defects must be repaired because they are serious issues in the durability and functionality of
the structure. Cracks on concrete generally define the length of width required for repair cracks as 0.3

466
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

to 0.4 mm, depending on structure, component, defects, etc. Even if the width of the crack is less than
0.3 mm, problems can occur from the perspective of the structure’s function, safety, and durability as
rebars are corroded and cracks spread due to penetration of rainwater.

Table 10. Ranking of the defects loss occurring within ten years of the DLP.

Ranking Work Types Location Defects Average

1 RC Exterior Crack 2.029
Surface
2 RC Exterior 0.262
appearance
3 RC Hall/corridor Crack 0.137
4 RC Exterior Water leak 0.123
5 RC Garage Crack 0.078
6 RC Garage Water leak 0.066
7 RC Common area Crack 0.060
8 RC Exterior Detachment 0.045
9 RC Hall/corridor Water leak 0.039
10 RC Exterior Corrosion 0.032

Figure 6. Frequency and severity scatter chart of a defect occurring within ten years of the DLP.

Due to the presence of a crack defect, various defects generated in RC work are due to errors
made by the contractor such as inaccurate arrangements of reinforcements, poor curing after casting,
and cold joints. Therefore, if the cause of the defects is clearly by the contractor, the contractor must
perform the repair work even if the warranty period of the item has expired (Table 11).

Table 11. Defect risk management strategies occurring within ten years of the DLP.

Defect Characteristics Defect Risk Management

Risk Zone
Cell No Phase Strategies
d(3,1,4)
HFLS
d(3,2,4)
d(3,1,8) Crack/damage occurs in the structure.
d(3,1,5) Losses must be minimized through thorough management in the construction phase
d(3,1,11) rather than response/repair after completion.
Construction
d(3,1,3) Even if the defect liability period has expired, the business entity must take
LFLS
d(3,3,4) responsibility for defects that occurred a long time before the end of the durable period of
d(3,3,11) the component (Only if the contractor has the cause of the defect).
d(3,4,4)
d(3,4,11)

467
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The risk management of defect repairs for existing apartments is focused primarily on individual
management methods such as the improvement of construction methods. As a result, it is difficult to
identify the cause of defects resulting from complex mechanisms; hence, there is a limit in deriving the
fundamental reduction measures. This study identified the problems of individual risk assessment
methods and proposed a risk quantification technique that introduced the LDA (loss distribution
approach). The main objective of this study is to construct a classification system based on the defect type,
work type, and defect location, by applying the proposed evaluation method. Afterwards, the defect
risk profile was systematically analyzed according to the defect liability period by simultaneously
considering the frequency and cost. Using methods that have already been proven in the financial
field is useful for analysis from a variety of perspectives.
The results of the analysis for the defect risk profile by the DLP in this study are described below.
First, in the case of two years of DLP, the severity of the incorrect installation defect and the frequencies
of the missing task and detachment were relatively high in the finish work. The analysis results
revealed that the loss of defect types that require reconstruction, such as incorrect installations and
missing tasks, is high overall in the all shared/exclusive areas. These defects are characterized by easy
visual verification.
Second, in the case of 3 years of DLP, the loss of crack defects on the outer wall of RC was relatively
high. It was found that cracks and damage defects occurred in the concrete due to the influence of
external factors on the parts exposed to the outside. Furthermore, the MEP work had relatively high
losses of missing tasks, which affected the functionality defects. The insulation work showed relatively
high losses due to the incorrect installations and the excess moisture defects. The corresponding
function was affected because the process of the corresponding defect did not work well with other
various processes.
Third, in the case of 5 years of DLP, the defect losses of the RC work and waterproof work were
relatively high. The RC work had a high defect frequency in the waterproof work. In particular,
defects such as cracks in the structure of the underground parking lot along with poor waterproofing
work, required reconstruction. These defects have a relatively high risk according to the influence of
the groundwater.
Fourth, in the case of 10 years of DLP, high losses were caused by various types of defects such
as cracks, surface appearance, water leakage, detachments, and corrosion of the RC work in all of
the general public areas. The cracks of the RC work generated in the previous period have relatively
high defect risks because they are accompanied by secondary defects such as surface appearance and
water leakage.
This study proposes a defect risk management strategy reflecting the characteristics of defect
risks analyzed above. In other words, based on the risk profile for each period, the major defects to be
considered in the design, construction, handover, post-handover, and occupancy phases, and defect
risk management strategies for each defect were derived.
The defect risk matrix proposed in this study has four dimensions: defect type, location, work
type, and service life period. However, the defect risk matrix can be analyzed in more detail by adding
the dimensions of the components. Another option is performing a multi-faceted analysis through item
linkage and integration. If the defect risk matrix is further subdivided and sufficient data is available
to produce meaningful results, it is possible to derive effective ways to manage the risk of the defect.
If the practical applications of the LDA in this study are expanded, this will effectively contribute
to minimizing unnecessary losses caused by defects by quantifying the defect risks by the period.
In other words, the average value of the probabilistically derived total distribution of losses can be
calculated based on the amount of losses due to the defects. Then, the level of the defect cost can be
identified using percentiles from the perspective of each party to the defect dispute, which includes
construction companies and consumers. Consequently, it is expected to be useful for coordinating

468
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

in the dispute reconciliation process. This loss distribution can be derived for each cell to enable
multifaceted analysis, thus assisting in flexible decision making.
The LDA-based defect risk analysis method proposed in this study is a post evaluation method.
However, to minimize the defect risks, it also needs measures to minimize the defects identified in
this study in advance. In reality, defects occur due to various causes before the construction process.
For example, a more detailed analysis is required to identify the obvious causes of cracks in concrete
structures that are inevitably created. In this context, it necessary to analyze the mechanism of defects
that has not been identified through defect package pattern analysis for the construction project lifecycle
and to explore quality control measures that can prevent the defects in advance.

Author Contributions: B.K. developed the concept and drafted the manuscript. S.L. revised the manuscript and
supervised the overall work. Y.A. reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by a grant (19CTAP-C152020-01) from Technology Advancement Research
Program (TARP) funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Raslanas, S.; Alchimoviene, J.; Banaitiene, N. Residential areas with apartment houses: Analysis of the
condition of buildings, planning issues, retrofit strategies and scenarios. Int. J. Strat. Property Manag. 2011, 15,
158–172. [CrossRef]
2. Yuen, B.; Yeh, A.; Appold, S.J.; Earl, G.; Ting, J.; Kwee, L.K. High-rise living in Singapore public housing.
Urban Stud. 2006, 43, 583–600. [CrossRef]
3. Sacks, R.; Goldin, M. Lean Management Model for Construction of High-Rise Apartment Buildings.
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 374–384. [CrossRef]
4. Josephson, P.E.; Hammarlund, Y. The causes and costs of defects in construction: A study of seven building
projects. Autom. Construct. 1999, 8, 681–687. [CrossRef]
5. Kim, J.H.; Go, S.S. Evaluation of defective risk for the finishing work of apartment house. Korean J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2012, 13, 63–70. [CrossRef]
6. Kim, Y.S.; Oh, S.W.; Cho, Y.K.; Seo, J.W. A PDA and wireless web-integrated system for quality inspection
and defect management of apartment housing projects. Autom. Construct. 2008, 17, 163–179. [CrossRef]
7. Jang, H.S.; Seo, C.H. A Study on the Improvement of Defect Information Management System of Apartment
House. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2010, 10, 115–123. [CrossRef]
8. Kang, I.; Shu, D.S.; Ann, K.S. A study on the optimum defect management system of apartment house in
Korea. JAIK 1997, 13, 343–353.
9. Craig, N.; Sommerville, J.; Auchterlounie, T. Customer satisfaction and snagging in the UK private house
building sector. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, Leeds, UK, 6–8 September 2010;
Egbu, C., Ed.; Association of Researchers in Construction Management: Leeds, UK, 2010; pp. 1199–1208.
Available online: http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2010-1199-1208_Craig_Sommerville_and_
Auchterlounie.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2019).
10. Cooper, I. Post-occupancy evaluation—Where are you? Build. Res. Inform. 2001, 29, 158–163. [CrossRef]
11. de Silva, N.; Dulaimi, M.F.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Ofori, G. Improving the maintainability of buildings in Singapore.
Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 1243–1251. [CrossRef]
12. Davey, C.L.; McDonald, J.; Lowe, D.; Duff, R.; Powell, J.A.; Powell, J.E. Defects liability management by
design. Build. Res. Inform. 2006, 34, 145–153. [CrossRef]
13. Forcada, N.; Macarulla, M.; Fuertes, A.; Casals, M.; Gangolells, M.; Roca, X. Influence of building type on
post-handover defects in housing. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 2012, 26, 433–440. [CrossRef]
14. Aljassmi, H.; Han, S. Analysis of Causes of Construction Defects Using Fault Trees and Risk Importance
Measures. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 870–880. [CrossRef]
15. Mills, A.; Love, P.E.D.; Williams, P. Defect costs in residential construction. Korean J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2009, 135, 12–16. [CrossRef]
16. Forcada, N.; Macarulla, M.; Love, P.E.D. Assessment of residential defects at post-handover. J. Construct.
Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 372–378. [CrossRef]

469
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7201

17. Forcada, N.; Macarulla, M.; Gangolells, M.; Casals, M.; Fuertes, A.; Roca, X. Post-handover housing defects:
Sources and origins. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 2013, 27, 756–762. [CrossRef]
18. Pan, W.; Thomas, R. Defects and Their Influencing Factors of Post handover New-Build Homes. J. Perform.
Constr. Fac. 2015, 29, 04014119. [CrossRef]
19. Watt, D.S. Building Pathology: Principles and Practice; Blackwell Science: Oxford UK, 1999.
20. Seo, D.S.; Park, J.M. Analysis of Consulting Reports on Defect Disputes in Apartment Building. J. Korea Inst.
Build. Constr. 2013, 13, 498–505. [CrossRef]
21. Ishak, S.N.H.; Chohan, A.H.; Ramly, A. Implications of design deficiency on building maintenance at
post-occupational stage. J. Build. Apprais. 2007, 3, 115–124. [CrossRef]
22. Macarulla, M.; Forcada, N.; Casals, M.; Gangolells, M.; Fuertes, A.; Roca, X. Standardizing Housing Defects:
Classification, Validation, and Benefits. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 968–976. [CrossRef]
23. Georgiou, J. Verification of a building defect classification system for housing. Struct. Surv. 2010, 28, 370–383.
[CrossRef]
24. Rotimi, F.E.; Tookey, J.; Rotimi, J.O. Evaluating Defect Reporting in New Residential Buildings in New
Zealand. Buildings 2015, 5, 39–55. [CrossRef]
25. Atkinson, A.R. The pathology of building defects; a human error approach. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag.
2002, 9, 53–61. [CrossRef]
26. Minato, T. Representing causal mechanism of defective designs: A system apoach considering human errors.
Construct. Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 297–305. [CrossRef]
27. Chong, W.K.; Low, S.P. Latent Building Defects: Causes and Design Strategies to Prevent Them. J. Perform.
Constr. Fac. 2006, 20, 213–221. [CrossRef]
28. Bortolini, R.; Forcada, N. Building Inspection System for Evaluating the Technical Performance of Existing
Buildings. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 2018, 32, 04018073. [CrossRef]
29. Lee, J. Value Engineering for Defect Prevention on Building Façade. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018069.
[CrossRef]
30. Chong, W.K.; Low, S.P. Assessment of defects at construction and occupancy stages. J. Perform. Constr. Fac.
2005, 19, 283–289. [CrossRef]
31. Hughes, W.; Hillebrandt, P.; Murdoch, J. The impact of contract duration on the cost of cash retention.
Construct. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 11–14. [CrossRef]
32. Hopkin, T.; Lu, S.L.; Rogers, P.; Sexton, M. Detecting defects in the UK new-build housing sector: A learning
perspective. Construct. Manag. Econ. 2016, 34, 35–45. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

470
sustainability

Article
A Methodology for a Performance Information Model
to Support Facility Management
Rossella Marmo 1, *, Maurizio Nicolella 1 , Francesco Polverino 1 and Andrej Tibaut 2
1 Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering of the University of Naples Federico II,
80125 Naples, Italy; [email protected] (M.N.); [email protected] (F.P.)
2 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture of the University of Maribor,
2000 Maribor, Slovenia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 10 October 2019; Accepted: 6 December 2019; Published: 8 December 2019

Abstract: Current facility management practice relies on different systems which require new
technologies to integrate and manage information more easily. Building information modeling
offers a good opportunity to improve facility information management by providing a unified
platform for various data sources rather than an intuitive information interface. Although current
research trends reveal that there is a continuously growing interest in facility management aided
by building information modeling, an integrated model is still hard to obtain. This paper aims at
developing a novel methodology based on building information modeling and facility management
systems integration, underpinned by a performance information model. The implementation
process of a performance information model is described, including information technologies
involved, the data and process requirements, and the building performance assessment methods used.
A first pilot case-study has been conducted with regards to surgery rooms in healthcare buildings.
The proposal can support condition-based maintenance work schedule, as well as the achievement
of organizational, environmental, and technical requirements. Among the practical implications
found: Improved technological and environmental performances assessment; better visualization of
building condition; improved decision-making process; facilitated maintenance tasks planning and
maintenance records management.

Keywords: building information modeling (BIM); building performance assessment (BPA); key
performance indicators (KPIs); facility management (FM); operation and maintenance (O&M);
operating room (OR)

1. Introduction
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines facility management (FM) as the
“organizational function which integrates people, place and process within the built environment with
the purpose of improving the quality of life of people and the productivity of the core business” [1].
Facility management has to support a wide range of activities (commonly referred to as non-core
business) which enhance the work environment and well-being of people; enable the organization to
deliver effective and responsive services; make the physical assets highly cost-effective, allowing also
future changes; enhance the organization’s image and culture [2] (pp. 36–37).
Particularly in the healthcare facilities sector, a facility manager has to consider many factors
when making a strategic decision. The identification of a set of specific key performance indicators
(KPIs) [3,4] helps the performance assessment and strategic planning. An integrated healthcare facility
management model has been proposed [5] to hierarchically analyze healthcare FM core parameters,
showing that an analytical quantitative model may significantly contribute to a better understanding
of facility management performance.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007; doi:10.3390/su11247007 471 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

Based on studies conducted by several authors [6–9], it is possible to identify different clusters
of services and competencies within the FM domain. These tasks are carried out through different
strategies (insourcing, total FM, public private partnership, etc.) but mostly through outsourcing [10].
Among the competency areas, the operation and maintenance (O&M) service plays a key role.
It is meant to let the facility and its required systems function efficiently, reliably, safely, securely in a
manner consistent with existing regulations and standards [9].
Building maintenance activities requires a comprehensive information system to capture and
retrieve data related to building equipment [11]. The current FM practice relies on different systems
(i.e., building energy management systems (BEMS), building automation systems (BAS), computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS) [12], computer aided facilities management (CAFM),
document management system (DMS)), which utilize new technologies to integrate and manage
information more easily [13]. Studies on maintenance issues reveal that the most frequent problem is
the information accessibility [14].
Building information modeling (BIM) can be considered as a tool or a method to face information
management challenges throughout a building life cycle. It has been defined as the “use of a shared
digital representation of a built asset to facilitate the design, construction and operation processes
to form a reliable basis for decisions” [15]. BIM is semantically-based and object-oriented; it has
3D modeling capabilities and allows users to retrieve comprehensive information represented by
objects and their attributes [16]. BIM provides a unified platform (Figure 1) for various data sources
needed for daily O&M activities [11,17–19], so that data regarding technical specification, planned
activities, and building performances (simulated or monitored) can be integrated to facilitate the
decision-making process.

Figure 1. Facility management (FM) information systems.

Recent studies regarding BIM application in O&M activities indicates that energy management
has been relatively analyzed by researchers, followed by emergency management and maintenance
and repair [19].
Although current research trends reveal that there is a continuously growing interest in facilities
information management using BIM [19–21], a seamless information process between BIM and FM
systems does not exist yet [18]. Data exchange and interoperability remain problematic topics [18,19,22]
while a lack of real-life examples of BIM-FM applications [17,23] and a lack of demonstrated benefits of
BIM in FM [22] are among the key barriers to BIM implementation in FM.
Within the condition-based maintenance, monitoring of physical variables related to symptoms of
failures is needed. The condition-based maintenance aids facility managers in identifying anomalies
early enough to minimize the impact of operational interruptions [24]. Building performance
assessment (BPA) provides for a better knowledge of an asset, so to make correct decisions at the
right time. The performance assessment enriches BIM models with the purpose of evaluating the
residual performances, so that coherent interventions can be selected [25]. For example, when certain
spaces are performing under a certain threshold the integrated model can make suggestions regarding
maintenance planning.

472
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

An improvement that is expected from BIM-FM integration is the systematic generation of

information, such as KPIs [8]. Developing an FM benchmarking framework enables organizations to
identify best practice and strategies improvement [26].
The aim of this paper is to propose a methodology that integrates FM systems, BIM, and BPA, to
support maintenance planning and organizational requirements achievement.
To do so, the following research objectives are defined: (i) Analyzing FM and BPA processes
and requirements; (ii) identifying relevant performance information which can be translated into
KPIs; (iii) developing a framework for BIM-aided FM and BPA based on that information. To better
understand the implications of BIM implementation in FM and performance assessment domain
an overview of current BIM-FM integration is provided, with particular regard to information
communication technologies (ICT) in FM, the impact of BIM in FM systems, and BPA methods.
A systematic literature review related to data and process requirements for BIM-FM integration was
carried out via Scopus database with the following keywords: ‘Building Information Modeling’, ‘BIM’,
‘Information Management’, ‘Facilit * Management’, ‘Operation and Maintenance’, ‘CMMS’, ‘CAFM’,
‘case study’, ‘Building Performance Assessment’ in title/abstract/keywords. A total of 60 publications
were examined in detail.
As evident, we were also interested in publications describing use cases to better understand the
information exchange needs, the challenges to be faced and the expected results of BIM implementation
in our research. For the scope of the paper the case studies analyzed concern BIM application in the
O&M domain. Table 1 summarizes the analysis of the selected publications according to the following
categories: The purpose of the case study; the BIM use purpose; information requirements; information
references; information exchange supports; benefits achieved; challenges encountered. In the table,
the ‘BIM use purpose’ is mapped according to [27] where a BIM use purpose is “the specific objective
to be achieved when applying building information modeling during a facility’s life.”.
According to the Table 1, BIM is mostly appreciated for gathering (i.e., to capture, monitor,
qualify), communicating (i.e., to visualize), and analyzing (i.e., to coordinate, validate, forecast) data
and information. In few cases [28,29] the BIM model is integrated with a benchmarking system to
report current performances, while it commonly contains maintenance activities records [13,30,31],
asset characteristics and specification [13,32–42], and space management information [29,34,36].

473
Table 1. Building information modelling-operation and maintenance (BIM-O&M) integration case studies.

Information
Purpose of the Case Information Information
Case Study, Year, Ref. BIM Use Purpose Exchange Supports Benefits Challenges
Study Requirements References
and Methods
Control of costs
Supporting building Properties of building 2D CAD drawings and
Sydney Opera House To communicate IFC model (integrated
system alterations and elements; Building and Sydney Opera environmental Not discussed
2007, [28] and analyze data model)
asset management Condition Index House specifications data; support to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

decision-making
Cost and time
BIM-based processes
Facility Condition As-built documents savings;
Facilitating better Customized systems must support the
Index; Mission (including 3D models); standardizing
US Coast Guard 2008, decision-making for based on open integration of a variety
To gather Dependency Index; assessment team data; processes and
[29] (pp. 339–357) strategic planning and standards of data and must be
Space Utilization assessors’ data; new capturing
facility assessment (IFC, XML etc.) accessible to a wide
Index BIM objects knowledge
range of users
digitally
Maintenance activities
Integrating facility Spatiotemporal Data capture and
information such as Not discussed except Manual integration of
A campus building 2010, maintenance data To communicate analysis to collection; updating the
replacement, for the work order maintenance data into
[30] with BIM to support and analyze optimize future model and related
installation and status records BIM model
maintenance planning interventions information
change
Improved

474
Schedule of planned Application information
Creating a single
tasks; results of Programming accessibility; Information exchange;
Taiwan’s school 2011, repository of facility To communicate 3D CAD models;
maintenance works; Interface and C# enhancement of updating information in
[31] data for facilities and gather existing FM systems
facilities maintenance programming tasks planning BIM models
maintenance
documents language and quality of
inspection
BIM-based tools
serve as
Geometrical model; information
Developing a
material properties; 2D CAD drawings; repository for life Needs for BIM
customized life cycle To gather, wrl. file, transformed
Norrtälje hospital 2011, environmental administrative cycle integrated life cycle
management system communicate, from a dwg. file by the
[32] properties; condition documents; condition management; solution based on open
to support proactive and analyze use of a third software
assessment data; surveys simplified standards
maintenance
degradation model build-up of
information;
enriched data
Improved data Handling with the
Design and accuracy; variety of information
University of Chicago Supporting To communicate List of asset inventory Spreadsheet (modified
construction models; streamlined data resources; need for FM
2013, [33] (pp. 294–314) maintenance activities and gather information and data version of COBie)
existing FM systems acquisition team information
process expertise
Table 1. Cont.

Information
Purpose of the Information Information
Case Study, Year, Ref. BIM Use Purpose Exchange Supports Benefits Challenges
Case Study Requirements References
and Methods
Various FM systems; Need for FM team BIM
Faster
3D building expertise; limited
Manchester City Operation and maintenance
Investigating the use information and software
Council Town Hall 2014, Not discussed maintenance Not discussed process and
of BIM in FM domain cloud-based interoperability; unclear
[8,23] information shorter service
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

repository for digital BIM FM requirements

disruption
documents etc.
Identify critical
Improved data
Testing how to Space allocation; information;
Survey and reports; updating and
Kerr Hall, Ryerson overcome key To communicate, lighting feasibility create/modify BIM
existing space Spreadsheet assessment of
University 2015, [34] challenges while gather, and analyze calculations; asbestos models; information
management systems potential energy
developing 7D BIM hazard map transfer; documentation
retrofit
uncertainty
Improved space Identifying necessary
Asbestos properties, DWG floor plans,
Northumbria Investigating the To communicate, management and information; need for
location, date of scans of elevations,
University’s campus value of BIM in space gather, analyze, Not discussed geometric FM team information
removal and survey JPEG sections, Excel
2015, [13] management and generate information and BIM expertise;
documentation databases
record interoperability;
Understanding the Building management

475
transition from a List of operation and systems; facilities
University of British Methods and
paper-based to a Not discussed maintenance information systems; Not discussed Not discussed
Columbia 2015, [35] process changes
BIM-based approach information asset management
in handover and FM systems
Improved data
List of building
Investigating the Physical stock and consistency,
characteristics, space
benefits of the To gather, intranet; building Definition of a unique intelligence in the Correlating different
Terrassa Campus 2016, management,
integration of communicate, management system; identifier (ID) for each model and reports kind of data sources;
[36] maintenance and
maintenance and analyze maintenance object and space generation; information exchanges
building monitoring
management and BIM management systems integration of
data
facility systems
Developing more
Comparison among
efficient data As-built 2D drawings;
Laboratory and office To gather and Mechanical and different methods: Data transferring
collection in project documents; Not discussed
building 2018, [37,38] communicate electrical asset data manual; spreadsheet; processes
post-occupancy asset data list
CSV; IFC
facilities management
Data transfer and data
Easier updating of
Creating a central List of maintenance Owner’s guidelines quality control; needs
Public University To gather and CMMS thanks to
facility data repository and equipment and handover COBie and IFC for resources and
building 2018, [39] generate handover BIM
to support FM tasks information products collaboration among
models
teams
Table 1. Cont.

Information
Purpose of the Information Information
Case Study, Year, Ref. BIM Use Purpose Exchange Supports Benefits Challenges
Case Study Requirements References
and Methods
Semi-automatic
evaluation of the
Developing a decision List of information Lack of information
Legislation and level of
Melzo’s school support model to regarding accessibility; suitable to perform a
To gather and analyze technical standards; SQL and Dynamo compliance of
buildings, 2018, [40] define the priorities of energy efficiency; complete assessment in
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

thermal simulations; existing buildings,

refurbishment actions acoustic performance BIM models
with reduced time
and costs
More effective
Merging BIM and management of
List of ordinary and Maintenance reports
Product-Service maintenance Lack of knowledge and
Training center 2019, To gather and extraordinary and interviews with
System to enhance Not discussed activities, skills concerning the use
[41] communicate maintenance activities customers and
maintenance facilitated data of BIM tools
information suppliers
operations record and
tracking
Not perceived Information exchange;
Manual integration of
Investigating the (case A); time few interests in ICT
Hospitals in as-built information in
enabling and Design and savings thanks to investment; lack of
Scandinavia and FM systems (case A);
constraining elements Not discussed Building inventory construction common project knowledge concerning
Denmark 2019, [42] customized

476
of digital FM in information library shared by ICT implementation;
(cases A and B) classification system
Scandinavia. different design needs for digitalization
(case B)
teams (case B) strategy
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

1.1. Facility Management (FM) and Information Communication Technologies (ICT)

FM needs high level of interaction and information sharing, currently supported by ICT. Ranging
from email documents to BIM, including computerized maintenance management system (CMMS),
computer aided facilities management (CAFM), and BAS/BEMS, different tools have supported FM
activities during the past decades [43].
The CMMS includes the creation and the management of asset records, bill of materials, and work
orders; inventory control etc. [44], thus they support maintenance scheduling, facilities monitoring,
and preventive maintenance [45].
The CAFM is a collection of tools used for organizing and managing various activities within
the facilities such as space planning and management [45]. CAFM systems are largely based on the
‘office suite’ tools, including tabulated data, spreadsheet, and 2D drawings [43].
Both CMMS and CAFM have limited visualization capabilities, as traditional utilization of paper
based or digital 2D plans limits the facility manager to identify the exact maintenance location context
and the history of modifications [43].
The BEMS are regularly applied to the control of active systems, i.e., heating, ventilation,
and air-conditioning (HVAC) system, determining their operating times. While sensors send feedback
and alarms to these controlling systems, facility managers can monitor and change any benchmark or
override the information [12].
In order to guarantee the required building operational performance, facility managers must
check technical and environmental conditions. In this sense, building sensors and controllers can
inform maintenance activities.
The complexity of BEMS can be integrated to CAFM, BIM and Maintenance Management System
to control the operating equipment [45].

1.2. Benefits of Building Information Modelling-Facilities Managament (BIM-FM) Integration

BIM model might interact with the systems described above, as a source for data input, providing
material/spatial data, reports or technical analyses, or as an interface for a repository, providing data
capture, monitoring, processing, and transformation [34,46].
The main expected benefits from BIM-FM integration are cost reduction, thanks to ready to use
data provided at the handover phase; performance improvement, it is to say more accessible FM data
allows faster analysis and correction of problems; integration of several information technologies [33]
(pp. 1,2).
BIM promises to provide a reliable database and integrated views across all facility systems [30]
so that facility managers can base their decision on a more comprehensive knowledge of the building
systems. BIM also provides 3D spatial information; therefore, it supports visualization and spatial
analyses of various maintenance activities. Such analyses might not be easily performed with traditional
databases [30].
Owners can use a BIM model to quickly populate an FM database [29] (pp. 108–111). As-built
BIMs can enable the transfer of facility information from the design and construction phases to the
operational phase. Retrieving necessary facility information from a BIM model and importing them
into CMMS allows relevant costs savings, avoiding recapturing and transferring information by
architects, engineers, and contractors [30].
Owners can also use a BIM model strategically and effectively to manage facility assets. They can
evaluate the impact of retrofit or maintenance works or associate each building object with a condition
assessment over time, supporting critical analyses [29] (pp. 108–111) such as maintenance planning
and sustainability management [33] (pp. 11–13).
However, the BIM implementation in FM systems is not currently achieved without challenges,
as described below.

477
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

1.3. Challenges of BIM-FM Integration

Three major category of issues can be defined [30]: Challenges encountered by the facility team or
facility owners (i.e., lack of knowledge about how to use BIM in their practice); challenges encountered
by the designers and contractors (i.e., lack of guidance about data requirements and delivery); technical
issues (i.e., interoperability).
To connect BIM data to FM systems, FM teams can face the interoperability issue in several
manners [37]. As different companies are involved either in the design or in the operational phase,
common data exchange formats can be considered an effective strategy for exchanging data between
BIM models and FM systems. Examples of open standards are the Construction Operations Building
Information Exchange (COBie) [47] or the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), in particular the FM
Handover Model View definition [48]. They define standard structure and minimum data fields to
support facility management [2].
Other BIM-FM linking approaches concern manual integration of data (i.e., through spreadsheets)
and proprietary middleware [49].
Due to the simplicity of their inherent structure, spreadsheets are useful means of moving data
(text and numbers) between software [28]. They are generally used in CAFM/CMMS or BAS, plus
they are linkable to BIM objects. With a customized application, it is possible to read/write and
import/extract data from a BIM based platform that also supports spreadsheet-based documents.
For example, Dynamo, a tool for visual programming, which works within the Revit environment,
can act as a bidirectional link from Revit to an Excel spreadsheet [38].
However, the transfer of data at the handover phase is commonly limited to graphical spatial
information (i.e., room areas and attributes) and building inventory. Facility managers hardly update
information from small projects, work orders, and major renovations in as-built BIM [33]. In order to
enhance the maintenance planning there is a need of capturing information about maintenance and
repair works during the operational phase. Retrieving this information facilitates project financial
analysis and maintenance works prioritization [50].
In addition, an as-built model that is developed without early guidance is not effective for
operational purposes [51]. In early project phases, designers and contractors have to know what
information the FM team will need, as well as what organizational standard structure for information
inventories is needed [52], which is not commonly known by the owners [53].
Defining the BIM-FM integration goals and developing the BIM-FM information collection and
related information exchange process are necessary steps to effectively design the integration of BIM
for FM [54]. The strategic identification of operational information is critical; thus facility managers
need to detail and prioritize their information requirements [13,34], identifying by whom and when
the data should be provided throughout the project life cycle [17]. This data will depend on specific
user systems, organizational structure, and scope of the model.
In conclusion, owners might not be accustomed to the technological side of building management
issues and not educated on BIM, how to request it, or how to adopt it to their practices. At the same
time, few contractors are willing to perform BIM that does not directly benefit their daily work process
without charging significant additional costs [55].
For these reasons, the cost of BIM-FM integration can be high, requiring investment in
infrastructure, training, and new software and hardware [30].

1.4. Building Performance Assessment Methods

The performance evaluation of buildings and their components has always been a very complex
and controversial topic. The problem arose when it was necessary to introduce assessments on the
duration of the components, within the wider topic of scheduled maintenance. If we assume that
every maintenance intervention must be associated with a performance threshold, and that the status
of failure must be identified and coded also for those components for which performance is not
measurable, then methods and tools to evaluate the performances are needed.

478
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

For the assessment of building performance, it is very important to evaluate whether it is necessary
to intervene [56], because there is the risk that maintenance interventions may have high costs if not
necessary or urgent [57].
In the last decades, however, the concept of performance evaluation has strongly moved towards
those concerning the environment and sustainability [58–60]. In this sense, we can say that building
performances have a strong integration with building users [61], and the reference methods have
therefore become those that prefer aspects such as quality, health, safety, security, comfort, without
neglecting others such as the social ones [62].
Among them, there are the POE (post occupancy evaluation), that is a method developed in the
1960s, conceived to measure the performances of buildings that have been built and occupied for a set
time duration, and the BPE (building performance evaluation), that is a method conceived in the 1990s
that was developed for upgrading POE and to improve the quality of decisions made at every phase of
building life cycle [63–66]. These methodologies mostly tend to evaluate the performance of the whole
building, and not those of the single components, essentially using analyses of users’ satisfaction.
Similarly, KPIs propose performance assessments indirectly, mainly investigating the satisfaction
of users and are detected through non-material indicators such as psychological or perceptive or
performance indicators, defined in facility management contracts.
Many researchers have emphasized the importance of measuring building performances through
KPIs [67], and many others have categorized them—at operational level—into the following ones:
Technical, functional, behavioral, aesthetic, environmental [56].
Performance indicators are useful for measuring status and plan improvement activities and
continuously assess changes over time [68]. Technical performance indicators are considered the most
critical, and within this category structural resistance to fire and stability are two important indicators
to be considered [69], while other researchers [70] identified asset failures and the severity of their
consequences as an indicator.
It has been highlighted [71] that performance categories and examples of operational indicators,
on the basis of studies conducted by several authors (such as Straub, 2003; Hovde and Moser, 2004;
Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2006; Preiser and Nasar, 2008; Yan et al., 2015), can be summarized as shown
in Table 2.

Table 2. Categories of indicators.

Performance Category Example of Indicator

Good lay-out of evacuation routes
Technical
Structural condition [number of defects, severity]
Suitability of spaces [occupation/m2 ]
Functional
Air quality [CO2 level]
Behavioral Thermal comfort [number of complaints about temperature year]
Aesthetic Façade appearance [peeling defects on façade/m2 ]
Waste generation [kg/year]
Environmental
Energy consumption [kWh/m2 /year]

From the publications reviewed in this research it is possible to demonstrate that building
performance assessment could be limited to safety and efficiency, health and comfort, space functionality,
and energy performance.
Some researchers [72] consider methods such as the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method) or approaches such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) as real performance evaluation tools, although they refer to performances in a
more than qualitative way but in any case codified by means of scores and/or attributes.
There are also possibilities, widely exploited, to use BIM as a source of data for a prediction of
performance indicators of the planned building. That is for obtaining quantifiable predictions that can

479
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

help in identifying strategies, tools, and methods to improve the overall building performances, and in
particular the energy efficiency.
BIM-based computational analysis tools provide possibilities for integrating design and analysis
process from the earliest stages of design and can also assist in design decision making [73]; some
researchers [74] have emphasized the effectiveness of building performance-based design method
compared to traditional method.
Recent publications have defined BIM-based workflows to compute and compare KPIs in order to
make a qualitative assessment of the building and its parts [75] and to automate the monitoring of
buildings during their regular operation [76]. In both cases the digital model becomes the mirror of the
building and stores its actual performances to support facility managers in making decisions.

1.5. Interpretation and Discussion

Starting from the review of existing ICT tools for FM, the use cases analysis of BIM implementation
for O&M purposes and the review of BPA methods it has been demonstrated that BIM can enhance
different FM activities, even though with some challenges.
BIM as a repository tool, able to support different analysis, has been tested in several applications.
For example, BIM can support proactive maintenance through gathering information about materials,
environmental, and condition data so that a BIM-based life cycle management system can be developed [32].
The prioritization of refurbishment actions can be improved too, developing a decision support model
based on accessibility, energy efficiency and acoustic performance information [40]. Three-dimensional data
visualization allows analysis to optimize future interventions planning [8,13,23,30,31]. Faster maintenance
processes and shorter periods of disruption have been proved [15,18] and tested merging BIM and
product-service system [41].
At the same time, it appears that a lack of BIM expertise among the FM team and the
owners [8,13,23,33,41,42] and the information exchange processes [8,13,23,31,32,37,38] are major challenges.
Furthermore, it can be deduced that a preliminary analysis of the FM process and policies, both
currently adopted or expected, is necessary. In fact, the sources of required information for facility
maintenance mostly involve the existing FM documentation, FM personnel’s experience, and building
management systems [19]. Interviews with the owner and the FM team allow to better understand
the organization’s information requirements. The analyzed case studies involved the owner and
other relevant stakeholders in order to define data needs based on current and future goals of O&M
activities [13,34–39,41].
Finally, the integration of operational conditions and performances in BIM models is a lesser-known
topic, even if it can facilitate the decision making for facility planning and assessment. For this purpose,
a specific set of information for a complete BIM-aided performance assessment must be defined [40],
a wide variety of data and a wide range of users must be involved in BIM processes [29], and BIM-FM
links must be based on open standards [32].

1.6. Research Contribution

The BIM-based approach presented in this paper includes the definition of FM and BPA information
requirements, involves a wide range of data and users, and is based on open standard data format,
in order to facilitate the analysis of current building performances, reduce corrective maintenance and
emergency repairs.
The methodology is underpinned by a performance information model (PIM), which links facility
management information systems, FM workflow repository and BIM’s common data environment
(CDE) (Figure 2).
The methodology addresses the interoperability issue with the latest IFC 4 × 2 data schema.
Novelties in the schema like the entities IfcFacility and IfcFacilityPart along with IfcBuildingStorey and
IfcSpace provide for detailed spatial breakdown of built facilities which can support location context
information in the FM systems. The IFC schema can support also organizational requirements

480
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

like IfcActionRequest for maintenance work orders through the IfcProjectOrder entity, which
supports different maintenance types (corrective, condition based, planned corrective, scheduled).
The IFC schema could support assessment of environmental conditions with the use of the property
Pset_Condition, which determines the state or condition of a physically existent object like IfcElement
(i.e., IfcSensor), at a particular point in time. Therefore, our methodology is intended to resource to
BIM technologies for building performance assessment and facility maintenance information. Also,
Business process modelling notation (BPMN) is considered for the FM workflow automation.
A pilot implementation of the methodology has been conducted in a use case, which includes
surgery rooms of a healthcare facility. The case study concerns the environmental quality assessment,
considered as a major performance feature to be monitored in such an environment. To easier control
and quantify this performance feature a new KPI has been defined. Evaluation of the environmental
performance indicator is related to technical and equipment conditions, consequently it can facilitate
the identification of maintenance works eventually needed.

Figure 2. Organization of performance information model (PIM) elements.

2. Methodology for Developing a Performance Information Model (PIM)

In the context of the maintenance information modeling the BIM-aided BPA takes place. The PIM
is achieved by the following workflow:
Identify building performances to be monitored and FM information requirements. To achieve
a deep understanding of the required information to be gathered and managed through BIM we
acquired and studied: Tender specifications about facilities management, in particular specification on
O&M management and surgery units environmental condition assessment; reports on the monitoring
process and results; adjustment plans; organizational documents on risk assessment. The collected
data regard a public hospital in the province of Salerno, South of Italy. Interviews and focus groups
were conducted among the FM personnel and the prevention and safety team. The interviews
were carried out in person and involved two different Italian public healthcare authorities. These
interviews resulted in deeper understanding of: the information needed to control performances
and conditions; processes and systems in use to obtain and gather those information; the means by
which to communicate the results. Furthermore, aimed by the contractors, we achieved and studied
the CMMS database, in particular the history of corrective maintenance intervention, planned and
preventive maintenance tasks and schedule, register of work orders. This process of information
enrichment led to the definition of the stakeholder’s information requirements, a crucial knowledge
to inform the BIM model efficiently. Databases used in this research protect patients’ privacy. They
regard only maintenance and monitoring activities and patient-related information were not collected.
Analyzed data are the outcome of maintenance activities carried out according to the Italian regulation,
furthermore processes and environments analyzed in this paper were not modified for the scope of
this study.

481
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

Establish methods of performance assessment. To identify how to achieve the performance

assessment, procedures and systems currently in use among the healthcare facilities were analyzed.
KPIs have been chosen as performance measurement tool because their functionality is already
well-known within the organization involved in this study and they best facilitate the achievement of
the BIM-aided BPA as they can be managed in form of objects parameters within the BIM platform.
For each performance to be assessed a KPI must be set. In the context of this research an environmental
condition index (ECI) was defined ex-novo. Such ECI is a weighted average of control parameters
values. The weights are related to the criticality of the parameters in relation to the environmental
quality. First, it was necessary to identify which parameters describe the KPI, then their weights. To do
so the local health authority of Salerno and the University Hospital of Verona were involved. The list
of measurable control parameters was achieved by two focus groups with expert panels from the
above-mentioned healthcare authorities. To achieve an agreement on the criticality of each parameters
referred to operating room air quality, a Delphi method was conducted. Then the criticality weights
were obtained by a combination of Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The Delphi
involved a panel of 17 experts including engineers and other technicians, doctors, nurses, and a
chemist, all experts of maintenance and condition assessment of surgery rooms. The Delphi allowed to
achieve the pair comparison matrix related to the control parameters, then the vector of the weights
was calculated by AHP. The pair comparisons referred to the Saaty’s values scale.
Link the monitored performances to preventive/corrective activities. According to certain
performance values the interventions needed can be identified. From the environmental performance
assessment, the performance of the technical systems can be deducted. The links were defined with
the collaboration of mechanical systems and indoor air quality experts, taking into account the way by
which the environmental quality is monitored and the type of installed plants. These relationships can
be translated in a deterministic logic and then transposed in a BIM platform to inform and update
the model utilizing IfcActionRequest (description of maintenance request), IfcApproval (approval of
maintenance request) and IfcActor (person or organization(s) fulfilling the request such as a facilities
manager or contractor.).
Define the BIM use purpose and PIM requirements. Establishing the potential value of BIM use
on the project helps to identify the BIM implementation goals and the specific BIM uses. Once the
BIM uses are identified then the model requirements can be defined, i.e., in terms of parameters to
be inserted in the model, customized dataset, links to maintenance database, level of development
required, implementation process needs, etc. Once the implementation process has been established
then the information exchanges can be defined. The exchange files contain instances of a subset of
entities compliant with the IFC schema, such as IfcActionRequest, which are addressing the PIM
requirements. For consumption of the exchange files a customized software needs to be developed.
Implement the PIM. PIM input data come from facility information management systems,
including the BPA process. The actual condition of the facility is also required, so that the model to
which the FM attributes refer can be created. Monitoring information were pulled in the model in an
automatized manner, creating a link between the model and the Excel spreadsheets used to handle
the monitoring results. The output data are the required inspection tasks associated with the failed
systems. They are visualized in the model in the form of text shared parameters, but they can be
exported or linked to CMMS to inform future work orders.

3. Performance Information Model: Use Case of Hospital Surgery Rooms

Considering international guidelines [77–80] and literature analysis, a proposal of PIM process
development is deducted (Figure 3).
The proposed process provides for the operational condition assessment of a building and its
elements. The monitored data can be gathered in the model, then analyzed and translated in the
form of performance indicators. Relevant information can be generated, such as the interventions
needed to satisfy the necessary requirements. The KPIs, in form of objects properties, are visualized in

482
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

the digital model, allowing further spatiotemporal analysis and supporting decision making tasks of
subcontractors and FM team. According to the monitored conditions different performances of the
building during its lifecycle can be assessed and managed (i.e., sustainability, affordability, energy
consumption, safety, efficiency, environmental quality, etc.). Building information modeling can
play a key role as it allows collaboration and information exchange among the operators, shows the
building actual performances and related suggested interventions, supports the maintenance planning,
and facilitates the asset inventory management.
The local health authority has recently provided new contractors for FM and prevention and safety
activities for hospitals under its responsibility. No existing BIM models were held by the authority or
the FM contractors, and the processes currently in use among them were not BIM-oriented. This is a
common situation within the Italian built environment. Therefore, recent laws and regulations [81–83]
regarding the digitalization of the information process in the construction sector require to face the
digitalization of existing buildings and related services. In such context this case-study constitutes the
first step taken to a BIM-aided FM.

483
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

484
Figure 3. Performance information model (PIM) implementation process in business process modelling notation (BPMN) standard. The PIM approach has been
validated by a surgery rooms BIM model, regarding a public healthcare building in Italy. A surgery room is a very complex system, it has to comply with a set of
requirements [84] which can be transposed in performances to be assessed.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

3.1. Building Performance Assessment (BPA) and FM Information Requirements

Especially when no BIM exists yet, it is crucial to do the prior analysis of stakeholders’ information
requirements to optimize geometric modeling and information handling effort. Prior to modelling,
local health authority’s specifications on surgery rooms (related to maintenance, risk management and
work organization) have been examined.
The list of collected data related to preventive and corrective maintenance tasks is reported in Table 3.

Table 3. List of preventive and corrective maintenance information that can fill the model as
objects properties.

Work Orders History

WorkOrderID Description
BuildingID DateOfRegistration
DateOfCompletition Duration
Requests for Intervention
RequestID Created by
Reported by Description
Location ContractualAuthority
SiteID BuildingID
FloorID UniteID
RoomID Equipment
DateRequestCreated UrgencyLevel
UrgencyTimeConstraints ProblemType
InterventionType ResolutionType
InsuranceDeductable ExpectedCompletitionDate
MaintenanceCompany DateOfCompletition
Notes StatusID

Monitoring significant parameters related to the condition of hygienic/engineering/structural

systems allows healthcare facilities to adopt preventive procedures. The risk management team,
according to the performance assessment and risk evaluation results, informs the FM team in order
to align findings to the required condition. The local health authority commissioned a specialized
company to evaluate, analyze, and report the environmental and equipment condition of surgery
areas. The hospital has no BAS, but the quality control is performed according to a planned schedule
of activities. The list of information to be monitored is reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Monitored conditions in surgery rooms.

Parameter Name
Particle concentration Air volumes/air exchange
Microbiological concentration Noise
Anesthetic gases Recovery time
Microclimatic conditions Water quality
Pressure gradient Lighting intensity

3.2. Key Performace Indicator (KPI) for Surgery Rooms: Environmental Condition Index
Using a set of established KPIs simplifies the evaluation process and helps the management team
to make strategic decisions towards the organization’s mission.
We proposed a novel environmental condition index (ECI), which has the following Formula (1):
n
i Pi × Wi
n (1)
i Wi

where:

485
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

• ECIUAk = environmental condition index referred to the surgery room k. It varies from 0
(best scenario) to 1 (worst scenario). As an example, the ECI for the orthopedic surgery room
resulted to be 0.09, while for the general surgery room it was equal to 0.21. In both cases the
‘noise’ and the ‘contamination at rest’ controls were not satisfied, but in the latter case also the
‘microclimatic condition in operational’ was not fulfilled;
• Pi = value of each environmental quality factor. It is evaluated on a binary scale: Pi is equal to 0 if
the control associated to it is fulfilled, otherwise it is equal to 1. As an example, for the orthopedic
surgery room the value 1 was associated with the parameter’s ‘noise’ and ‘contamination at rest’,
while the value 0 was associated with the remainder;
• Wi = criticality weight of each factor. The sum of all the weights is 1 (100%). In the orthopedic
room case, the sum of the products was 0.09 as the ‘noise’ and the ‘contamination at rest’ weigh
respectively 4% and 5%.

The ECI has the following features:

• It eliminates overlapping and redundant information, as some parameters are grouped when
depending on the same equipment element. Then the identification of the required intervention
was simplified;
• It expresses each relevant aspect of the system assessed. The list presented in Table 3 was discussed
in two focus groups to select seven parameters necessary and sufficient to evaluate a surgery
room environmental quality;
• It provides for a wide applicability across the authority FM systems, as it is based upon
their requirements;
• It is expressed by a number, which values can vary from 0 to 1. This is a consequence of two
factors: The formula which expresses the KPI and the evaluation mechanisms.

The Delphi method provided for the pair comparison matrix (consistency ratio equal to 0.07).
Each expert involved in the Delphi expressed his opinion regarding parameters confronted two by
two with respect to their contribution to the environmental quality of operating rooms. The AHP was
used to deduce the parameters priorities with respect to the above-mentioned criterion. These weights
have been deducted by calculating, in the MATLAB programming platform, the main eigenvector
associated to the main eigenvalue of the pair comparison matrix. The results are reported in Table 5.

Table 5. Pair comparison matrix and criticality weights.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weights %
Contamination at rest 1 1.00 0.19 0.64 0.40 0.26 0.15 0.93 4
Contamination in operational 2 5.27 1.00 4.57 0.73 0.44 0.27 4.78 14
Microclimatic conditions at rest 3 1.57 0.22 1.00 0.20 0.19 0.15 0.51 4
Microclimatic conditions in operational 4 2.48 1.37 4.94 1.00 0.26 0.21 2.64 12
Air volumes/Air exchanges/Recovery time 5 3.90 2.27 5.39 3.78 1.00 0.27 2.47 21
Anesthetic gases concentration 6 6.65 3.71 6.65 4.72 3.66 1.00 5.62 40
Noise 7 1.08 0.21 1.98 0.38 0.40 0.18 1.00 5

3.3. Correlation Between Environmental and Technical Performances

In order to integrate BPA with maintenance planning and to enhance the value of the ECI use, a link
was established between control parameter values and the interventions required. These interventions
are defined in terms of inspections and checks to be performed in order to verify possible failures or
inadequate operational conditions within the technological and functional system. Table 6 proposes
the correlations list.

486
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

Table 6. Links between environmental and technological system.

N◦ Parameter Parameter Name N◦ Task Task Description

1.1 HEPA filters inspection
1 Contamination at rest
1.2 HVAC pipes inspection
2 Contamination in operational 2.1 Behavioral protocols check

Microclimatic conditions at 3.1 Project condition check

3–4
rest and in operational 3.2 ATU supplied power control
5.1 Filters inspection
5.2 Load loss check
5 Air exchanges/Recovery time
5.3 Forced air volume calculation
5.4 Mixing and ventilation efficiency control
Pipes fitting controls (high- and
6.1
6 Anesthetic gases concentration low-pressure systems)
6.2 Gas evacuation system controls
7.1 Air-cooled inspection
7 Noise 7.2 HVAC ducts inspection
7.3 ATU inspection

3.4. PIM Implementation

The PIM methodology was tested on a healthcare building in the province of Salerno, south of
Italy (Figure 4). In this case study BIM was used to gather information related to the environmental
control, to communicate the monitoring results, and to analyze the condition assessment in terms of
maintenance interventions required. The controls discussed in this study concern the risk management
associated with surgery rooms activities. We accessed the database containing the surgery units’
environmental controls, which regard air quality. Other factors and engineering devices were not
monitored. The methods used to perform those tests respect the Italian regulations and are based on
the Italian guidelines regarding the assessment of the efficiency of the preventive measures adopted
by the prevention and safety department of healthcare organizations. The PIM described here has a
basic geometric development (a BIM model with LOD 200) [85] but contains specific non-graphical
information for facility management. The geometric model was created in Autodesk Revit 2019,
starting from 2D CAD plans regarding the architectural and HVAC systems. Autodesk Revit allows
different types of analysis when combined with other software, such as Green Building Studio to
conduct energy performance simulation [86] or Dynamo, as illustrated below.

Figure 4. Location of the case study: building and surrounding.

The case study is focused on the environmental systems management, so it was enriched by the
definition of rooms and related properties (i.e., environmental condition index).
We analyzed the database of the monitoring results related to one semester of activities
(last semester of 2018 year) carried out in three operating rooms. In this database the results were

487
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

individually presented for each type of test. The authors provided to translate them in a summarized
Excel sheet to make them easier to read by Dynamo (Table 7). The results were translated to Boolean
values to define the failure (1) or the fulfillment (0) of each control in each room.

Table 7. Monitoring results associated to each surgery rooms presented as Boolean values.

Orthopedic Surgery Room 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

General Surgery Room 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Pediatric Surgery Room 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

The input data in Excel sheets (Figure 5) can be easily updated when BPA activities are conducted.
The data concern all the results enabling to calculate the ECI for each surgery room (i.e., the value of
control parameters, their respective weights, and the value of the resulted ECI).

Figure 5. Conditional logic in Dynamo.

Dynamo was used to create bidirectional links between the model and external data, as systems
integration tool. The Excel.ReadFromFile node was used to connect the BPA results spreadsheet-based
with the model parameters. The ‘If’ statement was used to check the needs of intervention according
to the monitoring activities results. The ‘If’ statement contains a Boolean statement so that the ‘true’
condition was associated with the failure of environmental controls. The results of the performance
assessment were transposed in the model through the node Element.SetParameterByName (Figure 6).
The BPA results and maintenance tasks needed are visualized in the model in the form of shared
parameters, furthermore it is possible to visualize the performance assessment by thematic drawings.
The Figure 7 shows the thematic plan of three surgery rooms and the properties associated to them,
in terms of ECI, controls (I1, I2, etc.) and interventions required (1.1, 1.2, etc.). In this case, which regards
the general surgery room, the controls I1, I4, and I7 are not fulfilled, so the corresponding required
interventions are reported in the model (1.1 HEPA filters inspection, 1.2 HVAC pipes inspection;
3.1 Project condition check, 3.2 ATU supplied power control; 7.1 Air-cooled inspection, 7.2 HVAC ducts
inspection, 7.3 ATU inspection).
The corresponding fragment of the IFC file shows an example of the custom IfcPropertySet
‘Environmental Condition Index’ for the use case.

#836 = IFCPROPERTYSET(‘3DF3k2$9z3HRdciX9bgXts’,#59,‘Environmental Condition Index’,$,

(#850,#854));
#850 = IFCPROPERTYSINGLEVALUE(‘Description’,$,IFCLABEL(‘1.1 HEPA filters inspection,
1.2 HVAC pipes inspection; 3.1 Project condition check, 3.2 ATU supplied power control; 7.1 Air-cooled
inspection, 7.2 HVAC ducts inspection, 7.3 ATU inspection’),$);
#854 = IFCPROPERTYSINGLEVALUE(‘Value’,$,IFCREAL(0.217256),$);

488
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

Figure 6. Excel-Dynamo-Revit links.

Figure 7. Thematic plans of orthopedic, pediatric and general surgery rooms. ECIndex and inspections
required are reported in the model as rooms properties.

4. Analysis and Discussion

In this section, a synthesis of findings and their analysis is presented. The purpose of the synthesis
is to assess the stability of results.
The performance information model tested on surgery rooms provides for:

1. Proposing a workflow for PIM implementation based on BPMN model (Figure 3),
2. Listing maintenance related information which can be added to the BIM model as the IFC object
properties (Table 2),
3. Defining a new KPI for surgery rooms, measuring the environmental and functional performances
(Formula (1)),
4. Correlating the measured performances to required maintenance intervention in terms of
inspections and controls (Table 3),
5. Implementing a conditional logic and the information systems integration (Figure 6).

489
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

This application demonstrates the positive impact that BIM can have on analyzed FM and
BPA processes.
The prevention and safety department is in charge of measuring the air quality of the surgery
units, with the support of an external contractor. The results inform the maintenance department
with a list of suggested interventions. The maintenance department is in charge of the maintenance
planning and require the intervention, if needed, of the maintenance provider, an additional contractor.
A performance information model in such context can act as a tool to facilitate the analysis of
building performances, through KPI definition (Figure 7), and as a system to speed-up the information
exchange process among the different parties. A PIM can also support the maintenance works
and assessment activities record, information that are rarely captured in BIM models nowadays.
Figure 8 shows the instance of PIM implementation, starting from the already developed model (see
Figure 3). The requests for intervention and related approvals are omitted in order to simplify the
diagram interpretation.

Figure 8. Instance of the PIM application process.

From the case study analysis, it is possible to deduct that a comprehensive PIM, extended to
maintenance management and further systems control, has at least the following application benefits:

1. Improved technological and environmental performances assessment,

2. Integrated visualization of the operating condition of building and its elements,
3. Inventory management of building components, spaces, furniture and documents,
4. Automation of the quantity take-off,
5. Support to identify and schedule future maintenance interventions,
6. Management of historical data about previous maintenance.

490
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

5. Conclusions
Current research trends reveal that there is a continuously growing interest in facilities information
management using BIM, which offers a good opportunity for a technical platform to integrate various
data sources needed for daily O&M activities. An improvement that is expected from the BIM-FM
integration is the systematic generation of information, such as KPIs to identify best practice and
improvement strategies. Even though such an integration process has promising potential benefits, for
example relating performance thresholds to maintenance planning, in very few cases the benchmarking
of performance was tested.
Surveys aiming to develop the common BIM data requirements for O&M are limited and more
focused surveys for specific building types and for specific O&M tasks have to be conducted [19].
Within this context, this article aimed at developing a methodology to integrate BIM, BPA and FM
systems, supporting organizational, environmental and technical requirements achievement.
It contributes to the body of knowledge by defining a comprehensive approach to achieve this
systems integration and has proposed a novel performance information model as decision-making
support tool.
Furthermore, it explores in detail the healthcare buildings sector, with particular regard to
operating rooms, reporting specific information requirements which can be used for future O&M tasks.
As no existing BIM models were held by the authority or the FM contractors, the starting point for
the PIM development was the owner’s and FM team’s needs investigation, which resulted in modeling
the environmental system and related attributes. As the BPA and FM process were not BIM oriented,
we created a link between the existing FM systems and BIM model by customized application and
commercial software tools.
At the moment the PIM implementation is limited to operating room environmental system.
Other engineering systems (i.e., fire protection, electrical systems, energy consumption meters, weather
station etc.) were not monitored.
Further research will be conducted to achieve a more comprehensive as-built model in order to
enrich the PIM with maintenance information related to technological system elements (i.e., mechanical
plant elements as ducts, pipes, filters, etc.; architectural elements as floor, ceiling, doors etc.; structural
elements as pillars, columns, beams, etc.).
Further research and development of the proposed methodology concern automation of the
information exchange, development of a prototype application in Python with an API that utilizes
IfcOpenShell and a customized database, integrated with a BPMN automation support. In the
development, preventive and corrective maintenance information from the Table 2 will be mapped to
the corresponding objects from the asset BIM models using the standardized IFC entities identified as
relevant for FM. The prototype application will be tested on several case studies to deeper analyze the
proposed approach and for developing a more powerful and generally applicable BIM-based solution
for FM and BPA activities.

Author Contributions: Writing—original draft preparation, R.M.; writing—review and editing, M.N. and A.T.;
supervision, F.P.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors want to acknowledge the local health authority of Salerno and the University
Hospital of Verona for the support given to the development of the case study discussed in this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. ISO 41011:2017. Facility Management—Vocabulary. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:
iso:41011:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 4 August 2019).
2. Atkin, B.; Brooks, A. Total Facility Management, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2015.

491
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

3. Shohet, I.M.; Lavy, S. Facility maintenance and management: A health care case study. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag.
2017, 21, 170–182. [CrossRef]
4. Lavy, S.; Garcia, J.A.; Dixit, M.K. KPIs for facility’s performance assessment, Part I: Identification and
categorization of core indicators. Facilities 2014, 32, 256–274. [CrossRef]
5. Lavy, S.; Shohet, I.M. A strategic integrated healthcare facility management model. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag.
2007, 11, 125–142. [CrossRef]
6. Chotipanich, S. Positioning facility management. Facilities 2004, 22, 364–372. [CrossRef]
7. Roper, K.; Payant, R. The Facility Management Handbook; AMACOM Division of American Management
Association International: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
8. Kiviniemi, A.; Codinhoto, R. Challenges in the Implementation of BIM for FM—Case Manchester Town Hall
Complex. In Computing in Civil and Building Engineering; Issa, R., Flood, I., Eds.; American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE): Orlando, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 665–672.
9. International Facility Management Association. Competency Guide. Available online: https://www.fm.
training/sites/collabstore/files/images/Competency_Guide_Context_Public_v1_7-12-18.pdf (accessed on
4 August 2019).
10. Ancarani, A.; Capaldo, G. Supporting decision-making process in facilities management services procurement:
A methodological approach. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2005, 11, 232–241. [CrossRef]
11. Motawa, I.; Almarshad, A. A knowledge-based BIM system for building maintenance. Autom. Constr. 2019,
29, 173–182. [CrossRef]
12. Shalabi, F.; Turkan, Y. IFC BIM-Based Facility Management Approach to Optimize Data Collection for
Corrective Maintenance. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2016, 31. [CrossRef]
13. Kassem, M.; Kelly, G.; Dawood, N.; Serginson, M.; Lockley, S. BIM in facilities management applications:
A case study of a large university complex. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015, 5, 261–277. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, R.; Issa, R.R.A. Survey: Common Knowledge in BIM for Facility Maintenance. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
2015, 30. [CrossRef]
15. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 19650-1:2018—Organization and Digitization of
Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including Building Information Modelling
(BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling. Part 1: Concepts and Principles.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:19650:-1:ed-1:v1:en (accessed on 9 October 2019).
16. Jeong, W.S.; Kim, K.H. A performance evaluation of the BIM-based object-oriented physical modeling
technique for building thermal simulations: A comparative case study. Sustainability 2016, 8, 648. [CrossRef]
17. Becerik-Gerber, B.; Jazizadeh, F.; Li, N.; Calis, G. Application Areas and Data Requirements for BIM-Enabled
Facilities Management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 431–442. [CrossRef]
18. Matarneh, S.T.; Danso-Amoako, M.; Al-Bizri, S.; Gaterell, M.; Matarneh, R. Building information modeling for
facilities management: A literature review and future research directions. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24. [CrossRef]
19. Gao, X.; Pishdad-Bozorgi, P. BIM-enabled facilities operation and maintenance: A review. Adv. Eng. Inform.
2019, 39, 227–247. [CrossRef]
20. Ilter, D.; Ergen, E. BIM for building refurbishment and maintenance: Current status and research directions.
Struct. Surv. 2015, 33, 228–256. [CrossRef]
21. Edirisinghe, R.; London, K.A.; Kalutara, P.; Aranda-Mena, G. Building information modelling for facility
management: Are we there yet? Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 1119–1154. [CrossRef]
22. Pärn, E.A.; Edwards, D.J.; Sing, M.C.P. The building information modelling trajectory in facilities management:
A review. Autom. Constr. 2017, 75, 45–55. [CrossRef]
23. Codinhoto, R.; Kiviniemi, A. BIM for FM: A Case Support for Business Life Cycle. In Product Lifecycle
Management for a Global Market; Fukuda, S., Bernard, A., Gurumoorthy, B., Bouras, A., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 64–74.
24. Hao, Q.; Xue, Y.; Shen, W.; Jones, B.; Zhu, J. A Decision Support System for Integrating Corrective Maintenance,
Preventive Maintenance and Condition-based Maintenance. In Proceedings of the Construction Research
Congress 2010, Banff, AB, Canada, 8–10 May 2010.
25. Bruno, S.; De Fino, M.; Fatiguso, F. Historic Building Information Modelling: Performance assessment for
diagnosis-aided information modelling and management. Autom. Constr. 2018, 86, 256–276. [CrossRef]
26. Kensek, K. BIM Guidelines Inform Facilities Management Databases: A Case Study over Time. Buildings 2010, 5,
899–916. [CrossRef]

492
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

27. Kreider, R.G.; Messner, J.I. The Uses of BIM: Classifying and Selecting BIM Uses; The Pennsylvania State
University: State College, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 6–8.
28. CRC. Adopting BIM for Facilities Management: Solutions for Managing the Sydney Opera House; Cooperative
Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation: Brisbane, Australia, 2007.
29. Eastman, C.M.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
30. Akcamete, A.; Akinci, B.; Garrett, J.H. Potential utilization of building information models for planning
maintenance activities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 17–20 June 2012.
31. Su, Y.C.; Lee, Y.C.; Lin, Y.C. Enhancing Maintenance Management Using Building Information Modeling in
Facilities Management. In Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction (ISARC 2011), Seoul, Korea, 29 June 2011; pp. 752–757. [CrossRef]
32. Hallberg, D.; Tarandi, V. On the use of open bim and 4D visualisation in a predictive life cycle management
system for construction works. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2011, 16, 445–466.
33. Teicholz, P. BIM for Facility Managers; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
34. McArthur, J.J. A Building Information Management (BIM) Framework and Supporting Case Study for
Existing Building Operations, Maintenance and Sustainability. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 1104–1111. [CrossRef]
35. Cavka, H.; Staub-French, S.; Pottinger, R. Evaluating the Alignment of Organizational and Project Contexts
for BIM Adoption: A Case Study of a Large Owner Organization. Buildings 2015, 5, 1265–1300. [CrossRef]
36. Bortolini, R.; Forcada, N.; Macarulla, M. BIM for the integration of Building Maintenance Management:
A case study of a university campus. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Product & Process
Modelling (ECPPM), Limassol, Cyprus, 7–9 September 2016.
37. Thabet, W.; Lucas, J. Asset Data Handover for a Large Educational Institution: Case-Study Approach.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143. [CrossRef]
38. Lucas, J.; Thabet, W. Using a Case-Study Approach to Explore Methods for Transferring BIM-Based Asset
Data to Facility Management Systems. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress (CRC 2018),
New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–4 April 2018. [CrossRef]
39. Pishdad-Bozorgi, P.; Gao, X.; Eastman, C.; Self, A.P. Planning and developing facility management-enabled
building information model (FM-enabled BIM). Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 22–38. [CrossRef]
40. Carbonari, A.; Corneli, A.; Di Giuda, G.; Ridolfi, L.; Villa, V. BIM-Based Decision Support System for the
Mangement of Large Building Stocks. In Proceedings of the 35th International Symposium on Automation
and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Berlin, Germany, 20–25 July 2018. [CrossRef]
41. Fargnoli, M.; Lleshaj, A.; Lombardi, M.; Sciarretta, N.; Di Gravio, G. A BIM-based PSS approach for the
management of maintenance operations of building equipment. Buildings 2019, 9, 139. [CrossRef]
42. Koch, C.; Hansen, G.K.; Jacobsen, K. Missed opportunities: Two case studies of digitalization of FM in
hospitals. Facilities 2019, 37, 381–394. [CrossRef]
43. Aziz, N.D.; Nawawi, A.H.; Ariff, N.R.M. ICT Evolution in Facilities Management (FM): Building Information
Modelling (BIM) as the Latest Technology. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 234, 363–371. [CrossRef]
44. Márquez, A.C.; De León, P.M.; Fernández, J.F.G.; Márquez, C.P.; Campos, M.L. The maintenance management
framework: A practical view to maintenance management. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 2009, 15, 167–178. [CrossRef]
45. Mohanta, A.; Das, S. ICT-Based Facilities Management Tools for Buildings. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on ICT for Sustainable Development, Ahmedabad, India, 3–4 July 2015; pp. 125–133.
46. Volk, R.; Stengel, J.; Schultmann, F. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings—Literature
review and future needs. Autom. Constr. 2014, 38, 109–127. [CrossRef]
47. What Is COBie? Available online: https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-is-cobie (accessed on 9 October 2019).
48. MVD Database. Available online: https://technical.buildingsmart.org/standards/mvd/mvd-database/ (accessed on
9 October 2019).
49. Ibrahim, K.F.; Abanda, F.H.; Vidalakis, C.; Woods, G. BIM for FM: Input versus Output Data. In Proceedings
of the 33rd CIB W78 Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 31 October–2 November 2016.
50. Klammt, F. Financial Management for Facility Managers. In Facility Design and Management Handbook;
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 510–537.

493
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

51. Lui, R.; Zettersten, G. Facility Sustainment Management System Automated Population from Building Information
Models. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 31 May–2 June 2016;
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2016.
52. Mayo, G.; Giel, B.; Issa, R. BIM use and requirements among building owners. In Computing in Civil
Engineering; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2012; pp. 349–356.
53. Keady, R. Equipment Inventories; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
54. Lin, Y.-C.; Chen, Y.-P.; Huang, W.-T.; Hong, C.-C. Development of BIM Execution Plan for BIM Model
Management during the Pre-Operation Phase: A Case Study. Buildings 2016, 6, 8. [CrossRef]
55. Gleason, D. Getting to a facility management BIM. In Lake Constance 5D-Conference; Trimble Navigation:
Constance, Germany, 2013.
56. Talon, A.; Boissier, D.; Chevalier, J.L.; Hans, J. Temporal quantification method of degradation scenarios
based on FMEA. In Proceedings of the 10th International conference on durability of building materials and
components, Lyon, France, 17–20 April 2005.
57. Silva, A.; de Brito, J.; Gaspar, P.L. Methodologies for Service Life Prediction of Buildings; Springer International
Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016. [CrossRef]
58. Isaac, A.; Meir, I.A.; Garb, Y.; Jiao, D.; Cicelsky, A. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable Step Toward
Sustainability. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2019, 3, 189–220. [CrossRef]
59. Built to Last: Measuring the Life Cycle of a Facility. Available online: http://www.greenerbuildings.com/
feature/2008/04/10/built-last-measuring-life-cycle-a-facility (accessed on 9 October 2019).
60. Meir, I.A.; Motzafi-Haller, W.; Krüger, E.L.; Morhayim, L.; Fundaminsky, S.; Oshry-Frenkel, L. Towards a
comprehensive methodology for Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE): A hot dry climate case study. In Proceedings
of the 2nd PALENC and 28th AIVC Conference, Crete, Greece, 27–29 September 2007; pp. 644–653.
61. Wahab, A.M.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N. Building Performance and Evaluation Methods: A Preliminary Review.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Project and Facilities Management, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 16 September 2011.
62. Vischer, J.C. Applying knowledge on building performance: From evidence to intelligence. Intell. Build. Int.
2009, 1, 239–248. [CrossRef]
63. Preiser, W.F.E. Post-occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities 1995, 13, 19–28.
[CrossRef]
64. Preiser, W.F.E. Building performance assessment- from POE to BPE: A personnel perspective (post occupancy
evaluation and building performance evaluation). Archit. Sci. Rev. 2005, 48, 201–204. [CrossRef]
65. Sanni-Anniber, M.O.; Hassanain, M.A.; Al Hammad, A.-M. POE of Housing Facilities Overview & Summary
of Methods. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2016, 30, 1–9. [CrossRef]
66. Menon, R.; Gilbert, J.; Bridgestock, M. Development of Post Occupancy Evaluation for Evaluation of
Innovative Low Carbon Social Housing Projects. Available online: http://www.cicstart.org/fs03.htm (accessed on
9 October 2019).
67. Sinou, M.; Kyvelou, S. Present and future of building performance assessment tools. Manag. Environ. Qual.
2006, 17, 570–586. [CrossRef]
68. Talamo, C.; Bonanomi, M. Knowledge Management and Information Tools for Building Maintenance and Facility
Management; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2015. [CrossRef]
69. Lützkendorf, T. A comparison of international classifications for performance requirements and building
performance categories used in evaluation methods. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint BIM International
Symposium, Helsinki, Finland, 13–16 June 2005.
70. Weber, A.; Thomas, R. Key Performance Indicators—Measuring and Managing the Maintenance; Iavara Corporation:
Burlington, ON, Canada, 2005.
71. Bortolini, R.; Forcada, N. Facility managers’ perceptions on Building Performance Assessment. Front. Eng. Manag.
2018, 5, 324–333. [CrossRef]
72. Amasuomo, T.T.; Atanda, J.; Baird, G. Development of a building performance assessment and design tool
for residential buildings in Nigeria. Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 221–230. [CrossRef]
73. Aksamija, A. BIM-based building performance analysis: Evaluation and simulation of design decisions.
In Proceedings of the 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA,
12–17 August 2012.

494
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7007

74. Aksamija, A. Analysis and Computation: Sustainable Design in Practice. Des. Princ. Pract. Int. J. 2010, 4,
291–314. [CrossRef]
75. Re Cecconi, F.; Maltese, S.; Dejaco, M.C. Leveraging BIM for digital built environment asset management.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2017, 2, 14. [CrossRef]
76. Bonci, A.; Carbonari, A.; Cucchiarelli, A.; Messi, L.; Pirani, M.; Vaccarini, M. A cyber-physical system
approach for building efficiency monitoring. Autom. Constr. 2019, 102, 68–85. [CrossRef]
77. CIC Research Group. BIM Project Execution Planning Guide—Version 2.1; The Pennsylvania State University:
University Park, PA, USA, 2011.
78. Common BIM Requirements. Series 12. In Use of Models in Facility Management; BuildingSMART Finland:
Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
79. PAS 1192-3:2014. Specification for Information Management for the Operational Phase of Assets Using Building
Information Modelling; BSI Standards Limited: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-0-580-86674-6.
80. U.S. General Service Administration Public Buildings Office of Design and Construction. GSA Building
Information Modeling Guide Series: 08—GSA BIM Guide for Facility Management; General Services
Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
81. Minister of Transport and Infrastructure. Ministerial Decree n.560/2017. Available online: http://www.mit.
gov.it/normativa/decreto-ministeriale-numero-560-del-01122017 (accessed on 9 October 2019).
82. UNI 11337/1-4:2017. Building and Civil Engineering Works—Digital Management of the Informative
Processes. Available online: http://www.uni.com (accessed on 9 October 2019).
83. President of Italian Republic. Legislative Decree n.50/2016. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana.
2016. 91, 1–378. Available online: https://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/rest/jcr/repository/collaboration/
Digital%20Assets/anacdocs/MenuServizio/English%20section/ITALIAN_PUBLIC_CONTRACT_CODE%
2015%20giugno%202018_sito%20(2).pdf (accessed on 7 December 2019).
84. President of Italian Republic. Presidential Decree 14/01/1997. G.U. 1997, 42, 1–70.
85. AIA. AIA Document G202–2013, Project Building Information Modeling Protocol Form; American Institute of
Architects: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
86. Ozarisoy, B.; Altan, H. Low Energy Design Strategies for Retrofitting Existing Residential Buildings in
Cyprus. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers–Engineering Sustainability; ICE Publishing: London,
UK, 2018; pp. 1–15. ISSN 1478 4629. E-ISSN 1751 7680. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

495
sustainability

Article
Exploring On-Site Safety Knowledge Transfer in the
Construction Industry
Ying-Hua Huang 1, * and Tzung-Ru Yang 2
1 Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
Yunlin 640, Taiwan
2 Engineering Department, Yuan Tay Construction Co., Ltd., Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 21 October 2019; Accepted: 13 November 2019; Published: 15 November 2019

Abstract: A primary cause of occupational accidents is on-site workers not having proper or even
adequate safety knowledge and awareness, leading to them failing to employ safety measures,
equipment, or behavior to protect themselves. The complexity of construction projects and changes
in organizational personnel complicate the safety knowledge transfer process. Therefore, to reduce
occupational accidents in the construction industry, this study explored the on-site safety knowledge
transfer process as well as its relationship with a safe working environment; it did this to understand
the associations between various constructs in the process, which could be used as a reference
for management personnel to promote on-site safety education and behaviors. This would allow
safety knowledge to be learned and practiced by on-site workers, changing their unsafe behaviors
and creating a safe on-site work environment. This study used structural equation modeling to
empirically study the relationship between various constructs during safety knowledge transfer on a
construction site. The results revealed that an excellent safety knowledge transfer environment can
lead to favorable safety behavior as well as safety knowledge application and inspiration of on-site
workers, which would affect their safety behaviors. More satisfactory safety behaviors of on-site
workers could produce a safer working environment on the construction site. Moreover, although
safety application and inspiration do not directly affect the safety of a work environment, they do so
indirectly through safety behaviors.

Keywords: knowledge transfer; safety behavior; safety management; construction site; structural
equation modeling (SEM)

1. Introduction
The construction industry is characterized by one-time products, multi-level subcontracting, and
complex staffing. Different construction stages usually have different staffing. Labor safety issues
occur easily because of the uncertain labor source demands. According to statistics compiled by
Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor, the occupational injury death rate per thousand was 0.113 (excluding traffic
accidents) for the construction industry in Taiwan in 2018, which was the highest amongst all industries;
furthermore, the occupational fatal injury rate in the construction industry per thousand (including
morbidity, disability, and death) was 9.385, which was also the highest amongst all industries [1].
Over the years, occupational accident analysis of Taiwan’s construction industry has shown that one of
the most common accidents in public works is workers falling without personal protective equipment.
In private construction projects, accidents are caused by employers not providing personal protective
equipment for workers or workers not using it or ignored warning signs when preparing, repairing, or
finishing work on a ladder, platform, floor surface, or steel component [2]. Occupational accidents are
mostly caused by noncomplying facilities, improper personal protective equipment, unsafe guardrails
and covers, or the absence of protective measures [3]. Relevant studies on construction site safety

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426; doi:10.3390/su11226426 497 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

performance and assessment have noted that workers have low safety awareness [4,5], inadequate
safety knowledge and training [6,7], and unsafe practices [8]. A review of major occupational accidents
and relevant studies reveals some of the main causes of occupational accidents are workers on
construction sites lacking proper personal safety knowledge and failing to take appropriate safety
measures, equipment, or actions to protect themselves.
The causes of occupational accidents are complicated by numerous events with causal relationships.
However, if on-site workers do not possess correct safety concepts, the number of accidents in the
construction industry cannot be reduced. Approximately 90% of accidents are caused by unsafe
environments and behaviors [8–10]. Person, behavior, and environment are three dynamic and
interactive factors, and changes in any one of them will affect the other two [11]. How to ensure on-site
workers learn and practice safety knowledge to correct unsafe behaviors and create a safe construction
environment forms the basis for reducing occupational accidents in the construction industry.
Knowledge involves commitment and action [12]. The knowledge transfer conceptual model
developed by Gilbert and Cordey-Hayes [13] emphasized that knowledge transfer is a dynamic process
that must be assimilated into members of an organization. That is, workers are considered to truly
acquire relevant knowledge after they apply it to the daily activities of their organization, which is
reflected in changes in personal cognition and behavior. According to the high occupational injury
rates in the construction industry, a gap exists between the education of on-site safety knowledge
and the safety awareness and behaviors of on-site workers. Because of complex construction projects
and changes in organizational personnel, the process of transferring safety knowledge becomes
more complex.
This study aimed to identify both of the on-site safety knowledge transfer processes and the
relationship between safety knowledge transfer and the safety of on-site work environments. The results
of this study can be used as a good reference when the constructors plan to establish specific on-site
safety education and to promote essential working environment safety. This study has the following
two objectives:

1. To develop a safety knowledge transfer model and to identify on-site safety knowledge
transfer mechanisms.
2. To explore the correlation between on-site safety knowledge transfer and the safe working
environment.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a literature review on
constructs required for construction worker’s safety knowledge transfer. Section 3 presents the research
model and research hypotheses. Section 4 presents the research methodology. Section 5 explains the
design of the questionnaire and survey process. Sections 6 and 7 describe how structural equation
modeling (SEM) was used to verify the relevance of knowledge transfer to a safe working environment
and present results and discussion. Finally, Section 8 presents the study’s conclusions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge is the result of information processing, which involves rearranging, quantifying,
qualifying, grouping, and learning [14]; these processes allow people to make meaningful connections
between information and actions based on responses to information [15]. Knowledge is not only stored
in documents and storage systems for an organization, but also in the processes, implementation,
and specifications of daily work [16]. Knowledge can be divided into tacit knowledge and explicit
knowledge. Tacit knowledge refers to subjective and substantive knowledge that cannot be expressed
in words or sentences. It is personal, difficult to formalize, and deeply embedded in individual actions
and experiences, personal ideals, values, and inner feelings; by contrast, explicit knowledge refers
to objective and metaphysical knowledge that can be expressed in words and numbers. It can be

498
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

conveyed in formal and institutionalized language, and easily communicated and shared using specific
materials, scientific formulas, standardized procedures, and general principles [17,18]. Both tacit and
explicit knowledge are learned through the continuous flow of knowledge, such as drawing on the
personal experiences of friends and family, observing and imitating the states of others, knowledge
being passed from teachers to students in schools, knowledge being imparted from senior staff to
junior staff at a company, and companies holding meetings to announce changes in internal rules.
All of these are knowledge transfer processes.
Szulanski [19] defined knowledge transfer as the flow of knowledge among organizational
members; that is, the routine exchange of knowledge between knowledge providers and recipients
for the operation of individual skills and social systems. Davenport and Prusak [16] emphasized that
this process involves transmission and absorption, where transmission refers to knowledge being
transmitted to potential recipients and absorption refers to people absorbing accepted knowledge.
Knowledge transfer fails if the knowledge is not absorbed by recipients; this reflects the importance of
interaction between knowledge providers and recipients, because knowledge can only be transferred
when both parties are willing to share and receive the knowledge, respectively [20]. In addition,
Wiig [21] defined knowledge transfer from a systematic point of view. He asserted that knowledge
transfer includes actions such as knowledge acquisition, organization, structural reconstruction,
storage, memory, and reassembly for deployment and dissemination. Organizations must provide
basic construction capabilities that support knowledge transfer and create incentives to motivate
employees, teams, departments, and business units to work together toward mutual goals.
According to a literature review and actual surveys, Gilbert and Cordey-Hayes [13] compiled
their knowledge transfer conceptual framework into a five-step model to illustrate the connotations of
knowledge transfer.

1. Acquisition: The first step in knowledge transfer requires knowledge acquisition, which can be
achieved through acquiring knowledge from past experiences of work processes or environments,
and discussions, as well as through obtaining new knowledge from personal sharing.
2. Communication: Organizations must develop communication mechanisms in written and verbal
forms, and must be aware of and eliminate obstacles that hinder communication within the
organization to ensure that knowledge can be effectively transferred.
3. Application: The application of acquired and communicated knowledge can ensure it is
transferred and retained within the organization; knowledge application enables all members of
an organization to learn, apply, and pass on knowledge.
4. Acceptance: The most essential key to knowledge transfer is acceptance. Once knowledge is
applied, it must be accepted by individuals for consistent application as well as be assimilated
into core daily activities.
5. Assimilation: Another crucial key to knowledge transfer is assimilation, which is the result of
the acceptance of knowledge application. The essence of assimilation refers to the process of
knowledge creation, including the cumulative learning process, which demonstrates individuals’
changes in cognition and behavior that enable them to practically apply the knowledge they have
acquired to daily activities of their organization.

2.2. Safety Knowledge

In terms of construction-safety knowledge, explicit knowledge exists in the form of accident
records, mandated safety rules and regulations, and best practices [22], whereas tacit knowledge
mainly relies on workers’ personal experience of safety engineering [23]. Safety climate research has
suggested that safety knowledge is a critical determinant of safety behavior or may act as a mediator
between safety climate and safety performance [24]. Improving the safety knowledge of workers helps
to reduce the risk of accidents [25].

499
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

Safety knowledge, whether explicit or tacit, is mostly scattered and fragmented. Thus, relevant
research has focused more on safety knowledge management and learning technologies. Zhang et al. [22]
proposed a construction-safety knowledge ontology to formalize safety management knowledge, as well
as explored its connection with building information modeling to enable more effective safety-knowledge
inquiries. Taher et al. [26] integrated developed earthwork safety regulation knowledge with an
earthwork ontology to bridge the gap between high-level safety regulations and task-level instructions.
Le et al. [27] proposed an online social virtual reality system framework, which allowed students
to perform role-playing, dialogic learning, and social interactions for construction health and safety
education. Li et al. [25] presented Internet of things applications for knowledge exchange and safety
awareness in construction. Although researchers have mentioned the importance of safety knowledge in
safety performance, relatively little is known about the mechanism of safety knowledge transformation.

3. Research Model and Hypotheses

3.1. Constructing a Safety Knowledge Transfer Model

This study referenced the knowledge transfer concept proposed by Gilbert and Cordey-Hayes [13]
and summarized relevant studies on construction safety to establish a model for developing on-site
safety knowledge transfer, as well as investigated the correlation between safety knowledge transfer
and safe work environments. Following the concepts proposed by Gilbert and Cordey-Hayes [13], the
on-site safety knowledge transfer model is described as follows:
1. Acquisition of safety knowledge:
According to the channels of learning and acquiring safety knowledge proposed by scholars, this
study summarized the concepts of safety knowledge acquisition into safety training, safety leadership,
and self-learning. Safety training equips workers with the skills required to recognize and manage
hazards [28]. It can improve the safety climate and its effect on enhancing worker’s safety attitudes,
perceptions, and behaviors. Organizations can influence the safety performance of their workers
by teaching and training them in safety behaviors and attitudes [24,29]. Blair [30] emphasized that
supervisors must provide education, training, and resources to ensure that workers are effectively
developed and prepared to contribute to safety. Hofmann and Morgeson [31] argued that the interaction
between supervisors and workers can influence an organization’s safety communication and worker
accidents, which they defined as safety leadership. Conducting safety leadership will drive workers to
demonstrate safe behavior [32]. Through enabling workers to understand policies and rules in the
workplace, promoting an open and trustworthy relationship with workers, increasing worker rights
and responsibilities for safety performance, and taking the initiative to conduct safety-related activities,
supervisors can establish a safety paradigm, thereby enhancing workers’ safety in the workplace [33].
In addition, informal knowledge of industry professions, such as rules of thumb and skills, must be
observed by workers in the work environment so they acquire knowledge through comprehending
empirical knowledge.
2. Communication of safety knowledge:
Communication is the process by which a supervisor or worker communicates opinions expressed
by one party to another through a formal or informal communication channel. In addition to long-term
accumulated knowledge in an organization, organization members are also required to contribute their
knowledge for the sake of accumulation [34]. The sharing, interaction, and communication of members’
safety knowledge within the organization will contribute to the flow of safety knowledge and learning
applications. Supervisors conducting safety communication will also drive workers to demonstrate
safety behaviors [32], improving their safety behaviors through effective communication [35,36].
Consistent sharing of safety information among employees helps to prevent on-site accidents.

500
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

3. Application of safety knowledge:

This study named this concept safety knowledge application and inspiration. This means the
application of safety knowledge (acquired through the acquisition and communication of safety
knowledge) that enables workers to confirm the acquired knowledge in practical operations; and
enables other personnel in the organization to acquire or receive the safety knowledge. Attempts by
workers to apply their acquired knowledge within the organization allow the continuous dissemination
of safety knowledge.
4. Acceptance of safety knowledge:
This study named this concept safety knowledge acceptance. When workers apply and accept
the transferred knowledge, they obtain the knowledge required to prevent and eliminate accidents.
Workers will clearly know what they should do as well as where and why when accidents occur,
reducing the number of accidents caused by uncertainty [37].
5. Assimilation of safety knowledge:
The assimilation of safety knowledge is an individual’s change in safety awareness and behaviors.
This process allows an individual to be aware of the importance of safety, strengthens his or her
awareness of safety, and thereby change his or her safety behaviors. This study named this concept
safety concern and safety awareness.
Through conducting a literature review and extending Gilbert and Cordey-Hayes’ knowledge
transfer model [13], this study developed eight subconstructs, namely safety training, safety leadership,
self-learning, safety knowledge communication, safety knowledge application and inspiration, safety
knowledge acceptance, safety concern, and safety awareness, to indicate safety knowledge transfer
(as shown in the dotted box in Figure 1). In the first four subconstructs (safety training, safety leadership,
self-learning, and safety knowledge communication), an organization plays a crucial role in providing
a proper environment for workers to acquire safety knowledge as well as appropriate channels for
safety knowledge communication. These actions enable workers to apply the safety knowledge
they acquire through the acquisition and communication of safety knowledge and inspire each other
(safety knowledge application and inspiration). Additionally, these actions drive the acceptance and
assimilation of safety knowledge (safety knowledge acceptance, safety concern, and safety awareness)
for presenting specific safety behaviors. Therefore, this study defined the first four subconstructs as
a safe knowledge transfer environment, emphasizing the importance of organizations providing an
appropriate environment for initiating the transfer of safety knowledge. In addition, the latter three
subconstructs were defined as safety behaviors.

Safety knowledge transfer model

H3

Safety knowledge transfer

environment Safety behavior
H1 Safety knowledge H2 H5 Safe working
Safety training application and Safety knowledge acceptance
environment
Safety leadership inspiration Safety concern
Self-learning Safety awareness
Safety knowledge communication

H4

Figure 1. Diagram of the research hypotheses.

3.2. Research Framework

This study explored the constructs of a safe working environment and safety knowledge transfer
model (safety knowledge transfer environment, safety knowledge application and inspiration, and

501
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

safety behavior) presented in the previous section. A safe working environment is a place where all
construction activities are conducted safely and workers have the working conditions they require to
complete tasks safely. To prevent the occurrence of any accidents, a good on-site working environment
is an essential ingredient. This study employed safety training, safety leadership, self-learning, and
safety knowledge communication in response to the safety knowledge transfer environment, and
safety knowledge acceptance, safety concern, and safety awareness in response to safety behaviors.
In addition, to explore the effects of on-site safety knowledge transfer in a safe working environment,
this study hypothesized that a safety knowledge transfer environment will affect safety behaviors
and safety knowledge application and inspiration, which could lead to a safe working environment.
Figure 1 presents the research hypotheses. According to the abovementioned discussion, this study
proposed the following five hypotheses as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Research hypotheses.

Item Hypothesis
A safety knowledge transfer environment has a positive effect on safety knowledge
H1
application and inspiration.
H2 Safety knowledge application and inspiration have a positive effect on safety behavior.
H3 A safety knowledge transfer environment has a positive effect on safety behavior.
Safety knowledge application and inspiration have a positive effect on a safe working
H4
environment.
H5 Safety behavior has a positive effect on a safe working environment.

4. Methodology
According to the research objectives and literature review, this study used statistical methods
and SEM as research tools and applied empirical analysis to explore the correlation between
construction-safety knowledge transfer and a safe working environment. On the basis of the literature
review and an actual situation of on-site safety, this study drafted questionnaire items for each construct,
discussed the definition of each item with practical experts, and confirmed the wording of sentences.
A pretest of 50 samples [38] was performed prior to the issuance of the formal questionnaire to
determine the reliability and goodness-of-fit of the questionnaire items.
Analysis results of the pretest were processed in four stages: (1) The correlation coefficient matrix
of all items was calculated, and one of the two items with high correlation (the correlation coefficient
exceeded 0.9) was eliminated. (2) An internal consistency indicator was used, and the sum of all the
pretest samples was sorted in order; the difference between the top 27% (high-score group) and bottom
27% (low-score group) was used as the basis for item discrimination, and nondiscriminatory items
were removed [39]. (3) Factor analysis was used to remove items with factor loadings less than 0.5 [40]
to ensure the reliability and validity of the items. (4) The internal consistency of each construct was
tested using the Cronbach’s α value, where higher coefficient values indicate higher reliability.
This study used SEM and an empirical analysis to build an on-site safety knowledge transfer model
for construction projects, and explored the relationship between on-site safety knowledge transfer and
a safe working environment. SEM was proposed by scholars in the 1970s, and it combines the concept
of path analysis with latent variables and factor analysis. In short, SEM integrates latent variables and
observed variables, which forms the measurement model of SEM, and the structural model uses a
path analysis model to study the causal relationship between latent variables; the integration of both
models forms SEM.
When establishing SEM, the goodness-of-fit coefficient of the theoretical model should be judged.
The higher the model’s goodness-of-fit is, the more satisfactory the display model and the more
meaningful the estimation parameters become. This study used the indexes listed in Table 2 as the
measurement indicators, and composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for

502
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

testing [40–45]. According to Chin and Todd [45] and Hair et al. [40], the value of chi-square/degree of
freedom (χ2 /df) should not exceed 3 in rigorous research; thus, the judging criterion of χ2 /df should be
between 1 to 3. Doll et al. [44] indicated that goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and adjusted GFI (AGFI) range
from 0.80 to 0.89, which represent a reasonable goodness-of-fit of the model; therefore, the judging
criteria of GFI and AGFI in this study had to exceed 0.9. The remaining indicators of normed fit index
(NFI) > 0.90, comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.9, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
< 0.08, and root mean square residual (RMR) < 0.05 are often used as references for goodness-of-fit,
which also served as the criteria for this study. Hair et al. [40] proposed that CR can be used to measure
the internal consistency of indicator items of latent variables; the higher the CR value, the higher the
consistency of the indicator items, with the suggested CR value being > 0.7. The AVE is the average
explanatory power of the latent variables for each observation number. Bagozzi and Yi [41] proposed
that the internal quality of a model is more favorable when the AVE is > 0.5.

Table 2. Model fit indexes.

Index Recommended Standards

Chi-square/degree of freedom (χ2 /df) <3
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) >0.9
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <0.08
Root mean square residual (RMR) <0.05
Adjusted GFI (AGFI) >0.9
Normed fit index (NFI) >0.9
Comparative fit index (CFI) >0.9

5. Questionnaire Development and Distribution

This study referred to relevant literature and held discussions with industry experts, such as
construction site directors, occupational safety and health personnel, and on-site supervisors of
architectural firms, to develop various construct items including safety training, safety leadership,
safety communication, self-learning, safety knowledge application and inspiration, safety knowledge
acceptance, safety concern, safety awareness, and a safe working environment. The initial questionnaire
featured a total of 66 items. To measure participants’ level of agreement on each item, they were measured
using a five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly
disagree; the points for reversed items were from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 points (strongly disagree)).
Analysis results of the pretest questionnaires showed that the correlation coefficient values
between the items were lower than 0.9, indicating no similar items; thus, no items were removed.
Regarding discriminant analysis, seven items that failed the analysis at a significance level of 10% were
removed. Subsequently, factor analysis was performed for each construct, and nine items with a load
factor less than 0.5 were eliminated. The formal questionnaire had a total of 50 items, as shown in
Table 3. The Cronbach’s α values of all constructs were greater than 0.7, indicating that each construct
had satisfactory reliability.
Participants in this study were on-site personnel in the construction industry in western Taiwan.
A total of 311 questionnaires were distributed to construction site management personnel and workers,
with a response rate of 78.14% (243 copies) and valid response rate of 66.24% (206 copies). Table 4
presents the basic information of the samples. The majority of the on-site personnel were aged between
26 and 35 years (38.3%), followed by 36 to 45 years (33.5%). A total of 62.6% of the on-site personnel
had an undergraduate degree as their highest educational attainment. The majority had worked in
the industry for fewer than 5 years (36.4%), followed by 6 to 10 years (19.4%) and 20 years and above
(17%). Most of the on-site personnel attended at least one safety training session per year (83%), and
most worked for a Level A construction company (73.3%). In addition, most of the on-site personnel
were engineers (51.5%), followed by site directors (18.9%). Finally, most of the on-site personnel had
not encountered occupational accidents on site within the last 3 years (67.5%).

503
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

Table 3. Factor analysis results and Cronbach’s α values of each construct.

Construct (Cronbach’s α) Item Factor Load

T1: Current on-site supervisors often organize routine occupational
0.662
health and safety training courses.
T2: Current on-site supervisors often train workers on how to work
0.826
safely and comply with safety regulations.
T3: Current on-site supervisors rarely train workers on proper safety
0.646
Safety Training (0.803) behaviors and attitudes.
T4: Current on-site supervisors often discuss with workers to review
0.763
and improve dangerous workplace situations.
T5: Current on-site supervisors often encourage workers to express
0.746
ideas and recommendations on safety issues.
T6: Current on-site supervisors regularly ask colleagues to pay more
0.697
attention to the safety awareness of new workers.
L1: Current on-site supervisors often guide workers to be cautious and
0.648
strictly follow safety procedures.
L2: Current on-site supervisors emphasize the company’s belief that
0.591
safety and work are equally crucial.
L3: Current on-site supervisors promptly remind workers who have
0.743
Safety Leadership (0.899) incorrect concepts regarding safety.
L4: Current on-site supervisors often remind me of safety issues that
0.665
should be noted at work.
L5: My supervisor often leads by example to actively share safety
0.688
knowledge.
L6: Current on-site supervisors immediately correct workers who do
0.682
not comply with safety regulations.
SL1: I often try to apply safety knowledge to the construction site. 0.818
SL2: I often share my safety knowledge. 0.754
Self-learning (0.808)
SL3: I often learn work safety from the contents of the health and safety
0.638
management section of the construction plan.
C1: On-site supervisors can provide appropriate guidance and
0.622
solutions to colleagues who face any safety problems.
C2: On-site supervisors value proposals or recommendations related to
0.678
accident prevention.
Safety Knowledge
Communication (0.752) C3: On-site supervisors often raise safety-related issues during
0.704
meetings.
C4: I often convert safety knowledge into text and store it in a shared
0.541
folder in an electronic file.
C5: I often learn about work safety by chatting with colleagues. 0.553
AI1: I inform my superiors when I notice any unsafe behavior. 0.624
AI2: I inform everyone when I receive a new company safety policy. 0.753
Safety Knowledge AI3: I often pass on safety knowledge to other people at the scene. 0.782
Application and Inspiration
(0.828) AI4: I do not often share accident cases with other people at the scene. 0.534
AI5: I often solve the safety concerns of my colleagues or workers. 0.776
AI6: I think that individuals affect each other in terms of safety behavior. 0.909
A1: I understand the accidents that I may encounter at work. 0.538
A2: I usually use tools, utensils, and materials correctly. 0.572
Safety Knowledge A3: I understand all approaches and regulations on the use of personal
0.576
Acceptance (0.722) protective equipment.
A4: I understand the safety risks posed by unsafe actions. 0.511
A5: I always remember construction-safety knowledge. 0.686
SC1: I check and confirm that it is safe to start work. 0.691
SC2: When I notice any unsafe behavior during work, I stop work and
0.781
eliminate it.
Safety Concern (0.790)
SC3: I correct my colleagues or workers immediately if I notice they are
0.784
behaving unsafely.
SC4: I not only pay attention to my own safety but also to that of my
0.742
colleagues.

504
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

Table 3. Cont.

Construct (Cronbach’s α) Item Factor Load

SA1: I restore or maintain dismantled safety protection equipment. 0.502
Safety Awareness (0.726) SA2: I still continue to work when I fall sick. 0.804
SA3: I pay special attention to construction safety when the project is rushed. 0.606
SA4: I do not propose discussions when I have any safety-related suggestions. 0.723
E1: The site has an excellent safety management system. 0.705
E2: Safety warning signs can be found everywhere on the construction site. 0.771
E3: The on-site personnel is always alert in the work environment at all times. 0.703
E4: A guardrail will be added to areas in a workplace where it is easy to fall. 0.768
E5: All holes in the workplace will be covered. 0.690
Safe Working Environment E6: Illumination of the workplace is extremely inadequate. 0.805
(0.916)
E7: All fire safety equipment in the workplace is adequately set up. 0.768
E8: Workers have appropriate safety equipment when working at heights. 0.781
E9: Water is sprinkled when there is excessive dust. 0.661
E10: Everyone wears protective equipment when there is excessive dust. 0.618
E11: Safety of the site is reviewed daily before work. 0.637

Table 4. Basic information distribution of the samples.

Variable Category Number Percentage

Male 180 87.4%
Gender
Female 26 12.6%
Below 25 years 14 6.8%
26–35 years 79 38.3%
Age 36–45 years 69 33.5%
46–55 years 39 18.9%
56 years and above 5 2.4%
Below junior high school 6 2.9%
Highest educational level High school 34 16.5%
obtained Undergraduate 129 62.6%
Postgraduate and above 37 18.0%
Below 5 years 75 36.4%
6–10 years 40 19.4%
Years of working experience in
11–15 years 26 12.6%
the construction industry
16–20 years 30 14.6%
20 years and above 35 17.0%
0 35 17.0%
1 83 40.3%
Number of safety training
2 34 16.5%
events attended in the past year
3 23 11.2%
3 and above 31 15.0%
Level A 151 73.3%
Grade of the general Level B 16 7.8%
construction business Level C 14 6.8%
Others 25 12.1%
Worker 25 12.1%
Engineer 106 51.5%
On-site position Management personnel 24 11.7%
Site director 39 18.9%
Others 12 5.8%

505
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

6. Results and Analysis

6.1. Measurement Model Test Results

This section describes how this study used SEM to verify the causal relationships between variables.
The correlations between knowledge transfer environment (safety training, safety leadership, safety
knowledge communication, and self-learning), safety knowledge application and inspiration, and
safety behaviors (safety knowledge acceptance, safety concern, and safety awareness) were explored.
This study first analyzed the measurement model and verified whether the goodness-of-fit of
each construct of the model was acceptable. If it was not acceptable, the items were removed to modify
the model. The evaluation indicators of χ2 /df, GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, RMR, NFI, and CFI were used as
the basis for judging whether the measurement model had a good fit, and the AVE and CR were used
for testing. After eliminating T1, T2, L1, L2, C4, SA1, SA3, A4, AI4, AI5, E1, E3, E4, E6, and E11, each
construct met all fit indicators with the recommended standards in Table 2 (Table 5). As shown in
Table 6, the CR of each construct was > 0.7, indicating their adequate reliability. The AVE values of
each construct were all > 0.5, demonstrating that each had adequate convergent validity.

Table 5. Goodness-of-fit of the measurement model and the structural model.

Construct of the Measurement Model

Safety Knowledge Safety Knowledge Structural
Index Safety Safe Working
Transfer Application and Model
Behavior Environment
Environment Inspiration
χ2 /df 1.223 1.039 1.648 2.241 1.134
GFI 0.941 0.990 0.953 0.940 0.927
RMSEA 0.033 0.014 0.056 0.078 0.026
RMR 0.021 0.013 0.029 0.034 0.260
AGFI 0.910 0.969 0.918 0.900 0.902
NFI 0.945 0.985 0.930 0.922 0.919
CFI 0.989 0.999 0.971 0.955 0.990

Table 6. CR and AVE for each construct of the measurement model.

Construct CR AVE
Safety knowledge transfer environment 0.9364 0.7873
Safety knowledge application and inspiration 0.837 0.5677
Safety behavior 0.7885 0.5790
Safe working environment 0.8573 0.5083

6.2. Structural Model Test Results

According to the proposed research hypotheses, the structural model between each construct
was established and a path analysis was performed. Figure 2 illustrates the final structural model of
this study. The index of the adjusted structural model achieved the following results; χ2 /df = 1.134,
GFI = 0.927, RMSEA = 0.026, RMR = 0.260, AGFI = 0.902, NFI = 0.919, and CFI = 0.990, as shown in
Table 5. The overall fit statistics indicated an excellent fit for the model; thus, the results supported the
hypothesized relationship.
Hypothesis testing was performed according to the results of models empirically presented in this
study. H1 was that a knowledge transfer environment has a positive and significant effect on safety
knowledge application and inspiration. The path coefficient of knowledge transfer environment to
safety knowledge application and inspiration was 0.874 (p < 0.001); thus, H1 was supported, indicating
that an improved knowledge transfer environment can result in greater safety knowledge application
and inspiration of on-site workers. H3 posited that a knowledge transfer environment has a positive
and significant effect on safety behavior. The path coefficient of knowledge transfer environment to
safety behavior was 0.587 (p < 0.001); thus, H3 was supported, indicating that a more satisfactory

506
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

knowledge transfer environment will drive on-site workers to demonstrate higher levels of safety
behavior. H2 posited that safety knowledge application and inspiration have a positive and significant
effect on safety behavior. The path coefficient of safety knowledge application and inspiration to
safety behavior was 0.440 (p < 0.01); thus, H2 was supported, signifying that greater safety knowledge
application and inspiration of on-site workers can lead to improved safety behavior. Moreover, this
showed that, in addition to directly affecting safety behaviors, the knowledge transfer environment
indirectly affects safety behaviors through safety knowledge application and inspiration. H5 posited
that safety behavior has a positive and significant effect on a safe working environment. The path
coefficient of personal safety behavior to safe working environment was 0.795 (p < 0.001); thus, H5
was supported, indicating that the working environment of a construction site is safer when on-site
workers exhibit more safety behaviors. In the case of a safe working environment, a higher chance
exists for preventing on-site accidents.

e15 e16 e17 e18 e19 e9 e10

0.784 0.366 0.529 0.682 0.466 0.386 0.834
A2 A3 SC2 SC3 SC4 SA2 SA4
0.826
0.885 0.605 0.727 e26 0.621 0.913
e24 e25 0.683
0.548 0.740 0.138
Safety knowledge Safety
Safety concern awareness
acceptance
e20
0.860
0.579 0.770 0.741 0.372
e1 T5 0.761
0.498 Safety training
e2 T6 0.706 Safety 0.989
e21 e27
0.877 behavior
0.627 0.876 e29
e3 L4 0.792 0.587 0.795 0.631
Safety leadership 0.595
0.594 Safety 0.771
e4 T6 0.771 E8 e13
0.936 knowledge Safe working
e22
0.682 transfer 0.440 environment 0.686
0.627 0.826 0.828 E9 e14
e11 SL1 0.792 environment 0.874
Self-learning Safety
0.536
e12 SL3 0.732
knowledge Λ2 = 159.850
e23 0.868 application and
0.658 0.753 degree of freedom = 141
e5 C2 0.811 Safety 0.763 inspiration Λ2 /df = 1.134
knowledge e28 GFI = 0.927, AGFI = 0.902,
0.797 0.753 0.799
e6 C3 0.893 communication RMSEA = 0.026
AI1 AI3
0.567 0.638
e7 e8

Figure 2. Overall structural model.

H4 posited that safety knowledge application and inspiration have a positive and significant effect
on a safe working environment; however, as shown in Figure 2, safety knowledge application and
inspiration did not directly affect safe working environment. By contrast, because H2 and H5 were
supported, safety knowledge application and inspiration indirectly affect safe working environment
through safety behaviors; this means that H4 should be supported because safety knowledge application
and inspiration have a positive and significant effect on safe working environment. Table 7 presents
the direct and indirect effects of latent independent variables of the overall model on latent dependent
variables. Among the total effects, the knowledge transfer environment had the greatest effect on
safety behavior, and safety knowledge application and inspiration had the smallest effect on safe
working environment. Path values in the structural model were positive, indicating that the various
constructs are positively related. Knowledge transfer environment and safety knowledge application
and inspiration indirectly affected a safe working environment through safety behavior in a positive
and increasing trend.

507
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

Table 7. Effects of the overall model.

Latent Independent Latent Dependent Hypothesis

Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect
Variable Variable Supported?
Safety knowledge
Safety knowledge transfer application and 0.874 - 0.874 H1 was supported
environment inspiration
Safety behavior 0.587 0.874 × 0.44 = 0.385 0.972 H3 was supported
Safety knowledge Safety behavior 0.440 - 0.440 H2 was supported
application and inspiration
Safe working
- 0.44 × 0.795 = 0.350 0.350 H4 was supported
environment
Safe working
Safety behavior 0.795 - 0.795 H5 was supported
environment

7. Discussion
The knowledge transfer environment constructs included four subconstructs: safety training,
safety leadership, safety knowledge communication, and self-learning. Among them, safety leadership
had the highest factor loading (0.936), which was the most vital factor in the knowledge transfer
environment, followed by safety training (0.877), safety knowledge communication (0.868), and
self-learning (0.826). On-site supervisors often remind workers to pay attention to safety and
immediately correct unsafe behaviors on the spot, resulting in the effect of safety leadership. Safety
training is improved when on-site supervisors encourage workers to express safety concerns or
regularly ask their colleagues to pay more attention to the safety of new workers. Furthermore,
safety knowledge communication will be enhanced when on-site supervisors emphasize proposals or
suggestions for accident prevention, as well as frequently discuss safety-related topics. In addition,
applying safety knowledge to the on-site construction environment for confirming knowledge and
understanding safety hazards at work through an organization’s health and safety management plan
can be regarded as self-learning performance. In addition to safety leadership, on-site supervisors
play an essential role in safety training and safety knowledge communication. This shows that the
safety concerns of on-site supervisors are vital for establishing workers’ safety knowledge. The results
of this study indicated that safety knowledge acquisition and self-learning orientation of Taiwan’s
construction workers are relatively passive, where the workers acquire safety knowledge through
safety training and communication provided by their on-site supervisors as opposed to them learning
them on their own.
Safety behavior constructs included safety knowledge acceptance, safety concern, and safety
awareness. Among them, safety concern had the highest factor loading (0.860), indicating that it was
the most crucial factor affecting safety behaviors (i.e., individuals who are more concerned with safety
tend to exhibit higher levels of safety behavior), followed by safety knowledge acceptance (0.741),
with the lowest being safety awareness (0.372). This result indicated that on-site workers should
strengthen links between safety awareness and safety behavior. In terms of the acceptance of safety
knowledge, most of the on-site workers could use tools, equipment, or materials correctly, and could
understand the use and regulations of personal protective equipment, indicating that they possessed a
certain amount of safety knowledge. Safety concern is reflected in on-site workers stopping work to
eliminate the unsafe behaviors of others, indicating that they do not only pay attention to their own
safety at work. On-site workers’ safety awareness can be improved by enhancing their perceptions
of their bodies, having them understand that they should stop working whenever they experience
physical discomfort, and having them raise their own concerns about on-site safety. Safety knowledge
application and inspiration can affect safety behaviors. Therefore, applying acquired safety knowledge
to unsafe behaviors at work and informing management, or passing safety knowledge on to others, can
directly affect the safety behaviors of on-site workers and indirectly make the work environment safer.
According to the aforementioned analysis, effective improvements of safety knowledge transfer
are necessary for a safe working environment, which can be achieved through safety training, safety
leadership, safety knowledge communication, and self-learning. On-site supervisors should encourage

508
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

workers to express their thoughts and suggestions on safety issues, regularly ask their colleagues to pay
more attention to new workers’ safety awareness, and counsel and encourage workers to participate in
safety issues to improve the effects of safety knowledge transfer. Furthermore, the leadership method
of on-site management personnel has a great effect on knowledge transfer; if they emphasize safety,
they will deliver safety knowledge to others. For example, on-site supervisors should often remind
workers of safety issues to pay attention to at work. Moreover, supervisors should immediately correct
workers’ behavior in accordance with safety regulations. Such an active and positive leadership
method can effectively transfer knowledge. Pu et al. (2013) noted that leaders with high levels of care
or control can effectively control the unsafe behaviors of workers; workers’ safety behaviors can be
developed easily if the leadership behavior of on-site personnel has a more apparent development.
Moreover, the communication of on-site management personnel is critical. For instance, on-site
supervisors should emphasize accident prevention-related proposals or suggestions, regularly raise
safety-related topics in meetings, and be willing to discuss safety prevention with other workers.
Regardless of whether the content discussed will be accepted, results must be obtained from discussions
and idea exchange between management personnel and workers. Furthermore, management personnel
must provide warnings about the unsafe behavior they have noticed to improve safety knowledge
communication and safety prevention.
On-site knowledge transfer is not limited to management personnel; workers must also acquire
safety knowledge by themselves, such as attempting to apply safety knowledge to their construction
site and learning work safety from the health and safety management plan. To acquire knowledge,
workers must not wait for it to be imparted by others but also identify their own sources of knowledge
through observing, imitating, and reading. Applying the knowledge acquired on-site that enables
other workers to learn and follow, and teaching workers of accidents that may occur can achieve
mutual vigilance and influence, thereby reducing accidents.
Successful knowledge transfer requires people to impart and receive knowledge. Knowledge
possessed by each individual is not necessarily similar. Therefore, a knowledge consensus can be
achieved through mutual exchange, presentation, and discussion, which means that everyone is a
seed of knowledge, and effective knowledge dissemination can turn it into a normal cycle. Safety in
on-site construction environments can only be achieved when knowledge is transferred continuously
in a cycle.

8. Conclusions
This study constructed a safety knowledge transfer model and explored the relationship between
safety knowledge transfer and safe working environments. The safety knowledge transfer model
included knowledge transfer environment (safety training, safety leadership, safety knowledge
communication, and self-learning), safety knowledge application and inspiration, and safety behaviors
(safety knowledge acceptance, safety concern, and safety awareness) in response to the processes
of acquisition, communication, application, acceptance, and assimilation of transferred knowledge.
After the structural model was established using SEM, hypothesis testing was performed. With the
significance level set at 95%, all hypotheses in Table 1 reached significance, indicating that the
working environment at a construction site is safer when the degree of knowledge transfer is higher.
The knowledge transfer environment affects the safety behaviors of on-site workers as well as their
safety knowledge application and inspiration. Furthermore, safety behaviors are affected by the
safety knowledge application and inspiration of other personnel. The on-site working environment is
directly and indirectly affected by safety behaviors and safety knowledge application and inspiration,
respectively, improving the safety of the site.
The path values of each path could be determined after structural model analysis was performed.
The total effects of each path value were knowledge transfer environment to safety behavior (0.972),
knowledge transfer environment to safety knowledge application and inspiration (0.874), safety
knowledge application and inspiration to safety behavior (0.440), safety knowledge application and

509
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

inspiration to safe working environment (0.350), and safety behavior to safe working environment
(0.795). Safety behaviors may change because of the knowledge transfer of on-site workers, such
as on-site supervisors encouraging workers to express their ideas and suggestions on safety issues,
immediately correcting workers’ unsafe behaviors, and raising safety-related issues in meetings,
as well as on-site workers applying safety knowledge to the construction site, which will result in
safety knowledge transfer and changes in safety behaviors of the workers. Once safety behaviors are
improved, on-site workers will pay attention to matters such as correctly using tools and protective
equipment, stopping work and eliminating unsafe behaviors when they notice them, and stopping
work when they experience physical discomfort. The improvement of safety behaviors can enhance
safe on-site working environments.
In summary, safety-related knowledge transfer must be practiced to improve the safety of on-site
work environments. Increasing the safety knowledge of on-site workers through meetings, on-site
teaching, and safety-related issues can improve their appreciation of the importance of protective
equipment. Moreover, on-site workers will pay more attention to the safety of themselves and
others. This study’s research model showed that safety behavior and safety knowledge application
and inspiration mediated the effect of the knowledge transfer environment on the safe working
environment, indicating the importance of on-site knowledge transfer. A safe working environment
can be formed if on-site management personnel can transfer safety knowledge to on-site workers
and cultivate it, provide guidance to them, ask for relevant safety opinions, always pay attention
to and correct workers’ safety problems, and correctly apply safety knowledge. Therefore, on-site
management personnel must emphasize knowledge transfer, whether through education and training,
on-site communication and guidance, and listening to the opinions of on-site workers. In addition, this
study revealed that the linkage between the safety awareness and safety behavior of on-site workers
was weak; therefore, strengthening it should be a focus in safety knowledge transfer.
According to the discussion in this study, several recommendations and future research directions
were proposed. This study only used four subconstructs (i.e., safety training, safety leadership, safety
communication, and self-learning) to represent a knowledge transfer environment, and assumed that
each subconstruct was independent. Subsequent research can continue to explore the effectiveness
of on-site workers’ knowledge transfer and the correlation between each subconstruct, as well as
develop a knowledge transfer effectiveness scale for on-site workers in the construction industry to
understand the pros and cons of knowledge transfer, on the basis of which the knowledge transfer
model can be revised. The participants of this study were on-site personnel in the construction industry.
Future research can further investigate differences between the various levels of personnel, such
as on-site construction workers, middle management personnel (on-site construction management
personnel), and senior management personnel (supervisors). Because the cultures of different countries
differ, further discussions and comparisons between the construction industries of different countries
are warranted.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.-H.H. and T.-R.Y.; data curation, Y.-H.H.; formal analysis, T.-R.Y.;
investigation, T.-R.Y.; methodology, Y.-H.H. and T.-R.Y.; project administration, Y.-H.H.; writing—original draft,
Y.-H.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.-H.H.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers who
significantly enhanced the contents of the study with their insightful comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2018 Labor Inspection Annual Report; Occupational Safety
and Health Administration: Ministry of Labor: Taipei, Taiwan, 2019. (In Chinese)
2. Cheng, C.W.; Leu, S.S.; Lin, C.C.; Fan, C. Characteristic analysis of occupational accidents at small construction
enterprises. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 698–707. [CrossRef]

510
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

3. Chi, C.F.; Yang, H.S.; Chen, W.S.; Liu, K.C.; Chang, T.C.; Ting, H.I. In-depth analysis and prevention of fatal
falls in construction industry. J. Occup. Saf. Health 2008, 16, 383–400. (In Chinese)
4. Musonda, I.; Smallwood, J. Health and safety (H&S) awareness and implementation in Botswana’s
construction industry. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2008, 6, 81–90.
5. Chen, W.T.; Lu, C.S.; Huang, Y.H. Investigating the safety cognition of Taiwan’s construction personnel.
J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2011, 19, 398–408.
6. Leu, S.S.; Chang, C.M. Bayesian-network-based safety risk assessment for steel construction projects. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 2013, 54, 122–133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Nadhim, E.A.; Hon, C.K.; Xia, B.; Stewart, I.; Fang, D. Investigating the relationships between safety climate
and safety performance indicators in retrofitting works. Constr. Econ. Build. 2018, 18, 110–129. [CrossRef]
8. Teo, E.A.L.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Chong, A.F.W. Framework for project managers to manage construction safety. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 329–341. [CrossRef]
9. Heinrich, H. Industrial Accident Prevention, 4th ed.; Mc Graw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1959.
10. Cheng, C.W.; Leu, S.S.; Cheng, Y.M.; Wu, T.C.; Lin, C.C. Applying data mining techniques to explore factors
contributing to occupational injuries in Taiwan’s construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 214–222.
[CrossRef]
11. Geller, E.S. Ten principles for achieving a total safety culture. Prof. Saf. 1994, 9, 18–24.
12. Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 14–37. [CrossRef]
13. Gilbert, M.; Cordey-Hayes, M. Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful
technological innovation. Technovation 1996, 16, 301–312. [CrossRef]
14. Spiegler, I. Knowledge management: A new idea or a recycled concept? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 3,
14. [CrossRef]
15. Nancy, M.D. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know; Harvard Business School
Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2000.
16. Davenport, T.H.; Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know; Harvard Business
School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1998.
17. Polanyi, M.; Sen, A. The Tacit Dimension; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009.
18. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1955.
19. Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm.
Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 27–43. [CrossRef]
20. Verkasalo, M.; Lappalainen, P. A method of measuring the efficiency of the knowledge utilization process.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1998, 45, 414–423. [CrossRef]
21. Wiig, K.M. Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management. Long Range Plan. 1997, 30, 399–405.
[CrossRef]
22. Zhang, S.; Boukamp, F.; Teizer, J. Ontology-based semantic modeling of construction safety knowledge:
Towards automated safety planning for job hazard analysis (JHA). Autom. Constr. 2015, 52, 29–41. [CrossRef]
23. Hadikusumo, B.H.W.; Rowlinson, S. Capturing safety knowledge using design-for-safety-process tool.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 281–289. [CrossRef]
24. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A.; Hart, P.M. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual
behavior. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 99–109. [CrossRef]
25. Li, R.Y.M.; Chau, K.W.; Lu, W.; Ho, D.C.W.; Shoaib, M.; Meng, L. Construction hazard awareness and
construction safety knowledge sharing epistemology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019 (ICSIC): Driving Data-Informed Decision-Making, Churchill
College, Cambridge, UK, 8–10 July 2019; pp. 283–290.
26. Taher, A.; Vahdatikhaki, F.; Hammad, A. Integrating earthwork ontology and safety regulations to enhance
operations safety. In Proceedings of the 36th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction (ISARC), Banff, AB, Canada, 21–24 May 2019.
27. Le, Q.T.; Pedro, A.; Park, C.S. A social virtual reality based construction safety education system for
experiential learning. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2015, 79, 487–506. [CrossRef]
28. Jeelani, I.; Albert, A.; Gambatese, J.A. Why do construction hazards remain unrecognized at the work
interface? J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 4016128. [CrossRef]
29. Shin, M.; Lee, H.-S.; Park, M.; Moon, M.; Han, S. A system dynamics approach for modeling construction
workers’ safety attitudes and behaviors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 95–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

511
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426

30. Blair, E. Culture and leadership: Seven key points for improved safety performance. Prof. Saf. 2003, 48,
18–22.
31. Hofmann, D.A.; Morgeson, P. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational
support and leader-member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 286–296. [CrossRef]
32. Tsaur, C.C.; Lin, S.H.; Kuo, C.C.; Gau, C.Y. The safety leadership and communication of supervisors and the
safety behavior of workers: The moderating effect of safety management. J. Occup. Saf. Health 2012, 20, 1–33.
(In Chinese)
33. O’Dea, A.; Flin, R. Site managers and safety leadership in the offshore oil and gas industry. Saf. Sci. 2001, 37,
39–57. [CrossRef]
34. Simon, M. The Creative Marketer; Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.: London, UK, 1991.
35. Ojanen, K.; Seppälä, A.; Aaltonen, M. Measurement methodology for the effects of accident prevention
programs. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1988, 14, 95–96.
36. Holt, A.S.J. Principles of Construction Safety; Blackwell Science: London, UK, 2001.
37. Smith-Crowe, K.; Burke, M.J.; Landis, R.S. Organizational climate as a moderator of safety knowledge safety
performance relationships. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 861–876. [CrossRef]
38. Fowler, F.J., Jr. Survey Research Methods; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.
39. Cureton, E.E. The upper and lower twenty-seven percent rule. Psychometrika 1957, 22, 293–296. [CrossRef]
40. Hair, J.F.; Black, B.; Brain, B.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
41. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation for structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1998, 16, 74–94.
[CrossRef]
42. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [CrossRef]
43. Bentler, P.M. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112,
400–404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Doll, W.J.; Xia, W.; Torkzadeh, G. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction
instrument. MIS Q. 1994, 18, 453–461. [CrossRef]
45. Chin, W.W.; Todd, P.A. On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS
research: A note of caution. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 237–246. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

512
sustainability

Article
Causes and Mitigation Strategies of Delay in Power
Construction Projects: Gaps between Owners and
Contractors in Successful and Unsuccessful Projects
Edwin Thomas Banobi and Wooyong Jung *
Department of Nuclear Power Plant Engineering, KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School, Ulsan 45014,
Korea; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-52-712-7120; Fax: +82-52-712-7261

Received: 30 September 2019; Accepted: 24 October 2019; Published: 27 October 2019

Abstract: Few studies have verified the different causes of project delays between the owner and
contractor perspectives. This article’s goal is to find what the causes of delay are and how to mitigate
this delay depending on project performance. Thus, this study investigated 82 owner-side experts and
106 contractor-side experts in Tanzanian power construction projects. In successful projects (less than
10% time delay), the owners and contractors weighted similar causes such as vandalism and permits
from authorities. They suggested similar mitigation strategies such as close project supervision,
capacity building training, and proper logistics management. While in unsuccessful projects (more
than 10% time delay), they exhibited many different responses. In particular, contractors weighted
the causes incurred by changes in scope, owner’s poor supervision, delays in approval, failure in
planning and designing risk more than contractors. Owners weighted the mitigation strategies such
as top management support and timely procurement more than contractors. These findings will
help project managers to understand owners’ and contactors’ different concerns and develop better
solutions. This study mainly contributes to improving delay management in power construction
projects in developing countries.

Keywords: time management; delay management; mitigation strategy; owner perspective; contractor
perspective; power construction project; Tanzania

1. Introduction
A multitude of construction projects in many countries still suffer from project delays that lead to
losses and claims on the part of both owners and contractors [1,2]. In the case of Tanzania, 32 among
39 power projects experienced on average six month delays compared to their planned completion
date [3]. Therefore, many studies have investigated delay causes to achieve better construction project
management [4–6]. Although these studies contribute to improved delay management, several aspects
have not been studied well to date. First, previous studies usually analyzed the causes only from
the owner’s or contractor’s perspective [4]. Even though some research compared the rank of causes
from the owner and contractor, they did not verify the statistical significance of the difference between
owner and contractor [7–9]. Besides, even if another research analyzed the gaps well between owners
and contractors, their subjects focused on the risk, contract and conflict, which are relevant but some
different issues with project delay [10–12]. Second, they did not consider the performance-oriented
cause of delay. Depending on the project progress performance, the cause and mitigation strategies
can be varied.
Project owners usually are responsible for the basic planning, funding, risk allocation, award
criteria, payment rules, procurement of major items, licensing and design approval [10,13]. Contractors
play a role in design details, detail procurement, risk management, the process and scheduling,

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973; doi:10.3390/su11215973 513 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

productivity, labor, equipment, environment, and so on [10,12]. The failure to meet any of
these responsibilities is an important reason that projects are delayed. However, owners usually
underestimate their responsibilities and blame the contractors. In contrast, contractors insist that
the delays frequently are attributable to the owner’s mismanagement. Thus, the same delays can be
understood differently depending on the owner and contractor’s perspectives, and these differences
can be the root causes of delays. Moreover, this problem of shifting blame is more severe when the
project’s performance does not meet the original plan [14]. Thus, depending on the project progress
performance, the delay causes and mitigation strategies can be varied.
Therefore, this study compares owners and contractors’ different evaluations of the same causes
of delay according to the project’s performance. Then, it suggests more comprehensive mitigation
strategies to reduce construction project delays that consider both owner and contractor perspectives.
To do so, this study follows the research process, as shown in Figure 1. First, the study reviews
previous research that deals with the causes of construction project delays and mitigation strategies.
Second, this study derives the 35 factors of delay causes in 5 groups and 15 factors for mitigation
strategies. The authors designed a questionnaire based on these factors. Third, this research surveyed
and collected the valid responses from 82 owner-related and 106 contractor-related experts in Tanzania.
Fourth, this study analyzed the delay cause rank and gaps between owner and contractor in the
successful and unsuccessful project respectively. Last, this study analyzed the mitigation strategy rank
and gaps between owner and contractor in the successful and unsuccessful project respectively.

Figure 1. Research Procedure.

514
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

2. Literature Review

2.1. Causes of Construction Project Delays

Previous studies have largely identified causes of construction project delays based on literature
reviews and expert interviews, and the delay factors were classified into various groups depending
upon each paper’s authors, as follows. Chan and Kumaraswamy [15] classified causes of delay into
eight groups; project-, client-, design team-, and contractor-related, material, labor, equipment, and
external factors. Odeh and Battaineh [16] studied causes of schedule delays in construction projects with
traditional types of contracts and identified eight major groups of causes: client-, contractor-, consultant-,
material-, labor and equipment-, contract-, and external-related factors. Aziz and Abdel-Hakam [17]
used various categories to classify delay factors; project-, owner-, and contractor-related, financing,
contract, design, site, labor, material, equipment, rules and regulations, scheduling and controlling,
external, and contractual relationships. Alsuliman [18] investigated causes of delay according to stages
in a public construction project, including before, during, and after the award, as well as general factors.
Risk factors, which cause schedule delays in a construction project, can be categorized into various
standards depending on the purpose of establishing the categorization [19]. This study reviews the
literature related to causes of delay in power construction projects from five perspectives related to the:
owner, contractor, design, infrastructure and social, and external factors.

2.1.1. Owner-Related Causes of Delay

The owner’s insufficient project management capability affects delays significantly. Majid
and McCaffer [20] suggested that inadequate fund allocation, insufficient communication among
participants, and damaged materials and equipment are owner-related causes of delay, while Ogunlana
et al. [21] suggested change orders and slow decision making. Long et al. [6] conducted a case study
in Vietnam to identify common and general problems in large construction projects in developing
countries. They suggested ten owner-related problems that cause delays, including lack of strategic
management, construction requirements, improper project feasibility study, lack of a clear bidding
process, excessive change orders, unclear responsibility, lack of capable representatives, owner’s
financial difficulties, poor contract management, and slow decision making. In addition, they specified
delays attributable to participants’ communication and coordination into seven factors. According
to Frimpong et al.’s [22] study, participants, material procurement, and frequent breakdowns in the
construction plant and equipment contributed to projects’ schedule delays. Koushki et al. [23] studied
the causes of time delays associated with the construction of private residential projects, particularly
from the owner’s and developer’s perspectives. Their analysis of 450 questionnaires suggested three
main causes of delays from the owner’s perspective: change orders, financial constraints, and owner’s
lack of experience. Aziz and Abdel-Hakam [17] also identified a total of twenty highly frequent
causes of delay in their literature review. Among them, owner-related causes were the owner’s slow
decisions, shop drawings and samples’ slow preparation and approval, the owner’s change orders
during construction, owner’s financial problems for the project, and owner’s delay in contractors’
progress payment. As owner-related causes of delay, Khatib et al. [24] suggested their financial
problems and difficulties, change orders, delays and shortages of materials, poor site management and
supervision, poor communication and coordination among construction parties, lowest bid awards,
slow decisions, the contract type, delays in performing inspections and tests, and lack of clarity of the
project’s scope. Alsuliman [18] used a questionnaire to investigate the causes of delay according to
stages of a public construction project. The results showed that the most significant group of causes of
the delay was the factors associated with awarding tenders. In particular, the bid and award process,
financial problems, approval delay, and owner’s poor management capability were ranked among
the top 20 causes of delays. Marques and Berg [10], showed that the lowest tender award system
frequently fosters contractors to assume optimistic design and price estimation for winning awards.

515
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

This opportunism induces the changes in scope for increasing project contract price. Marques and
Berg [11], also explained that the budget reduction by government frequently invokes the project delay.
Based on the factors reviewed above, this study selected seven owner-related causes of project
delays: change in scope; owner’s poor supervision; poor communication and coordination; approval
delay; delay in procuring items, lowest bid tender award; owner’s inadequate fund or budget allocation,
and materials/equipment damaged during construction.

2.1.2. Contractor-Related Causes of Delay

Many delay factors are related to the contractor, who largely is responsible to execute a construction
project and manage its schedule. Ogunlana et al. [21] identified material management problems,
organizational deficiencies, planning, scheduling, and equipment allocation problems, financial
difficulties, and inadequate site inspection as contractor-related causes of delay. Frimpong et al. [22] used
a survey in their study of causes of delay in groundwater construction projects in developing countries.
The survey showed that monthly payment difficulties, material procurement, and contractor’s financial
difficulties were ranked among the top 5 causes of delay. In addition, deficiencies in preparing cost
estimates were ranked 10th in 25 delay factors. Long et al. [6] suggested 17 contractor-related causes of
delay: improper planning and scheduling; inadequate experience; insufficient modern equipment;
inaccurate time estimates; inaccurate cost estimates; poor site management; improper monitoring
and control; poor labor and management relations; inappropriate construction methods; contractor’s
financial difficulties; incompetent project teams; poor contract management; severe overtime; material
waste; lack of necessary skills; inadequate site inspection, and lack of competent subcontractors or
suppliers. Koushki [23] argued that ensuring the delivery of materials and the contractor’s capability are
major factors that contribute to delays in construction projects in Kuwait. Aziz and Abdel-Hakam’s [17]
study also identified contractor-related factors, such as their poor site management and supervision,
construction methods, ineffective project planning, and scheduling, financing during construction,
and inadequate experience that caused errors as highly frequent causes of delay. Khatib et al. [24]
suggested improper planning and scheduling, subcontractor’s incompetence, contractor’s lack of
experience, discrepancies between drawings and specifications, construction mistakes and defective
work, inaccurate estimates, inadequate tools and equipment, and price escalation.
Based upon this literature review, this study selected poor quality construction materials and
equipment, poor cost management, poor project planning and scheduling, contractor’s inadequate
site supervision, additional work attributable to construction errors, misrepresentation of information
before bid, poor cost estimation, late payments to suppliers or for contractor’s work, late procurement
orders for material and equipment, and changes in types and specifications, as contractor-related
causes of delay.

2.1.3. Design-Related Causes of Delay

Poor design management causes delays in construction projects’ schedules. Ogunlana et al. [21]
suggested incomplete drawings and designers’ slow responses are two major causes of delays related
to design. In particular, nine of twelve cases they studied suffered from incomplete drawings. Razek
et al. [5] also identified causes of delay in a construction project based on a questionnaire. In their
study, these causes were the owner or his agent’s design changes during construction, lack of a
database to estimate activities’ duration and resources, and designers’ errors or incomplete designs.
Khatib et al. [24] identified the following problems: design changes and modifications, errors, delays,
shop drawings’ slow preparation and approval, and erroneous sources of information. Furthermore,
Alsuliman’s [18] study indicated that variations in orders that occur during the project period and
failure to determine quantities, specifications, and drawings accurately were the most frequent causes
of delays related to the design of public construction projects.

516
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

Based on the literature review, five design-related delay factors were used in this study: design
changes during construction; inappropriate data collection; errors and delays in providing design
documents; a failure in planning and designing risk, and poor resource estimation and allocation.

2.1.4. Infrastructure and Socially Related Causes of Delay

The surrounding infrastructure and social environment also influence a project’s schedule. Majid
and McCaffer [20] suggested that labor-related causes of delay include workers’ low morale/motivation
and strikes, and poor workmanship. Ogunlana et al. [21] argued that problems with neighbors,
government agencies’ slow issuance of permits, resources’ late delivery, shortage of site workers,
and shortage of technical personnel lead to schedule delays in construction projects. Long et al. [6]
found that slow government permits and unsatisfactory site compensation were the 4th and 10th most
frequent problems that cause delays among a total of 62 delay factors in large construction projects.
In particular, unsatisfactory site compensation was the 7th most influential problem that caused delays.
Aziz and Abdel-Hakam [17] suggested other resource-related delay factors, including shortages in
construction materials, equipment, and labor, slow delivery of materials, and low work productivity.
They also pointed out that obtaining permits from municipalities is one of the main causes of delay in
road construction projects in Egypt. Khatib et al. [24] suggested that delays are attributable to shortages
of skilled workers and equipment, lack of qualified and experienced personnel, poor labor productivity,
difficulties obtaining work permits, poor site conditions, and frequent interruptions from the public.
We extracted the following nine delay factors that affect schedule: workers’ absenteeism, low
motivation and morale, and strikes; poor working conditions; unskilled or inexperienced labor; late
delivery of materials and equipment; delays in obtaining permits from authorities; conflicts with
neighbors, and vandalism.

2.1.5. Externally Related Causes of Delay

Some literature has addressed uncontrollable external factors that delay construction projects, such
as the host country’s political climate and site’s geological status. Long et al. [6] identified unforeseen
ground conditions and inclement weather as environmental causes of delay. Frimpong et al. [22]
confirmed such uncontrollable delay factors as ground problems and inclement weather, as well as
unexpected geological conditions. Khatib et al. [24] listed unforeseen ground and weather conditions,
and political insecurity and instability. In particular, multiple studies have identified weather conditions
as one of the major delay factors. In their literature review, Aziz and Abdel-Hakam [17] found that 21
academic papers identified weather conditions as the most frequent delay factor. Koushki et al. [23]
also analyzed inclement weather as the fifth important factor that owners in Kuwait reported caused
delays. In Frimpong et al.’s [22] study, both owners and contractors ranked bad weather in the top 10
among 25 factors.
According to the literature reviewed, the authors identified three externally related delay factors
that cause schedule delays, including force Majeure related to natural disasters, unexpected geological
conditions, and political instability or control.

2.2. Strategies to Mitigate Project Delays

Proactive efforts to mitigate risks help achieve a project’s objectives [25]. Previous studies have
suggested various strategies to mitigate delays’ adverse effects on project performance. Wang et al. [26]
suggested optimal mitigation strategies that respond to various risk events and developed a risk
management framework that suggests a proper mitigation strategy in accordance with country, market,
and project risks, respectively. Kim et al. [27] also developed a risk assessment and mitigation model
to support decision-making for investment in a steel-plant project. They selected six representative
risk factors related to the target project and measured various mitigation strategies’ effectiveness.
Asadi, et al. [28], insisted that project risk management is a critical method to improve the cost, schedule
and quality management. They introduced the risk management guideline and suggested the risk

517
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

management tool using fuzzy model. The strategies that mitigate project delays include three main
critical factors: project mission; top management’s support, and project scheduling, all of which affect
project performance during different phases of implementation. Tripathi and Jha [13], derived the six
organizational success factors for project performance. Among the experience and performance, top
management competence, project factor, supply chain and leadership, availability of resources and
effective cost control measures, they ranked the top management competency highest. Guo, et al. [29],
validated the project performance difference between non-supervised project and supervised project
by engineer using evolutionary game theory. They recommended that the compulsory supervision
is effective way to control project performance. Su et al. [30], emphasized on the accurate the time
estimation skill for delay management. In particular, they suggested the solution of float ownership to
prevent the delay and conflict between owner and contractor.
Critical factors are key issues or areas of activities in which favorable results are necessary for a
project manager to achieve his/her target [31]. Project mission and schedule, top management’s support,
client consultations and acceptance, technical tasks, monitoring as well as feedback, communication,
and troubleshooting are some the factors that influence project success [32]. Nguyen, et al. [33],
recommended five possible factors that may be used to minimize project delays, these includes
experienced project manager, satisfactory funds throughout project life cycle, experienced project team,
project stakeholder’s commitment, and resources availability. Moreover, Nguyen’s another journal [34]
emphasized the relationship between client satisfaction and the team behavior-related strategies such
as project planning and organizing, coordination, contractor assurance and empowerment. Aibinu and
Jagboro [35], suggested that the speeding up of site activities, and incidental stipend could be applied
to reduce project delays. Odeh and Battaineh [16], proposed the following approaches creating and
classifying human resources through appropriate training; consideration of capability and experience
of contractor more than price during contract award, and adoption of design-build and construction
management contracts. Li, et al. [36] reviewed the publications from 2005 to 2018 on dealing critical
success factors for project performance. Then, they suggested the most frequently cited success
factors such as communication and cooperation, effective project planning and controlling, owner’s
involvement and commitment and clear goals and objectives in order.
This study adopted the mitigation factors Pinto and Kharbanda [32] proposed, including the
project’s adequate financing and arrangement, previous work experience on similar projects, donors’
influence, close project supervision, suitable time estimation skills, availability and quality of the
workforce, and availability of materials and equipment. Furthermore, timely payments of completion
certificates, good presentation of information during tendering, finishing the design on time, workers’
motivation and morale, capacity building training, good logistic management (Transportation), top
management’s support, and site location were identified as strategies to mitigate project delays.

3. Methodology
This study derived the delay causes and mitigation strategy factors from the literature review,
investigated the data from survey and further conducted the rank analysis and U-test. This study has
several methodological strengths: (1) relatively large number of samples; (2) quantitative comparison
analyses between owner and contractor, and between successful project and unsuccessful project.
However, this study also has several methodological weaknesses: (1) lack of in-depth qualitative
analyses; (2) limited investigation conducted in one country.

3.1. Questionnaire Design

This questionnaire consists of five sections: (1) respondent information; (2) project information; (3)
causes of project delay; (4) consequences of project delay; (5) mitigation strategy for delay management.
This study does not use the “consequences of project delay” section.

518
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

3.1.1. Delay Factors

This study derived the causes of delay in the literature review (Section 2.1) and grouped them
in five categories as shown in Table 1. These delay factors were used in the questionnaire survey.
The questionnaire asked the respondents to evaluate the importance of causes of delay based on their
experience with projects. The importance levels were measured using five-point Likert scales: one
point (less than 1-month delay); two points (approximately 1-month delay); three points (approximately
2-months delay); four points (approximately 3-month delay); five points (more than 3-months delay).

Table 1. Major Practices Causing Project Delays.

Group Number Delay Causes References

O1 Change in scope
O2 Owner’s poor supervision
O3 Poor communication and coordination
O4 Delays in approval
Owner-related [6,10,11,17,18,20–24]
O5 Delays in procuring materials
O6 Lowest bid tender award
O7 Owner’s inadequate funds or budget allocation
O8 Damaging materials/equipment during construction
C1 Poor quality construction materials and equipment
C2 Poor cost management
C3 Poor project planning and scheduling
C4 Contractor’s poor site supervision
C5 Additional work attributable to mistakes
Contractor-related [6,17,21–24]
C6 Misrepresentation of information before bid
C7 Poor cost estimation
C8 Contractor’s late payment to suppliers or works
C9 Late procurement order of material and equipment
C10 Change in types and specifications
D1 Design changes during construction
D2 Inappropriate data collection
Design-related D3 Mistakes and delays in design documents [5,18,21,24]
D4 Failure in planning and design risk
D5 Poor resource estimation and allocation
I1 Worker’s absenteeism
I2 Workers’ low motivation and morale
I3 Worker’s strikes
I4 Poor working conditions
Infrastructure and
I5 Unskilled or inexperienced labour [6,17,20,21,24]
Socially related
I6 Late delivery of material and equipment
I7 Delay in obtaining permits from authorities
I8 Neighbor’s conflicts
I9 Vandalism
E1 Force Majeure attributable to natural disaster
Externally related E2 Unexpected geological condition [6,17,22–24]
E3 Political instability or controls

3.1.2. Mitigation Strategy Factors

The study summarizes the delay mitigation strategies found in the literature review (Section 2.2)
that contribute to project success as shown in Table 2. The mitigation strategy factors were used in
the questionnaire survey, in which the respondents weighted the importance using five-point Likert
scales. The importance levels were measured using five-point Likert scales: one point (very low,
approximately 0–20% contribution); two points (low, approximately 20–40% contribution); three points
(medium, approximately 40–60% contribution); four points (high, approximately 60–80%); five points
(very high, approximately 80–100%).

519
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

Table 2. Major Mitigation Strategies for Project Success.

Number Mitigation Strategy Factors References

M1 Proper planning of project financial arrangements
M2 Use of skilled labors with and experience on similar projects
M3 Consideration of Donor’s Influence
M4 Close project supervision
M5 Use of suitable time estimation skills
M6 Conducting capacity building training
M7 Timely procurement and supply of materials and equipment
M8 Timely payments of completion certificates [13,16,25–28,30–33,35,36]
M9 Proper presentation of information during tendering
M10 Finishing design on time
M11 Timely site visits
M12 Motivating workers to raise morale
M13 Risk identification and assessment
M14 Proper logistics management
M15 Top management’s support

3.2. Survey
The authors circulated 300 questionnaires electronically to different professional project owners
and contractors throughout Tanzania. Table 3 describes the respondents’ profiles including the
experience of the respondents. All respondents were asked to evaluate the causes of delay as well as
mitigation strategies based on their project experiences. One-hundred ninety-nine responses were
collected and 188 were confirmed valid. Eighty-two responses were collected from the project owner
group and 106 from the project contractor group, as shown in Table 3. Figure 2 indicates the project
profile to which the respondents referred to answer the questions. The distribution of projects planned
and schedule performance varied and is relatively uniform. Project types are skewed slightly toward
distribution rather than power generation and transmission projects.

Table 3. Respondents Profile.

Owner Contractor Total

Number Experience Number Experience Number Experience
(Respondents) (Years) (Respondents) (Years) (Respondents) (Years)
Project Managers 37 8 27 2.5 64 13
Engineers 32 13 48 13 80 8
Technicians 9 2.5 20 8 29 2.5
Consultants 4 15 11 15 15 15
Total 82 106 188

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Project Profile: (a) Project Types; (b) Planned Project Duration; (c) Schedule Performance
(Delay Schedule/Planned Schedule).

520
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

3.3. Analysis Method

To compare the owners’ and contractors’ different perspectives on the causes of delays and
mitigation strategies, this study tested the data sample’s normality first with the Shapiro–Wilk test;
the result indicated that the sample was not distributed normally at p < 0.05 (average p-value =
0.015). Therefore, the study uses the Mann–Whitney U-test rather than the t-test with SPSS software.
The Mann–Whitney U-test is a non-parametric statistical analysis that verifies the difference between
two sample groups in cases of non-normal distributions [37]. If the U-test meets the significance level,
the two groups compared differ significantly.
Furthermore, this study analyzes the differences from the successful project group’s perspective
and the unsuccessful group’s perspective because the experts’ responses and suggestions can vary
depending on their experience with project performance. Thus, the sample data are divided into two
groups. Successful projects are those that had less than a 10% increase in the originally planned project
duration, while unsuccessful projects had more than a 10% increase in project duration.

4. Results

4.1. Causes of Project Delays

4.1.1. Causes of Delays in Successful Projects

Table 4 shows the causes of delay in successful power projects. In the group overall, the owner’s
inadequate funding or budget allocation (O7_1st Rank), vandalism (I9_2nd Rank), the contractor’s late
payment to suppliers or workers (C8_3rd Rank), late delivery of materials and equipment (I6_4th Rank),
and delays in obtaining permits from authorities (I7_5th Rank) rank the highest. In the owner group, the
owner’s inadequate funds or budget allocation (O7_1st Rank), late delivery of materials and equipment
(I6_2nd Rank), Unskilled or inexperienced labour (I5_3rd Rank), vandalism (I9_4th Rank), and changes
in scope (O1_5th Rank) rank as the top five. In the contractor group, the contractor’s late payment
to suppliers or workers (C8_1st Rank), lowest bid tender award (O6_2nd Rank), delays in procuring
materials (O5_3rd Rank), vandalism (I9_4th Rank), and poor communication and coordination (O3_5th
Rank) rank as the top five. The owner and contractor groups ranked the top five delay factors
somewhat differently.

Table 4. Delay Causes in Successful Projects.

Total Owner Contractor U-test

Group Number
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Sig.
O1 2.53 6 2.41 5 2.69 11 0.421
O2 2.19 27 2.05 27 2.39 24 0.169
O3 2.45 13 2.18 19 2.82 5 0.042
O4 2.38 17 2.10 23 2.73 9 0.118
Owner-related
O5 2.49 8 2.23 16 2.86 3 0.068
O6 2.48 9 2.08 24 3.04 2 0.009
O7 2.74 1 2.90 1 2.55 19 0.265
O8 2.17 28 2.16 20 2.19 33 0.930
C1 2.27 23 2.24 15 2.31 29 0.684
C2 2.45 14 2.38 8 2.54 20 0.515
C3 2.27 24 2.21 17 2.36 26 0.452
C4 2.51 7 2.31 10 2.79 6 0.145
C5 2.35 20 2.14 21 2.62 14 0.065
Contractor-related
C6 2.32 21 2.26 14 2.39 25 0.484
C7 2.46 11 2.37 9 2.59 17 0.754
C8 2.64 3 2.29 11 3.14 1 0.023
C9 2.43 15 2.27 12 2.68 12 0.278
C10 2.46 12 2.40 6 2.56 18 0.864

521
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

Table 4. Cont.

Total Owner Contractor U-test

Group Number
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Sig.
D1 2.37 18 2.27 13 2.50 21 0.593
D2 2.17 29 2.07 25 2.30 30 0.683
Design-related D3 2.39 16 2.13 22 2.75 8 0.148
D4 2.26 25 2.00 32 2.64 13 0.087
D5 2.32 22 2.05 28 2.71 10 0.056
I1 1.87 34 1.74 35 2.03 34 0.466
I2 2.13 32 2.05 29 2.23 32 0.608
I3 1.8 35 1.86 33 1.71 35 0.317
I4 2.21 26 2.05 26 2.41 23 0.178
Infrastructure and
I5 2.47 10 2.50 3 2.43 22 0.909
Socially related
I6 2.56 4 2.54 2 2.59 16 0.936
I7 2.55 5 2.39 7 2.77 7 0.346
I8 2.02 33 1.82 34 2.29 31 0.193
I9 2.65 2 2.50 4 2.85 4 0.430
E1 2.16 30 2.02 31 2.36 27 0.664
Externally related E2 2.15 31 2.03 30 2.32 28 0.441
E3 2.37 19 2.19 18 2.61 15 0.218

In particular, the contractors ranked contractors’ late payment to suppliers or workers (C8), lowest
bid tender award (O6) and poor communication and coordination (O3) significantly more highly than
did owners. Contractors’ late payments to suppliers or workers are from the financial crises that
contractors face. Furthermore, it is very common to find cases in which a contractor or subcontractor
who has not been paid what s/he is due intimidates workers or suspends work under the contract until
the balance is paid in full. The lowest bid tender award is a significant challenge to contractors and
most often results in poor performance. Contractors may bid at the lowest price to obtain the award
but ultimately may adopt low-quality techniques that can save cost. Hence, this factor has a greater
effect on the contractor than the owner. Poor communication and coordination can result from work
stress, poor communication skills on workers’ part, unclear and inconsistent site information, and
misinterpretation of instructions.
However, as Table 4 shows, there are not many significant differences between the owners and
contractors in successful projects, compared to the unsuccessful projects in Table 5. If the project goes
well, owners and contractors understand each other and reduce the gaps between their different views.

Table 5. Delay Causes in Unsuccessful Projects.

Total Owner Contractor U-test

Group Number
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Sig.
O1 3.09 26 2.60 32 3.36 15 0.000
O2 2.94 33 2.34 35 3.25 23 0.000
O3 2.87 35 2.74 28 2.94 35 0.389
O4 3.28 16 2.97 24 3.44 10 0.018
Owner-related
O5 3.00 32 2.76 27 3.13 29 0.107
O6 3.16 21 3.03 20 3.23 24 0.321
O7 3.48 9 3.61 5 3.42 11 0.228
O8 3.05 29 3.03 21 3.06 31 0.902
C1 3.17 20 2.95 25 3.29 21 0.370
C2 3.59 6 3.50 8 3.64 5 0.700
C3 3.37 10 3.38 10 3.37 14 0.472
C4 3.31 12 3.24 14 3.34 17 0.777
C5 3.32 11 3.35 12 3.31 19 0.767
Contractor-related
C6 3.08 27 2.54 33 3.37 13 0.000
C7 3.86 1 3.76 3 3.92 2 0.937
C8 3.54 7 3.53 7 3.54 7 0.421
C9 3.61 4 3.84 2 3.49 8 0.082
C10 3.13 23 3.05 19 3.17 28 0.818

522
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

Table 5. Cont.

Total Owner Contractor U-test

Group Number
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Sig.
D1 3.12 25 3.21 16 3.07 30 0.207
D2 3.03 31 2.66 30 3.22 25 0.009
Design-related D3 2.88 34 2.63 31 3.01 34 0.071
D4 3.28 17 2.92 26 3.47 9 0.002
D5 3.29 14 3.18 17 3.35 16 0.689
I1 3.13 24 3.03 22 3.18 27 0.642
I2 3.04 30 3.03 23 3.04 32 0.476
I3 3.16 22 2.68 29 3.42 12 0.015
I4 3.06 28 2.51 34 3.34 18 0.000
Infrastructure and
I5 3.60 5 3.22 15 3.79 3 0.317
Socially related
I6 3.74 3 3.92 1 3.65 4 0.193
I7 3.29 15 3.49 9 3.19 26 0.029
I8 3.30 13 3.30 13 3.30 20 0.883
I9 3.86 2 3.76 4 3.92 1 0.598
E1 3.20 19 3.08 18 3.26 22 0.995
Externally related E2 3.23 18 3.59 6 3.04 33 0.012
E3 3.50 8 3.38 11 3.56 6 0.817

4.1.2. Causes of Delays in Unsuccessful Projects

Table 5 shows the causes of delay in unsuccessful power projects. Poor cost estimation (C7_1st
Rank), vandalism (I9_2nd Rank), late delivery of material and equipment (I6_3rd Rank), late procurement
orders for material and equipment (C9_4th Rank), and additional work attributable to errors (I5_5th
Rank) rank as the top 5 in the group overall. In the owner group, late delivery of material and
equipment (I6_1st Rank), late procurement orders for material and equipment (C9_2nd Rank), poor
cost estimation (C7_3rd Rank), vandalism (I9_4th Rank), and the owner’s inadequate funds or budget
allocation (O7_5th Rank) rank as the top five. In the contractor group, vandalism (I9_1st Rank), poor
cost estimation (C7_2nd Rank), unskilled or inexperienced labor (I5_3rd Rank), late delivery of material
and equipment (I6_4th Rank), and poor cost management (C2_5th Rank) rank as the top five. As such,
the owner and contractor groups ranked the top five delay factors similarly, which indicates that the
two do not have significantly different perspectives on delay factors.
However, there are some significant differences between the owners and contractors at the rank
level. Owners ranked delays in obtaining permits from authorities (I7) and unexpected geological
conditions (E2) significantly higher than did contactors. In contrast, contractors ranked change in
scope (O1), owner’s poor supervision (O2), delays in approval (O4), misrepresentation of information
before bid (C6), inappropriate data collection (D2), failure in planning and designing risk (D4), workers’
strikes (I3), and poor working conditions (I4) significantly higher than did owners. These causes
usually are attributable not to the contractor, but to owners or external factors.

4.2. Mitigation Strategies

4.2.1. Mitigation Strategies in Successful Projects

Table 6 shows the project delay mitigation strategies in successful power construction projects.
Close project supervision (M4_1st Rank), conducting capacity building training (M6_2nd Rank), and
proper logistics management (M14_3rd Rank) rank as the top three in the total group. In the owner
group, close project supervision (M4_1st Rank), top management’s support (M15_2nd Rank), and proper
logistics management (M14_3rd Rank) rank as the top three, while in the contractor group, conducting
capacity building training (M6_1st Rank), proper logistics management (M14_2nd Rank), and timely
site visits (M11_3rd Rank) rank as the top three. The Mann–Whitney U-test found no significant
differences between owners and contractors in all strategies as shown in Table 6, which implies that if
project schedule goes well, owner and contractor have similar delay management strategy.

523
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

Table 6. Mitigation Strategy in Successful Projects.

Total Owner Contractor U-test

Number
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Sig.
M1 3.29 14 3.24 12 3.35 14 0.683
M2 3.32 12 3.19 14 3.52 9 0.328
M3 3.16 15 2.95 15 3.48 11 0.093
M4 3.65 1 3.67 1 3.62 7 0.922
M5 3.54 5 3.43 6 3.69 4 0.296
M6 3.64 2 3.50 4 3.86 1 0.256
M7 3.41 9 3.33 10 3.54 8 0.430
M8 3.38 11 3.45 5 3.26 15 0.583
M9 3.42 8 3.37 9 3.50 10 0.580
M10 3.43 7 3.31 11 3.63 5 0.257
M11 3.53 6 3.40 8 3.71 3 0.248
M12 3.32 13 3.24 13 3.45 12 0.461
M13 3.39 10 3.40 7 3.36 13 0.796
M14 3.61 3 3.52 3 3.72 2 0.381
M15 3.59 4 3.57 2 3.63 6 0.975

Conducting capacity building training ranked highest as a mitigation strategy from the contractors’
perspective. Capacity building training offers a good opportunity for any industry to enhance its
workers’ knowledge and skills, as well as teams’ self-esteem. Some of the benefits of conducting
capacity building training are improved worker performance, satisfaction, and retention, an increased
number of qualified workers, and workers who are updated on technology changes. Top management’s
support also ranked high. This indicates that the owners believe that top management’s support
contributed significantly to reducing power projects’ delay. Furthermore, management usually defines
the project’s scope, facilitates the provision of resources, and selects the project team. They also
ensure appropriate project funding and make some very critical decisions, such as approving funding
allocation, authorizing scope changes, and whether to allow schedule overruns.

4.2.2. Mitigation Strategies in Unsuccessful Projects

Table 7 presents the project delay mitigation strategies in unsuccessful power construction projects.
The results are significantly different from those in Table 6, and eight of fifteen mitigation strategies
differed significantly between owners and contractors, which implies that if the project does not go
well, owners and contractors think different solutions. If these different strategies are not understood
and integrated, the project delay is not difficult to be solved.
Timely payments of completion certificates (M8_1st Rank), proper planning of project financial
arrangements (M1_2nd Rank), and consideration of Donor’s Influence (M3_3rd Rank) rank as the top
three in the group overall. In the owner group, timely procurement and supply of materials and
equipment (M7_1st Rank), top management’s support (M15_2nd Rank), and proper planning of project
financial arrangements (M1_3rd Rank) rank as the top three, while in the contractor group, conducting
capacity building training (M6_1st Rank), timely payments of completion certificates (M8_2nd Rank),
and finishing the design on time (M10_3rd Rank) rank as the top three. The Mann–Whitney U-test
found no significant differences between owners and contractors, as shown in Table 7.
The practice of effective and well-timed payment in construction projects is a major factor that
contributes to a project’s success. For example, if the employer makes a late payment to the contractor,
the payment due to the subcontractors or suppliers who are bound contractually to supply goods
or services also will be late. Various reasons for delayed payment include the client’s poor financial
management, delays in certification, and disagreements on the valuation of the work performed.

524
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

Table 7. Mitigation Strategy in Unsuccessful Projects.

Total Owner Contractor U-test

Number
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Sig.
M1 4.09 2 4.48 3 3.87 4 0.001
M2 3.87 10 4.10 10 3.75 8 0.104
M3 3.95 6 4.28 7 3.78 7 0.001
M4 3.83 13 4.03 12 3.72 9 0.106
M5 3.95 7 4.38 5 3.71 10 0.001
M6 4.04 3 3.95 14 4.10 1 0.325
M7 3.98 5 4.58 1 3.65 12 0.000
M8 4.13 1 4.23 8 4.07 2 0.356
M9 4.03 4 4.38 6 3.84 5 0.005
M10 3.95 8 4.03 13 3.90 3 0.487
M11 3.77 14 4.21 9 3.53 14 0.001
M12 3.74 15 3.82 15 3.70 11 0.667
M13 3.86 12 4.40 4 3.56 13 0.000
M14 3.89 9 4.10 11 3.78 6 0.095
M15 3.87 11 4.53 2 3.51 15 0.000

5. Discussions
Many studies have dealt with delay causes and mitigation strategies in construction projects.
However, so many construction projects are still frequently delaying, which results in poor
project performance such as cost and time overruns, disputes, arbitration, litigation, and complete
termination [35,38,39]. Thus, this study tried to find more specific knowledge to owners and contractors
respectively because owners and contractors have different roles and capability to deal with delay
management. In addition, depending on the project’s difficulty and performance, the delay causes and
mitigation strategy can vary. Thus, this study suggested the delay causes and mitigation strategies
separately in successful project and unsuccessful projects.
If the project progress meets the planned schedule or delays less than 10% of planned schedule,
the owners and contractors can refer to Tables 4 and 6. Owners and contractors are likely to suggest
similar delay causes. They need to take care of inadequate funding or budget allocation, vandalism,
the contractor’s late payment to suppliers or workers, late delivery of materials and equipment, and
delays in obtaining permits from authorities. They can establish mitigation plan such as close project
supervision, conducting capacity building training, and proper logistics management.
However, if the project delay more than 10% of the planned schedule, the owner and contractor
can refer to Tables 5 and 7. Owners and contractors have to scrutinize the delay cause and mitigation
strategy. Owners and contractors are likely to transfer their poor performance to the counter party’s
responsibility. The owner needs to review the late delivery of material and equipment, late procurement
orders for material and equipment, poor cost estimation, vandalism, and owner’s inadequate funds
or budget allocation. The contractor needs to check the vandalism, poor cost estimation, unskilled
or inexperienced labor, late delivery of material and equipment, and poor cost management. After
analyzing the delay causes, owner can establish mitigation strategies such as timely procurement
and supply of materials and equipment, top management’s support, and proper planning of project
finance arrangements. Whereas, contractor can build mitigation strategies such as conducting capacity
building training, timely payments of completion certificates, and finishing the design on time.
These results make a contribution not only to delay management but also to risk and conflict
management. As a result, there are some gaps between owner and contractor for perceiving the delay
causes and mitigation strategies differently. These differences frequently induce conflicts between
them, which further delay the project schedule. Owners particularly when making decision, should
build reasonable benefit-sharing mechanism and risk allocation of resource arrangement [14], which
increase the contractor’s trust in the owner. This trust builds a strong foundation for contractors to
conduct their responsibility [12].

525
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

6. Conclusions
This study analyzed the delay causes and mitigation strategies between owner and contractor
in successful and unsuccessful power construction project. This study found that the delay causes
and mitigation strategies significantly varied depending on project progress performance as described
below.
First, if the project progress meets the plan well, there are not many different gaps between owner
and contractors. Owners and contractors can easily converge the delay causes and build mitigations
strategy for their success. In particular, the owner should manage the funding well and control the
budget, whereas the contractor should take care of late payments to suppliers or work.
Second, if the project progress delays much, there are serious different gaps between owners and
contractors. Even more, owner and contractor differently evaluate the delay causes and mitigation
strategies to catch up with the progress. Therefore, the decision makers should encourage the owner
and contractor-side experts to perceive the various gaps and communicate each other. Then, together
they should build the mitigation strategies. In particular, the owner should manage the monitoring
of late delivery of material and equipment, reviewing the cost estimation, funding and budget
control, whereas the contractor should take care of vandalism, poor cost estimation, unskilled and
unexperienced labors.
Third, several causes and mitigation strategies are much related to decision makers. Lowest bid
tender award and inadequate funds or budget allocation causes the project delay. Top management
support ranks high in the mitigations strategy. These causes and mitigation strategies should be
improved by the involvement of the decision maker.
Even though this study contributes to improving the delay management of construction projects,
this has several limitations. First, the investigation of this study was conducted at a power construction
project in Tanzania. Thus, if the practitioners use this study in other industries or country, they have
to consider these specific conditions. Second, this study did not reflect the project size, detail types
of project and experience levels of respondents. These attribute can affect the causes and mitigation
strategies. Therefore, in the future, this study will analyze the delay causes and mitigation strategies
according to the project size and experience levels of respondents.

Author Contributions: E.T.B. and W.J. conceived and designed the model. E.T.B. collected and analyzed data,
and wrote the manuscript. W.J. developed the overall idea and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and
approved the final manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the 2019 Research Fund of the KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate
School (KINGS), the Republic of Korea.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sambasivan, M.; Soon, Y.W. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2007, 25, 517–526. [CrossRef]
2. Kikwasi, G.J. Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in Tanzania. Australas. J.
Constr. Econ. Build. 2012, 1, 52–59. [CrossRef]
3. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (TANESCO 2018), Power Project Report; Unpublished.
4. Shubhan, V. Causes of delay in project construction in developing countries. Indian J. Commer. Manag. Stud.
2013, 4, 24–29.
5. El-Razek, M.E.A.; Bassioni, H.A.; Mobarak, A.M. Causes of Delay in Building Construction Projects in Egypt.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 831–841. [CrossRef]
6. Long, N.D.; Ogunlana, S.; Quang, T.; Lam, K.C. Large construction projects in developing countries: A case
study from Vietnam. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 553–561. [CrossRef]
7. Assaf, S.A.; Al-Hejji, S. Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2006, 1,
45–50. [CrossRef]

526
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

8. Olajide, T.I.; Timo, O.O.; Onaopepo, A.; Idowu, V.E. Analysis of Non-Excusable Delay Factors Influencing
Contractors’ Performance in Lagos State Nigeria. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2013, 18, 53–72.
9. Pillai, N.; Kannan, K.P. Time and Cost Over-Runs of Power Projects in Kerala; Working Paper No. 320; Centre for
Development Studies: Thiruvananthapuram, India, 2001.
10. Marques, R.C.; Berg, S. Risks, Contracts, and Private-Sector Participation in Infrastructure. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 925–932. [CrossRef]
11. Marques, R.C.; Berg, S. Revisiting the Strengths and Limitations of Regulatory Contracts in Infrastructure
Industries. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2010, 16, 334–342. [CrossRef]
12. Xu, Z.; Yin, Y.; Li, D.; Browne, G.J. Owner’s Risk Allocation and Contractor’s Role Behavior in a Project:
A Parallel-mediation Model. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 30, 14–23. [CrossRef]
13. Tripathi, K.K.; Jha, K.N. Determining Success Factors for a Construction Organization: A Structural Equation
Modeling Approach. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04017050. [CrossRef]
14. Wu, G.; Wang, H.; Chang, R. A Decision Model Assessing the Owner and Contractor’s Conflict Behaviors in
Construction Projects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1347914. [CrossRef]
15. Chan, D.W.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1997, 15, 55–63. [CrossRef]
16. Odeh, A.M.; Battaineh, H.T. Causes of construction delay: Traditional contracts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20,
67–73. [CrossRef]
17. Aziz, R.F.; Abdel-Hakam, A.A. Exploring delay causes of road construction projects in Egypt. Alex. Eng. J.
2016, 55, 1515–1539. [CrossRef]
18. Alsuliman, J.A. Causes of delay in Saudi public construction projects. Alex. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 801–808.
[CrossRef]
19. Jung, W.; Han, S.H. Which Risk Management Is Most Crucial for Controlling Project Cost? J. Manag. Eng.
2017, 33, 04017029. [CrossRef]
20. Majid, M.Z.A.; McCaffer, R. Factors of Non-Excusable Delays That Influence Contractors’ Performance.
J. Manag. Eng. 1998, 14, 42–49. [CrossRef]
21. Ogunlana, S.; Promkuntong, K.; Jearkjirm, V. Construction delays in a fast-growing economy: Comparing
Thailand with other economies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1996, 14, 37–45. [CrossRef]
22. Frimpong, Y.; Oluwoye, J.; Crawford, L. Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater
projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 321–326. [CrossRef]
23. Koushki, P.A.; Al-Rashid, K.; Kartam, N. Delays and cost increases in the construction of private residential
projects in Kuwait. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 285–294. [CrossRef]
24. Khatib, B.; Poh, Y.S.; El-Shafie, A. Delay Factors in Reconstruction Projects: A Case Study of Mataf Expansion
Project. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4772. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Y.; Fan, Z.P. An optimization method for selecting project risk response strategies. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2014, 32, 412–422. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, S.Q.; Dulaimi, M.F.; Aguria, M.Y. Risk management framework for construction projects in developing
countries. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2004, 22, 237–252. [CrossRef]
27. Kim, M.-S.; Lee, E.-B.; Jung, I.-H.; Alleman, D. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Model for Overseas Steel-Plant
Project Investment with Analytic Hierarchy Process-Fuzzy Inference System. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4780.
[CrossRef]
28. Asadi, P.; Zeidi, J.R.; Mojibi, T.; Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Tamošaitienė, J. Project risk evaluation by using a new
fuzzy model based on Elena guideline. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 284–300. [CrossRef]
29. Guo, S.; Zhang, P.; Yang, J. System dynamics model based on evolutionary game theory for quality supervision
among construction stakeholders. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 318–330. [CrossRef]
30. Su, Y.; Lucko, G.; Thompson, R.C., Jr. Application of Voting Theory to the Float Ownership Problem. JCEM
2018, 144, 04017094. [CrossRef]
31. Rockart, J.F. The changing role of the information systems executive: A critical success factors perspective.
Sloan Manag. Rev. 1982, 24, 3–13.
32. Pinto, J.K.; Kharbanda, O.P. Successful Project Managers Leading Your Team to Success; Van No Strand Reihnhold:
New York, NY, USA, 1995.
33. Nguyen, L.D.; Ogunlana, S.O.; Lan, D.T.X. A study on project success factors in large construction projects in
Vietnam. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2004, 11, 404–413. [CrossRef]

527
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5973

34. Nguyen, L.H. Relationships between Critical Factors Related to Team Behaviors and Client Satisfaction in
Construction Project Organizations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019002. [CrossRef]
35. Aibinu, A.; Jagboro, G. The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction industry.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 593–599. [CrossRef]
36. Li, Y.; Song, H.; Sang, P.; Chen, P.-H.; Liu, X. Review of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for green building
projects. Build. Environ. 2019, 158, 182–191. [CrossRef]
37. Weiner, I.B.; Craighead, W.E. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 960–961.
38. Kassanga, E.J. Comparative Analysis of Cost Performance in Contracted Projects with Internally Done
Projects in Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2011.
39. Koushki, P.A.; Kartam, N. Impact of construction materials on project time and cost in Kuwait. Eng. Constr.
Arch. Manag. 2004, 11, 126–132. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

528
sustainability

Article
Sustainable Construction Project Management
(SCPM) Evaluation—A Case Study of the Guangzhou
Metro Line-7, PR China
Na Dong 1 , Yanting Fu 1, *, Feng Xiong 1 , Lujie Li 1,2 , Yibin Ao 3 and Igor Martek 4
1 College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China;
[email protected] (N.D.); [email protected] (F.X.); [email protected] (L.L.)
2 Avic Chengdu Aircraft Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd., Chengdu 610091, China
3 College of Environment and Civil Engineering, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China;
[email protected]
4 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001,
Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 13 September 2019; Accepted: 14 October 2019; Published: 16 October 2019

Abstract: As a pillar industry of the Chinese national economy, the construction sector needs
to improve its level of management to embrace sustainable development. Sustainable construction
project management (SCPM) performance evaluation can help to raise the level of management.
However, the existing evaluation system that takes into account both the sustainable development
and the dimension of traditional project management is meager. In order to address this problem,
this study sets out an integrated sustainable performance evaluation method for SCPM, along with
a comprehensive analysis of both traditional and future management directions. Through literature
review and enterprise data analysis of the relevant factors of finance, schedule, quality, and safety,
etc., indicators are filtered and classified. In order to determine the strength of each indicator,
a questionnaire is administered to construction professionals within a large construction enterprise
(group). From the result of the weight with an improved Group-G1 (iG1) method (finance 0.206,
schedule 0.206, quality 0.185, safety 0.134, informatization 0.134, and greenization 0.134), it indicates
that finance, schedule and quality management are still top three important dimensions in SCPM.
However, amazingly, the greenization and informatization management is as significant as safety
management. Finally, based on set pair analysis, the Guangzhou Metro Line 7 project is used as
a verifying case, affirming the validity of the sustainable performance evaluation model. The above
SCPM evaluation model can not only provide a guideline for construction companies’ sustainable
management in China, but also serve as reference cases for other countries/regions to carry out
relevant research work.

Keywords: sustainable construction project management (SCPM); sustainable performance evaluation;

set pair analysis; informatization; greenization; Guangzhou metro; China

1. Introduction
In recent years, with the rapid growth of China’s economy and the acceleration of urbanization,
the construction industry has developed rapidly [1]. The total output value of China’s construction
industry in 2017 was 5569 billion yuan, nearly four times higher than a decade ago [2]. Against this
background, the construction industry has significant economic, environmental, and social impacts
on society [3]. For instance, the construction industry in China contributes 6.7% to the gross
domestic product (GDP) and provides more than 5.5 million jobs [2]. However, problems such as

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731; doi:10.3390/su11205731 529 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

low profit, large resource consumption, serious environmental pollution, and poor ability to utilize
information technology within the construction industry have raised concerns [4]. Moreover, traditional
management fails to adequately address problems that often exist in areas of quality, scheduling,
and safety, etc. [5]. China’s state-owned construction companies generate a profit margin of 3.5%,
compared with 10% for foreign companies [2]. According to the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, the construction industry accounts for about 40% of total national energy consumption,
and produces between 45% and 65% of the disposed waste in landfills [6]. At the same time,
the informatization level of the construction industry is only higher than that of agriculture, ranking the
second to last among all industries [7]. Simply, the high-speed construction industry development
pattern of ‘high consumption, high pollution, low informatization, and low profit’ is a matter requiring
urgent attention [8].
Consequently, how best to improve the economy, environment, and social equity, by way of improving
the level of management, has become topical within the industry. The quality of management within
construction enterprises, which directly impacts the value of projects, and return to stakeholders [9],
also impacts the enterprises’ sustainable development. Effective performance evaluation of CPM is an
important way to improve this management level. Effective performance evaluation of CPM can help
managers not only identify existing project problems in a timely manner, but also put forward relevant
improvement measures and solutions, ultimately improving the overall performance and management
efficiency of construction project managers. However, at present, studies on evaluating the CPM
performance have mostly focused on the economic benefits [8], while the environmental problems and
information management issues are largely ignored. Furthermore, the majority of construction enterprises
in China do not yet have a complete and effective SCPM performance evaluation system [9].
In line with the discussions above, it is, thus, necessary to establish an SCPM performance
evaluation system geared to improving both the ‘greenization’ of projects and ‘informatization’,
ensuring the sustainable development of the construction industry. Therefore, this study seeks
to address the following research questions:

1. The existing studies for CPM mostly consider the financial, quality and schedule management.
However, these dimensions are insufficient for sustainability evaluation from the social,
environmental, and economic perspective.
2. The complexity of processes results in difficulty in establishing a SCPM evaluation system
because of the lack of an effective method. No coordination analysis was made in the existing
sustainable evaluation systems, and the comprehensive optimal management for SCPM could
not be obtained.
3. This is a problem of how to establish a unified dimensional evaluation model for SCPM form
integration from the perspective of sustainable development.

To answer the above overall questions, the remainder of this research is structured into
the following sections. Section 2 focuses on related literature review. The establishment of a sustainable
performance index system and a brief introduction for the assessment model are provided in Section 3.
Then, Section 4 confirms the weight of the indicators with an iG1 method. In Section 5, a set-pair
analysis (SPA) is proposed to assess the sustainable performance in a case study of Guangzhou metro
line-7. Finally, the major findings, conclusions, and future areas of research of this study are given.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Traditional CPM Performance

The PMBoK (project management body of knowledge) contains the globally recognized standards
and guides for the project management profession [9]. It is the general description of knowledge,
skills, and tools required for project management by the Project Management Institute (PMI) [10,11].
It identifies ten knowledge areas for organizing processes: Stakeholder, integration, scope, time,

530
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

cost, risk, quality, human resources, procurement, and communication [12]. Certain studies have
measured performance across some of these knowledge areas or revealed the impact of specific
knowledge areas on performance [12]. The performance evaluation of CPM often involves some
aspects of the project knowledge area. In terms of CPM, the majority of research studies focus on timely
completion [13–16], under budget completion [17–20], safely completed works [21–23], and meeting
quality criteria [24–26]. In light of previous studies, those mostly cited indicators will be retained
for traditional CPM performance evaluation.

2.2. Sustainable Development

There have been extensive studies conducted on sustainable development over the last
decade [27]. These studies have been undertaken in both developed countries and developing
countries, indicating that this is a global concern [28]. The concept of sustainable development was
first defined in 1987, in the report of the World Commission on Environmental and Development titled
“Our Common Future” (the so-called Brundtland Report) [29]. Sustainable development is defined as
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs [29]. In 1997, sustainable development which encompasses the ‘triple bottom
line’ of economic, environmental, and social condition into account, was defined as a necessary strategy
for China’s construction modernization [30]. It is worth emphasizing that in the Brundtland report
itself, there are many direct references to management sciences [29]. The phrase ‘sustainable’ appears
in many different contexts, from such narrow, specialist approaches as farm management [31] or
coastal zone management [32], to more general areas like economic management [33], international
management [34], or even global management [35].
After more than 30 years of development, research on sustainable development in management
science is still growing [28]. Many fields have been studied, such as resource consumption [36],
garbage disposal [37], and sustainable technology innovation [38]. With such extensive research on
the concept of sustainable development in the field of management, greenization has emerged as
a widely accepted phenomenon necessary to the implementation of triple bottom-line development
of buildings in the construction industry [39]. Many scholars have conducted research in this
field. For example, Ding reviewed several widely used building and construction environmental
assessment methods across different countries and concluded that current assessment methods did
not adequately consider environmental impacts [40]. Whang and Kim developed an assessment
of factors for sustainable construction projects in Korea, by concentrating on environmental issues as
well as economic and social dimensions [41]. There is a consensus that environmental performance
is highly characterized by greenization, such as improved energy, water efficiency, enhanced air
quality of construction sites, and reduced environmental pollution [42]. For this reason, greenization is
considered an essential ingredient in any CPM performance evaluation index.

2.3. SCPM Performance

Construction projects are increasingly more difficult and complex [43], where construction is
a highly project-based industry in which various organizations must couple with each other through
project-specific collaborative relationships [44]. In order to optimize, automate, and modernize
the traditional processes of this industry, information management has been increasingly valued and is
already changing the current systems used in construction projects [45]. The industry has witnessed
a growing interest in using the concept of building information modeling (BIM) in conjunction with
sustainability principles during the design and construction phases of building projects [46]. BIM also
helps reduce miscommunication and errors arising among construction stakeholders [47].
Greenization [48] (the ability to implement ‘green’ construction) places emphasis on environmental
issues while the informatization [49] (the ability to manage and utilize accrued construction information)
stresses the importance of innovation technologies [43,45,50,51]. Both of them are indispensable and
necessary conditions for the sustainable development of the construction industry [42]. However,

531
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

few studies on performance evaluation take these two points into consideration simultaneously.
In this study, SCPM is defined in line with the definition proposed by Silvius [48]. This refers to the
comprehensive and harmonized assimilation of social, economic, and environmental principles into
effective construction project management systems [52]. The SCPM has been widely investigated
in recent years, and the strategic importance of sustainability for construction enterprises has
increased [53]. Zheng evaluates the trend of sustainable development in construction industry
based on factor-cluster analysis [54]. Banihashemi and Kiani look at the critical success factors
affecting the integration of sustainability into project management practices of construction projects
in developing countries [55,56]. Pham measures the performance of CPM in the effects of sustainable
practices and managers’ leadership competencies [57]. However, these studies only consider some
factors driving the sustainability of construction companies and lack a specific and feasible sustainable
evaluation system.
Bamgbage suggests that sustainable performance in the construction industry includes social
well-being, environmental protection, and financial earnings—-the three main objectives [58].
The SCPM should not only consider the above performance concerns, but also considers the current
industry’s need to move towards sustainable development.

3. Methodology
In view of the above literature review, this paper aims at establishing a set of sustainable
performance evaluation indexes considering social well-being, environmental protection, and financial
earnings, along with a set of feasible evaluation methods to ensure that reasonable performance
evaluation can be realized within a project. Firstly, the comprehensive evaluation index system
of SCPM is constructed. In the index system, the greenization and informatization are not considered
in isolation, but their impact on traditional project management performance measures, such as
finances and safety, is also reflected. Secondly, the ratings for the evaluation index that is modeled
by the iG1, are given in linguistic terms. Given different kinds of professional knowledge and work
experience, the evaluators’ understanding of the evaluation index and the enterprises may be different.
Thus, in aggregating linguistic ratings, the amount of calculation is small so as to reduce errors.
Thirdly, the feasibility and practical application of the proposed approach is verified using a case study
of the Guangzhou Metro Line 7 (GML7). It also provides a valuable reference for the implementation
of the evaluation of SCPM for other construction enterprises.

3.1. Index System of SCPM Performance

3.1.1. The Dimension of the Index System

An important step in establishing a comprehensive performance evaluation system for SCPM is
to identify key aspects. It is impossible to analyze all aspects of SCPM. Such an attempt might not
only confuse the experts of interactive information but also lead to an inefficient evaluation process.
The indicators of this research are mainly established through three channels: Literature review,
enterprise database analysis, and the future development trend analysis of the construction industry.
The framework of the performance evaluation index system establishment is shown in Figure 1.
The first step is the selection of the dimension of the evaluation index system. The traditional
dimension of management performance includes financial, safety, schedule, and quality. Others,
the frontier dimension includes two aspects, which are informatization and greenization. The second
step is classification and filtering the secondary indicator based on literature review and construction
enterprise management database.
The “knowledge area” proposed by PMI has been used in traditional CPM performance research
studies. Various studies have focused on reducing the integration management [59], construction
cost [20,60], and schedule control [61,62]. Demirkesen and Ozorhon contributed to the project management
body of knowledge in that it develops a conceptual framework consisting of specific components

532
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

for integration CPM [63], whereas the dimensions of project management performance are time, cost,
quality, safety, and client satisfaction. Tan and Xiong sorted out 50 domestic theses related to performance
evaluation in China and finally listed the high-frequency performance indicators which were divided
into different hierarchical structures [59]. In their review, the most frequent indicators focus on financial,
quality and time management. The performance evaluation indicators of large-scale engineering projects
were divided into five categories: Human, material, machine, method, and environment [64]. In this
study, we chose the four most representative dimensions, which are finance [65,66], safety [67–69],
schedule [70–72], quality [73–75], as the dimensions of the performance index system for SCPM.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of performance evaluation index system establishment.

In addition to the four dimensions of project management mentioned above, the SCPM performance
should take the sustainable development of enterprises into account and encourage the application
of cutting-edge technologies to adapt to the future development of the industry. Therefore, based on
the traditional view and the perspective of future development, the final sustainable performance
index system should consist of the six dimensions: Finance, safety, schedule, quality, informatization,
and greenization management.

3.1.2. The Secondary Indicators of the Index System

The database established by this enterprise includes two parts: historical projects and actual
needs of the Sichuan Huashi construction enterprise group (Huashi Group), which contains
18 sub-construction companies at home and abroad. The Huashi Group ranks 18th among China’s
top 60 contractors in ENR, with annual revenue from its main business exceeds 12.7 billion yuan,
and stands for the overall development level of the construction industry.
The secondary indicators are filtered and classificated from the Huashi Group management
database and literature review. This research looks for the 39 secondary indicators of the six dimensions,
Figure 2 shows the final index system for the comprehensive performance evaluation of the SCPM,
and then, the secondary indicators are described in the next chapter.

533
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

Figure 2. The comprehensive performance index system for the sustainable construction project
management (SCPM).

Indicators for Financial Management

A company attaches much significance to financial management, which determines how much
benefit the construction enterprise can get from a project. According to the enterprise database,
the financial management contains three aspects, which are overall financial position, construction costs
and financial management plans of the project. The overall financial situation of the project is measured
by FM1 (project profit ratio), FM2 (unit profit) and FM3 (per capita profit). FM4 (project cost-saving),
FM5 (success of project claims) and FM6 (project payment default) during the project construction
stage are used to measure the funds and cost management ability. Beyond that, FM7 (the financial
management plan) is crucial to the success of the project.

Indicators for Safety Management

Project safety management is critical to the success of the project. In the database, safety management
contains two aspects, which are safety management results and security awareness. SM1 (safety and
security inspections passed rate), SM2 (safety accident occurrence), and SM3 (gracious construction award)
are used to measure the safety management performance. In addition, construction enterprises should
raise their security awareness in terms of SM4 (safety education training), SM5 (hazard identification) and
SM6 (safety construction facilities).

Indicators for Schedule Management

According to the database, in previous historical projects, the project managers mainly controlled
the project schedule from three aspects: Whether the project was completed on time, whether the
sub-contract project duration was reached, and whether the schedule plan was practical and rational.
The ScM1 (time saving rate: The difference between the planned and the actual schedule) and the ScM2
(unit-project competed rate) are used to measure the completion of the schedule. The sub-contracts
schedule conditions are measured by ScM3 (completion rate of labor sub-contracts) and ScM4
(specialized sub-contracts). In the schedule management system, managers need to input the ScM5
(image progress plan record), and ScM6 (realistic schedule planning) determines the outcome
to a large extent.

Indicators for Quality Management

Management situation of project quality is mainly evaluated from three aspects: The quality
acceptance rate, the quality self-inspection situation, and the quality plan. Quality acceptance rate is
divided into three categories: QM1 (the outcome), QM2 (sub-engineering), and QM3 (construction unit)
qualification rate. The quality self-examination of the project is measured by QM4 (worker self-examination
passed rate). Moreover, QM5 (quality accident occurrence) and QM6 (quality planning) are used as
the evaluation indicators of the quality plan.

534
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

Indicators for Informatization Management

Because informatization is an important means to improve the management level, project managers
should enhance the level of informatization from two aspects: The technology and the management.
There are four indicators to measure the level of information technology which are the IM1
(information modelling), IM2 (information management), IM3 (software and hardware configuration),
and IM4 (training of personnel of building information management). Furthermore, the management
of informatization also should consider the IM5 (information platform), IM6 (dynamic tracking
management) and IM7 (enterprise database establishment).

Indicators for Greenization Management

Greenization is the future direction of the construction industry, and the greenization management
of construction projects is mainly from the view of green construction. The managers should consider
three aspects: The greenness of the construction site, the greenness of the construction materials,
the disposal of construction waste. The GM1 (satisfaction degree of residents around), GM2 (green site
award) and GM3 (green inspection passed rate) are the key indicators to measure the greenness of the
construction site. The greenness of the materials was measured by GM4 (green material usage) and
GM5 (resource-saving situation). Otherwise, GM6 (the disposal of construction waste which contains
noise, flying dust, effluent, and garbage) is also a big problem for project managers. Furthermore,
GM7 (green construction plan) is an important guarantee.
However, the importance of each indicator may vary from one project to another. It is necessary
to develop a methodology to quantify the importance of SCPM performance indicators. Therefore,
this research proposes a new approach that combines an SPA and a combination weighting of iG1
to establish a performance evaluation of the SCPM performance model. Based on a questionnaire
survey, this approach evaluates the extent to which the project participation sides value each
performance indicator. Then the quantified extents are converted into an importance matrix through
iG1. The proposed method is detailed in the next chapter.

3.2. Assessment Model

3.2.1. The iG1 Weight Method

Compared with the analytical hierarchical process (AHP), iG1 weight method has the following
three advantages: (1) It is applicable to a situation where the judgment matrix is an inconsistent
matrix. (2) Multiple experts have the rank of importance of different indicators. (3) The amount
of calculation is small so as to reduce errors. In order to reduce the interference of subjective factors
in application, it is usual to invite multiple experts to judge the indices by importance at the same
time. In addition, the problem of expert group judgment is that the judgment matrix is usually
inconsistent, and different opinions are more likely to arise when determining the relative importance
ratio of indicators. Therefore, this research offers some improvements to the iG1 weight method.
Finally, the rank of these factors by the individual degree of their influence on construction management
converts the component values, and then the ratio of the score standard deviation of adjacent indicators
determines the importance degree of the indicators, making the importance weight of the indicators
more scientific and reasonable.
Firstly, the ranking of multiple experts is conducted in the second comprehensive ranking,
the ranking of indicators is converted into scores Rij (the first important score is m, the second important
score is m − 1, etc.), and then the score of each expert is summarized to obtain the comprehensive scores
R∗i of indicators.
1
n
R∗i = Rij ( j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n) (1)
n
j=1

535
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

Secondly, according to the score R∗i , the higher the score, the higher the ranking, and vice versa.
If two indicators score the same, the ranking is determined by calculating the standard deviation
of different scores. The comprehensive ranking of indicators is Rk .
!
" n
1
σi = (Rij − R∗i )2 (2)
n
j=1

If the ranking is based on the standard deviation of the score, the higher the score, the lower
the ranking, and vice versa. If the scores of the two indicators are the same, the ranking is the same.
After the comprehensive ranking is determined, the ratio of xi−1 to xi degree of importance is
determined by the standard deviation of the indicator score.

1
x∗i = xi,1 + xi,2 + . . . + xi, j (3)
n
#
1 2 2
si = xi,1 − x∗i + . . . + xi, j − x∗i (4)
n

si−1 /si , si−1 ≥ si
ri = (5)
1, si−1 < si
⎛ ⎞ −1
⎜⎜ n $ n ⎟⎟ recursion
ω∗m = ⎜⎜⎜⎝1 + ri ⎟⎟⎟⎠ −−−−−−−→ω∗m−1 = ri ω∗m (6)
k =2 i=k

where xij represents the score of the jth expert to the ith indicator in their dimension, si represents
the standard deviation of the ith indicator, and x∗i is the average score of all experts. The final combined
weight is w∗m ,w∗m−1 , . . . , w∗1 .

3.2.2. The SPA Evaluation Model

To reflect the realistic circumstance in a construction project, only the hierarchy of sustainable
performance is not adequate to evaluate the project management comprehensively. To accommodate
this, the set pair analysis model is introduced to calculate the nearness degree of sustainable performance
by using the association degree function. It is not only able to judge the tightness of the relationship
between the appraised object and the various hierarchies, but also to find out the transformation trends
of adjacent hierarchies, thus, the accuracy of the evaluation results has been improved.
The SPA method, proposed by Zhao in 1989 [76], is a systematic methodology considering both
certainties and uncertainties as an integrated certain-uncertain system and depicting the certainty
and uncertainty systematically from three aspects: Identity, discrepancy, and contrary. Set pair refers
to a couple that consists of two interrelated sets. The basic idea of SPA is to analyze the features
of a set pair and set up a connection degree formula of these two sets including identity degree,
discrepancy degree and contrary degree under certain circumstances. Based on the connection
degree formula, a series of SPA-based researches have been conducted [77,78]. In the process
of performance assessment for SCPM, the dimension can be considered as set A, and the evaluation
elements of performance assessment can be considered as set B. And the evaluation elements
of performance assessment can be considered as set B. Then two sets constitute a set pair μ = (A, B).
Connection degree μ(A−B) is used to analyze the mathematics property of set pair μ(A−B) = a + bi + c j.
This is the three-member connection degree, the fundamental formula of SPA. Because there are
usually more than three levels in practice, bi is usually extended as: bi = b1 i1 + b2 i2 + . . . + br−2 ir−2 .
Then the connection could be expressed as:

μ(A−B) = a + b1 i1 + b2 i2 + . . . + br−2 ir−2 + cj.

536
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

where a, b and c are the identical degree, discrepancy degree and contrary, respectively. b1 , b2 , . . . , br−2
are the partial quantities of discrepant coefficient and a + b1 + b2 + . . . + br−2 + c = 1, i ∈ [−1, 1], j = −1,
i1 , i2 , . . . , ir−2 are the uncertainly coefficient of discrepancy degree, j is the coefficient of contrary degree,
r = 1, 2, . . . , r and r is the number of members in A or B.
Where t = 1, 2, . . . , m, and m is the number of indicators, at-coefficient that the tth member in A are
in the same level with and the member in set B, bt,1 , bt,2 , . . . , bt,r−2 -coefficient that the partial quantities
of discrepant coefficient and bt,i denotes the two members from A and B, respectively, have a distance
of i levels, i1 , i2 , . . . , ir−2 -the discrepant marking coefficient, ct is the coefficient means that the two
members have the farthest distance of levels, and a + b1 + b2 + . . . + br−2 + c = 1. The formulas
to calculate the identity–discrepant–contrary coefficients are as below (set four-elemental connection
degree for example).
1. When the evaluation indicator is in grade I,
⎧
⎪
⎪ Xt ≥ S1t
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎨ 2(Xt −S1t )
μl1 = ⎪
⎪ 1 + S2t ≤ Xt < S1t (7)
⎪
⎪ S1t −S2t
⎪
⎩ −1 Xt < S2t

2. When the evaluation indicator is in grade II,

⎧
⎪
⎪ S2t ≤ Xt < S1t
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎪ 2(Xt −S1t )
⎪
⎪ + Xt > S1t
⎨ 1 S1t −S0t
μl2 = ⎪
⎪ 2(X −S ) (8)
⎪
⎪ 1 + S2tt−S3t2t S3t ≤ Xt < S2t
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ −1 Xt < S3t

Similarly, the connection degree calculation equation can obtain, when the evaluation indicator
is in grade III, IV.
3. When the evaluation indicator is in grade IV,
⎧
⎪
⎪ S4t ≤ Xt < S3t
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎨ 2(Xt −S1t )
μl4 = ⎪
⎪ 1 + S3t ≤ Xt < S2t (9)
⎪
⎪ S1t −S2t
⎪
⎩ −1 Xt > S2t

S1t , S2t , S3t , S4t and are the corresponding thresholds of evaluation degree I, II, III,
IV respectively.
From the third chapter, the weight of key performance indicators is W = ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn )T ,

m
Therefore the connection degree of μ(A−B) is defined as:μ(A−B) = (ωt − μlt ).
% & t=1
When μ(A−B) = max μst , the t indicator belongs to the level i, the association degree for the
t indicator to the level i is μ, which must be greater than the association degree to other levels.
Combined with the characteristics of the project and the key points of construction, it can make
the corresponding recommendations for SCPM performance.

3.3. Determination of the Weights

As discussed in the previous section, the SCPM performance index system has been identified.
The next step is to score these indicators against certain dimensions. As the weight for these indicators
can be complex, iG1 is then applied to reduce the impact of subjective elements and to analyze the final
weight of the sustainability dimension in the entire system.

537
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

4. Data Collection

4.1. Survey Population

As a systematic technique of data collection, the questionnaire survey method has been widely
used to collect professional opinions on the issues influencing the adoption of various innovations
in construction management research. This study identified and selected respondents to the
questionnaire that were especially knowledgeable or experienced within the construction industry.
The participants were developers, constructors, designers, surveyors, and others who were involved
and knowledgeable in SCPM. These people altogether constituted the sustainable building development
team. An internet survey was carried out to rank the SCPM performance indicators. Out of the
64 questionnaires received, nine were rejected because of incomplete responses. Again, some were
not properly filled. In this study, the remaining 55, through the questionnaire consistency check
(Cronbach alpha α = 0.823 > 0.7), were used for analysis.
The survey questionnaire consisted of two parts, part 1 aimed at determining the basic information
about interviewees and part 2 aimed at their views on ranking the performance indicators of SCPM.
The certified 55 questionnaires indicated the academic background of the respondents as follows:
72% were degree holders, 36% were postgraduates. Thus, it is evident that the respondents had
either university or polytechnic education. On the unit of analysis, the response rates showed that
developers constituted 20% of the respondents, constructors 45.5%, surveyors and valuers 16.4%,
designers 12.7%, and others 5.4%. Regarding years of professional experience, 38.2% have one to three
years, 18.2% have four to six years, 14.5% have seven to nine years, and 29.1% have 10 years or above
of experience. As to the frequency of performance evaluation, the annual part makes up a share
of 20%, the quarterly part accounts for 60.0%, the monthly part 9.1 %, and the part of only once 10.9%.
As for project performance evaluation, about 32.7% of the informants deem it very important, 60%
think it is important and 5.5% consider it general important while 1.8% feel it is unimportant.

4.2. Survey Questionnaire

The scoring system which is commonly used in assessments of performance management usually
includes the following two procedures: Setting up scoring dimension and basing the scoring on those
dimensions. The largest characteristic is that the questionnaire focuses on the importance degree
of multiple indicators in their respective criteria instead of the rank of a single indicator. For example,
the order of
' importance of the indicators
( in informatization management by the ith. It can be expressed
as IM j = IM1 j , IM2j , . . . , IM ij .

4.3. Data Analysis

All total scores for the comprehensive SCPM performance indicators which get from questionnaire
results, were imported into iG1 weight method to calculate the subordinate weighting. Figure 3 shows
the importance of indicators for six dimensions.
From the results of the weight shown in Figure 3 (finance 0.206, schedule 0.206, quality 0.185,
safety 0.134, informatization 0.134, and greenization 0.134), there is not much difference among the six
sustainable dimensions. The results of the survey further verify that in addition to the traditional goals
of finance, quality, schedule, and safety, greenization and informatization have become the current
focus. The informatization and greenization management dimensions have the same weight as safety
management, all of which are 0.134. It shows that the professionals have come to realize the importance
of informatization and greenization in SCPM.
In the financial management dimension, the FM1 (profit ratio) and FM2 (unit profit) are
the key indicators, and the importance of the remaining four is well-balanced. The weight of ScM1
(the time-saving rate) is the highest in the schedule management, while the other indicators’ weights are
close to each other. Within the quality management, QM1 (the final quality), QM2 (the sub-engineering
quality), and QM5 (the quality accident occurrence) are the key indicators, the measures of variation is

538
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

0.141 in this dimension, which is a little high. The weight of SM1 (safety and security inspections passed
rate) is the highest in safety management, the weights of remaining indicators are 0.150 around. As BIM
has been promoted by a compulsory provision in China, the sum of the weights of the two indicators
IM1 and IM2 is 0.218, which represent people’s attention to BIM. With respect to the greenization
management GM1 (the satisfaction degree of residents around) and GM2 (green site award) are
the most important indicators. From the above weight index distribution, it can be concluded that
the importance of each indicator is basically consistent with the current situation of the construction
industry in China.

FM1 YDϭ
Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϭϵϱ ^Dϭ Ϭ͘ϯ
Ϭ͘Ϯϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϱϳ
FM7 Ϭ͘ϭϱ FM2 Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯϯϰ YDϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ YDϮ
^Dϲ Ϭ͘ϭϱ ^DϮ Ϭ͘ϭϱ
Ϭ͘ϭϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϭϵϱ Ϭ͘ϭ
Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϭϵϱ
Ϭ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϭϯϳϬ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϭϭϲϬ͘Ϭϱ
Ϭ͘ϭϳϱ
Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ͘ϭϮϯ Ϭ͘ϭϮϯ
FM6 FM3 Ϭ͘ϭϱϵ Ϭ͘ϭϭϵ
Ϭ͘ϭϯϳ Ϭ͘ϭϵϱ
Ϭ͘ϭϮϯ YDϱ YDϯ
Ϭ͘ϭϮϯ ^Dϱ ^Dϯ Ϭ͘ϭϭϵ
Ϭ͘ϭϱϵ
FM5 FM4 ^Dϰ YDϰ

^Dϭ /Dϭ 'Dϭ

Ϭ͘Ϯϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϭϴϰ
Ϭ͘Ϯ /Dϳ /DϮ 'Dϳ Ϭ͘ϭϱ 'DϮ
^Dϲ Ϭ͘ϭϱ ^DϮ
Ϭ͘ϭϰϴ Ϭ͘ϭϬϵ Ϭ͘ϭϬϲ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϭϴϰ
Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϭϲϲ
Ϭ͘ϭϰϯ Ϭ͘ϭϬϵ Ϭ͘Ϭϱ
Ϭ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϭϯϮ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ͘ϭϯ
/Dϲ
Ϭ͘ϭϱϵ /Dϯ 'Dϲ 'Dϯ
Ϭ͘ϭϱϴ Ϭ͘ϭϱϴ Ϭ͘ϭϲϱ
^Dϱ ^Dϯ Ϭ͘ϭϯϮ Ϭ͘ϭϯϮ
Ϭ͘ϭϱϴ Ϭ͘ϭϰϴ Ϭ͘ϭϲϮ
/Dϱ /Dϰ 'Dϱ 'Dϰ
^Dϰ

Figure 3. The weight of the index system.

5. Case Application

5.1. Project Background

In order to verify the effectiveness of the evaluation indicators and model for CPM performance,
this research takes the electromechanical installation of the GZML7, which was constructed by Sichuan
Huashi group corporation limited, as an example. The Zhongcun station covers a floor area of about
23,954 m2 and is mainly a two-story underground building, with the length of 471.6 m and the width
of 19.9 m. The other station is a three-story underground building, which is 156.8 m long and
25.9 m wide.
The composition of the electromechanical installation for GZML7 is composed of the following
10 aspects: Plumbing and fire extinguishing system, lighting and low voltage distribution system,
ventilation and air condition system, intelligent building fire alarm system, building automation
system, high-pressure water mist system, access control system, decoration engineering, relocating and
rewiring engineering, and cooperation and coordination system.

5.2. The General Situation of SCPM

During the construction stage of the GZML7, the outcome of financial and schedule management
was pretty good. Compared to the planning of construction, in reality, the project was completed ten
days ahead of schedule, and only 69 million yuan was spent in reality. Besides, the outcome quality
qualification rate is 100%, no safety accident occurred during the construction stage, safety construction
facilities were fully equipped, and safety education training for workers was carried out well.

539
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

The GZML7 also won the ‘Libing Cup of the civil engineering award and national quality engineering
award’ issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development in 2017.
The greenization management of construction projects has achieved remarkable outcomes,
reducing environmental pollution, controlling the noise and flying dust well, and having less impact
on residents around. Moreover, the effluent and garbage have been reduced through the optimization
of green construction planning.
In the field of informatization management for electromechanical installation, the arrangement
of pipelines was complex. The collision inspection was carried out by using the BIM during the design
stage, and the unreasonable areas were corrected. In the construction stage, the BIM technology was
used to simulate the construction process for the complex construction nodes, which could improve
the familiarity of workers’ operation and avoid problems such as the installation of pipeline equipment
and elevation errors.

5.3. Performance Evaluation

5.3.1. Connectivity and Evaluation Level Analysis

After obtaining the basic information, the project managers were invited to introduce the detail
situation of GZML7 and established an evaluation team consisting of the managers in this construction
enterprise. With a full understanding of the level standard, the actual value of the GZML7 project
was calculated based on the specific data. According to the calculation formula in the last chapter,
the research calculated the identity–discrepant–contrary coefficients of the evaluation indicators and
determined the evaluation level. Only the association degree and evaluation level of the greenization
and informatization dimensions are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Association degree and the level of greenization and informatization management dimensions.

Level Standards Association Degree

Indicator Poor IV Fair III Good II Excellent I Actual Value Level
μl4 μl3 μl2 μl1
(0, S3) (S3, S2) (S2, S1) (S1, -)
GM1 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 92 −1 −1 0.6 1 I
GM2 (0,70) (70,85) (85,95) (95,100) 91 −1 −0.2 1 0.2 II
GM3 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 65 1 0.85 −1 −1 IV
GM4 (0,0.1) (0.1,0.2) (0.2,0.3) (0.3, -) 0.22 −1 0.6 1 −0.6 II
GM5 (0,0.1) (0.1,0.2) (0.2,0.3) (0.3, -) 0.26 −1 −0.2 1 0.2 II
GM6 (0,0.7) (0.7,0.8) (0.8,0.9) (0.9,1) 0.85 −1 0 1 0 II
GM7 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 77 −0.4 1 0.4 −1 III
comprehensive score/association degree 63.58 −0.67 0.05 0.60 −0.07 II
IM1 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 96 −1 −1 0.8 1 I
IM2 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 87 −1 −0.4 1 0.4 II
IM3 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 95 −1 −1 0 1 II
IM4 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 85 −1 0 1 0 II
IM5 (0,70) (70,80) (80,90) (90,100) 88 −1 −0.6 1 0.6 II
IM6 (0,64) (64,80) (80,96) (96,100) 97 −1 −1 0.5 1 I
IM7 (0,64) (64,80) (80,96) (96,100) 85 −1 0.37 1 −0.37 II
comprehensive score/association degree 90.51 −1 −0.55 0.75 0.55 II

Table 1 shows that the comprehensive score of greenization and informatization management is
63.58 and 90.51, respectively. It is irrational to compare each dimension only based on comprehensive
scores because of the differences in the scoring standard of them. Combining with the association
degree, the highest score of greeniztion management is 0.60, which belongs to the level II of good,
and the informatization management association degree is up to 0.75, which also reaches a good level.
In the greenization dimension, the evaluation level of the secondary indicators indicates that the level
of GM3 and GM7 is the lowest. This is consistent with the fact that the project has not been awarded as
a green construction site and that the green construction planning is not good.
The project managers attached much importance to the application of information technology.
The full use of the information management system, the complete configuration of software and

540
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

hardware, the detailed application process of BIM technology in the construction stage, and the
utilization of information technology to guide construction are the reasons for the project to achieve
remarkable results. Therefore, the comprehensive evaluation of information indicators is better.
Similarly, the comprehensive evaluation levels of other dimensions can be calculated based on
13 valuation indicators and evaluation level standards.
Table 2 shows that the comprehensive evaluation level of the project is I. The company has rich
management experience in the aspects of finance, safety, schedule, and quality. The performance
evaluation of the informatization and greenization management of the construction project was lower
in the historical cases. In the GZML7 project, the level of informatization and greenization management
has reached the level II of good, which could give a strong reference value for other projects.

Table 2. The comprehensive evaluation levels of six performance management dimensions.

NO. IM GM FM SM SCM QM
level II II I I I I

5.3.2. Coordination Analysis

The coordination analysis of the dimension of informatization and greenization management
based on the identity–discrepant–contrary coefficients are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. The coordination analysis of greenization and informatization management.

Dimension a b1 b2 c
Greenization management 0.57 0.14 0.14 0.14
Informatization management 0.71 0.29 0 0

The value of a, b and c is the gauge of the coordination analysis, the greenization management
system has good coordination, but the trend towards homogeneity and the improvement is weak.
On the other hand, the association degree between the greenization dimension and level II is 0.60,
the association with level III is 0.05, and the association degree with level I is 0.07. As discussed above,
it shows that the ability of the greenization management system to convert from level II to level I is weak.
In order to improve the situation where the trend of the system to excellent transformation is weak,
construction enterprises should pay more attention to the indicators with the lowest score, such as
green site award situation and whether the green construction planning is good or not. Similarly,
the coordination analysis of informatization management can be obtained.
All in all, as a comprehensive evaluation method, SPA can reflect the overall state and make
a quantitative evaluation, and can totally ensure the reliability and accuracy of the evaluation.
In addition, all the single indicators are combined together organically by the calculation of the
comprehensive association degree, making the evaluation of SCPM easier to understand. It plays
a guiding role in the optimization and improvement of SCPM competence.

6. Conclusions
Performing the sustainable evaluation for the SCPM is a significant measure to increase
environmental protection and informatization utilization, to enhance the competitive edge of construction
companies to market changes. The process adoption began by putting forward a SCPM performance
evaluation index system, based on existing norms and established research, to which the dimensions
of greenization and informatization were added. The final index system contains the above two
dimensions and the remaining four dimensions: Finance, safety, schedule, quality management. Next,
the identified six dimensions of SCPM performance indicators were further analyzed by 55 expert
questionnaires. The iG1 method was then applied to reduce the impact of subjective elements and
to analyze the final weight of the dimensions in the entire system. Finally, based on the iG1 weight

541
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

method and the SPA, the case of GZML7 was evaluated for SCPM performance. This SCPM evaluation
model can not only provide a guideline for construction companies in China, but also serve as reference
cases for other countries to carry out relevant research work.
In this research, the SCPM performance evaluation index system consisted of 39 secondary
indicators from six dimensions. From the results of the weight (finance 0.206, schedule 0.206,
quality 0.185, safety 0.134, informatization 0.134, and greenization 0.134), finance, schedule and
quality management were still top three important in SCPM, but surprisingly, the greenization and
informatization management were as significant as safety management. The importance of greenization
and informatization gained popular recognition of construction professionals. Through a GZML7
case application by SPA, it shows that the evaluation level of the greenization management is II and
the system converts from level II to level I was weak. Similarly, the evaluation level and coordination
analysis of other dimensions could be obtained. Based on the results, the project managers could go
back to find worse indicators and improve the management system in construction enterprises and
successfully support sustainable development.
Flowing from this research, the following conclusions are obtained. Firstly, the establishment
of evaluation index system based on the Huashi construction enterprise management database,
which was valid and implementable. Secondly, this integrated assessment approach could reflect
the coordination and development trend of the various dimensions of the system, and provided
a theoretical basis and practical reference for the optimization of project management. Finally, this study
offered a basis and useful reference to construction enterprises aiming to set up their own SCPM
performance evaluation system, which is a guideline for project managers to improve the competitive
edge of construction enterprises.
A limitation of this study, however, is that only representative indicators were employed, given the
limited data available. Other indicators, such as human resources, procurement and communication,
can also reflect the construction industry’s level of sustainable development. These indicators will be
analyzed in future research, as and when data become available. On the other hand, as the increasing
level of informatization, we will further study the optimization model and methods for SCPM by data
mining for selecting and optimizing the management databases.

Author Contributions: N.D. set up the framework and revised the paper; Y.F. wrote this paper; L.L. collected and
analyzed the questionnaire data. F.X., Y.A. and I.M. revised the paper. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
Funding: This research for this paper was funded by the Science and Technology Institute of Sichuan Province
(No. 19H0469).
Conflicts of Interest: All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ahmad, M.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Li, H. Revealing stylized empirical interactions among construction sector,
urbanization, energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,
657, 1085–1098. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. National Statistics Bureau. China Statistical Yearbook—2018; China Statistics: Beijing, China, 2018.
3. Edyta, P.; Michal, J.; Renata, K. Trends, costs, and benefits of green certification of office buildings: A Polish
perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2359.
4. Ma, L.; Wang, L.; Wu, K.-J.; Tseng, M.-L. Assessing co-benefit barriers among stakeholders in Chinese
construction industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 102–112. [CrossRef]
5. Hwang, B.-G.; Zhao, X.; Toh, L.P. Risk management in small construction projects in Singapore:
Status, barriers and impact. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 32, 116–124. [CrossRef]
6. Ngowi, A.B. Creating Competitive Advantage by using environment-friendly building processes.
Build. Environ. 2001, 36, 291–298. [CrossRef]
7. Ma, G.; Jia, J.; Ding, J.; Shang, S.; Jiang, S. Interpretive structural model based factor analysis of BIM adoption
in Chinese construction organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1982. [CrossRef]

542
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

8. He, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhong, Z.; Wang, D.; Wang, F. Green credit, renewable energy investment and green
economy development: Empirical analysis based on 150 listed companies of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208,
363–372. [CrossRef]
9. Kelly, J.; Male, S.; Graham, D. Value Management of Construction Projects; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2008.
10. PMI. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th ed.; Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania Inc.:
Delaware, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 12–24.
11. Brioso, X. Integrating ISO 21500 guidance on project management, Lean Construction and PMBOK.
Procedia Eng. 2015, 123, 76–84. [CrossRef]
12. Varajão, J.; Colomo-Palacios, R.; Silva, H. ISO 21500: 2012 and PMBoK 5 processes in information systems
project management. Comp. Stand. Int. 2017, 50, 216–222. [CrossRef]
13. Chan, A.C.; Scott, D.; Lam, E.M. Framework of success criteria for design/build projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2002,
18, 120–128. [CrossRef]
14. Zhao, D.; Mccoy, A.; Kleiner, B.; Mills, T.; Lingard, H. Stakeholder perceptions of risk in construction. Saf. Sci.
2016, 82, 111–119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Krzemiński, M. The scheduling of construction work under the assumption of brigade multitasking.
Procedia Eng. 2017, 208, 63–68. [CrossRef]
16. Kong, L.; Li, H.; Luo, H.; Ding, L.; Zhang, X. Sustainable performance of just-in-time (JIT) management
in time-dependent batch delivery scheduling of precast construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 684–701.
[CrossRef]
17. Bassioni, H.A.; Price, A.D.F.; Hassan, T.M. Performance measurement in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2004,
20, 42–50. [CrossRef]
18. Papke-Shields, K.E.; Beise, C.; Quan, J. Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter
to project success? J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 28, 650–662. [CrossRef]
19. Ibarrondo-Dávila, M.P.; López-Alonso, M.; Rubio-Gámez, M.C. Managerial accounting for safety management.
The case of a Spanish construction company. Saf. Sci. 2015, 79, 116–125. [CrossRef]
20. Didkovskaya, O.V.; Mamayeva, O.A.; Ilyina, M.V. Development of cost engineering system in construction.
Procedia Eng. 2016, 153, 131–135. [CrossRef]
21. Tam, C.M.; Tong, T.K.L.; Chiu, G.C.W.; Fung, I.W.H. Non-structural fuzzy decision support system
for evaluation of construction safety management system. J. Manag. Eng. 2002, 20, 303–313. [CrossRef]
22. Törner, M.; Pousette, A. Safety in construction—A comprehensive description of the characteristics of high
safety standards in construction work, from the combined perspective of supervisors and experienced
workers. J. Saf. Res. 2009, 40, 399–409. [CrossRef]
23. Li, H.; Lu, M.; Hsu, S.C.; Gray, M.; Huang, T. Proactive behavior-based safety management for construction
safety improvement. Saf. Sci. 2015, 75, 107–117. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, L.J.; Luo, H. A BIM-based construction quality management model and its applications. Autom. Const.
2014, 46, 64–73. [CrossRef]
25. Bragadin, M.A.; Kähkönen, K. Safety, space and structure quality requirements in construction scheduling.
Proc. Econ. Financ. 2015, 21, 407–414. [CrossRef]
26. Lukichev, S.; Romanovich, M. The quality management system as a key factor for sustainable development
of the construction companies. Procedia Eng. 2016, 165, 1717–1721. [CrossRef]
27. United Nations. Working Arrangements for the 2016 Session of the Economic and Social Council, 24 July
2015–27 July 2016. Available online: http://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/sustainable-development (accessed on
8 May 2017).
28. Zemigala, M. Tendencies in research on sustainable development in management Sciences. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 218, 796–809. [CrossRef]
29. WCED. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, USA, 1987.
30. Chan, R.; Yao, S. Urbanization and sustainable metropolitan development in China: Patterns, problems and
prospects. Geojournal 1999, 49, 269–277. [CrossRef]
31. Rose, D.C.; Sutherland, W.J.; Barnes, A.P.; Borthwick, F.; Ffoulkes, C.; Hall, C.; Moorby, J.M.;
Nicholas-Davies, P.; Twining, S.; Dicks, L.V. Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture:
Lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 834–842. [CrossRef]
32. Uehara, T.; Mineo, K. Regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management:
Satoumi, ecosystem services approach, and inclusive wealth. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 716–725. [CrossRef]

543
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

33. Baba, C.; Hack, J. Economic valuation of ecosystem services for the sustainable management of agropastoral
dams. A case study of the Sakabansi dam, northern Benin. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 107, 105648. [CrossRef]
34. Kourula, A.; Pisani, N.; Kolk, A. Corporate sustainability and inclusive development: Highlights from
international business and management research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 24, 14–18. [CrossRef]
35. Fan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Xia, M.; Zhang, Y. The influence of social embeddedness on organizational legitimacy
and the sustainability of the globalization of the sharing economic platform: Evidence from Uber China.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104490. [CrossRef]
36. Liu, Y.; Qu, Y.; Lei, Z.; Jia, H. Understanding the evolution of sustainable consumption research. Sustain. Dev.
2017, 25, 414–430. [CrossRef]
37. Abdel-Shafy, H.I.; Mansour, M.S.M. Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling,
and valorization. Egypt. J. Pet. 2018, 27, 1275–1290. [CrossRef]
38. Amato, A.; Becci, A.; Birloaga, I.; De Michelis, I.; Ferella, F.; Innocenzi, V.; Ippolito, N.M.; Pillar Jimenez
Gomez, C.; Vegliò, F.; Beolchini, F. Sustainability analysis of innovative technologies for the rare earth
elements recovery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, 41–53. [CrossRef]
39. Joyram, H. A critical evaluation on the factors impacting the adoption of eco-block as a green construction
material: From a Mauritian perspective. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100789. [CrossRef]
40. Ding, G.K.C. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008,
86, 451–464. [CrossRef]
41. Whang, S.W.; Kim, S. Balanced sustainable implementation in the construction industry: The perspective
of Korean contractors. Energy Build. 2015, 96, 76–85. [CrossRef]
42. Trotta, G. The determinants of energy efficient retrofit investments in the English residential sector.
Energy Policy 2018, 120, 175–182. [CrossRef]
43. Bryde, D.; Broquetas, M.; Volm, J.M. The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 971–980. [CrossRef]
44. Cao, D.; Li, H.; Wang, G.; Luo, X.; Tan, D. Relationship network structure and organizational competitiveness:
Evidence from BIM implementation practices in the construction industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018005.
[CrossRef]
45. Lu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Chang, R.; Li, Y. Building information modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review
and future directions. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 134–148. [CrossRef]
46. Isikdag, U.; Underwood, J. Two design patterns for facilitating building information model-based synchronous
collaboration. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 544–553. [CrossRef]
47. Chen, H.-M.; Hou, C.-C. Asynchronous online collaboration in BIM generation using hybrid client-server
and P2P network. Autom. Constr. 2014, 45, 72–85. [CrossRef]
48. Silvius, G.; Tharp, J.; Silvius, G.; Tharp, J. Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management;
Business Science Reference: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013.
49. Xu, S.; Xu, D.; Liu, L. Construction of regional informatization ecological environment based on the entropy
weight modified AHP hierarchy model. Sustain. Comput. Inf. 2019, 22, 26–31. [CrossRef]
50. Li, X.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Q. Research on construction schedule management based on BIM technology. Procedia Eng.
2017, 174, 657–667. [CrossRef]
51. Li, C.Z.; Zhong, R.Y.; Xue, F.; Xu, G.; Chen, K.; Huang, G.G.; Shen, G.Q. Integrating RFID and BIM technologies
for mitigating risks and improving schedule performance of prefabricated house construction. J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 165, 1048–1062. [CrossRef]
52. Azar, E.; Nikolopoulou, C.; Papadopoulos, S. Integrating and optimizing metrics of sustainable building
performance using human-focused agent-based modeling. Appl. Energy 2016, 183, 926–937. [CrossRef]
53. Oke, A.; Aghimien, D.; Aigbavboa, C.; Musenga, C. Drivers of sustainable construction practices in the
zambian construction industry. Energy Proc. 2019, 158, 3246–3252. [CrossRef]
54. Zheng, M.; Cai, J. Study on construction industry’s sustainable development based on factor and cluster
analysis. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2014, 310, 223–227. (In Chinese)
55. Banihashemi, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Golizadeh, H.; Sankaran, S. Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration
of sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2017, 35, 1103–1119. [CrossRef]
56. Kiani, M.R.; Standing, C. Critical success factors of sustainable project management in construction: A fuzzy
DEMATEL-ANP approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 751–765. [CrossRef]

544
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5731

57. Pham, K.; Kim, S.-Y. The effects of sustainable practices and managers’ leadership competences
on sustainability performance of construction firms. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 1–14. [CrossRef]
58. Bamgbade, J.A.; Kamaruddeen, A.M.; Nawi, M.N.M. Malaysian construction firms’ social sustainability via
organizational innovativeness and government support: The mediating role of market culture. J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 154, 114–124. [CrossRef]
59. Tan, T.; Xiong, Z. Comparative study on the evaluation indicator system of project performance. Sci. Technol.
Manag. Res 2014, 23, 81–90. (In Chinese)
60. Salem, D.; Bakr, A.; El Sayad, Z. Post-construction stages cost management: Sustainable design approach.
Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 3429–3435. [CrossRef]
61. Poshdar, M.; González, V.A.; Raftery, G.M.; Orozco, F.; Cabrera-Guerrero, G.G. A multi-objective
probabilistic-based method to determine optimum allocation of time buffer in construction schedules.
Autom. Constr. 2018, 92, 46–58. [CrossRef]
62. De Soto, B.G.; Rosarius, A.; Rieger, J.; Chen, Q.; Adey, B.T. Using a Tabu-search algorithm and 4D models
to improve construction project schedules. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 698–705. [CrossRef]
63. Demirkesen, S.; Ozorhon, B. Impact of integration management on construction project management
performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1639–1654. [CrossRef]
64. Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Evaluation study of large scale construction project safety risk based on gray-shaplely.
Archit. Technol. 2017, 48, 289–292. (In Chinese)
65. Kim, J.; Koo, C.; Kim, C.-J.; Hong, T.; Park, H.S. Integrated CO2, cost, and schedule management system
for building construction projects using the earned value management theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103,
275–285. [CrossRef]
66. Xia, N.; Zou, P.X.W.; Griffin, M.A.; Wang, X.; Zhong, R. Towards integrating construction risk management
and stakeholder management: A systematic literature review and future research agendas. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2018, 36, 701–715. [CrossRef]
67. Yiu, N.S.N.; Chan, D.W.M.; Shan, M.; Sze, N.N. Implementation of safety management system in managing
construction projects: Benefits and obstacles. Saf. Sci. 2019, 117, 23–32. [CrossRef]
68. Niu, Y.; Lu, W.; Xue, F.; Liu, D.; Chen, K.; Fang, D.; Anumba, C. Towards the “third Wave”: An SCO-enabled
occupational health and safety management system for construction. Saf. Sci. 2019, 111, 213–223. [CrossRef]
69. Tang, N.; Hu, H.; Xu, F.; Zhu, F. Personalized safety instruction system for construction site based on internet
technology. Saf. Sci. 2019, 116, 161–169. [CrossRef]
70. Krzemiński, M. Chosen criteria of construction schedule evaluation. Procedia Eng. 2016, 153, 345–348. [CrossRef]
71. Krzemiński, M. Optimization of the construction schedule for paving a parking area with concrete.
Procedia Eng. 2016, 153, 349–354. [CrossRef]
72. Chin, L.S.; Hamid, A.R.A. The practice of time management on construction project. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125,
32–39. [CrossRef]
73. Ma, Z.; Cai, S.; Mao, N.; Yang, Q.; Feng, J.; Wang, P. Construction quality management based on a collaborative
system using BIM and indoor positioning. Autom. Constr. 2018, 92, 35–45. [CrossRef]
74. Acıkara, T.; Aynur, K.; Ulubeyli, S. Evaluations of construction project participants’ attitudes toward quality
management in Turkey. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 203–210. [CrossRef]
75. Mazari, M.; Nazarian, S. Mechanistic approach for construction quality management of compacted
geomaterials. Transp. Geotech. 2017, 13, 92–102. [CrossRef]
76. Zhao, K.; Xuan, A. Set pair theory-a new theory method of non-define and its applications. Syst. Eng. 1996,
14, 18–23. (In Chinese)
77. Jiang, Y.-L.; Xu, C.-F.; Yao, Y.; Zhao, K.-Q. Systems information of set pair analysis and its applications.
In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Shanghai,
China, 26–29 August 2004; pp. 1717–1722.
78. Li, C.; Sun, L.; Jia, J.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X. Risk assessment of water pollution sources based on an integrated
K–means clustering and set pair analysis method in the region of Shiyan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557,
307–316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

545
sustainability

Article
Developing A Semi-Markov Process Model for Bridge
Deterioration Prediction in Shanghai
Yu Fang and Lijun Sun *
The Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai 201804, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-021-69583810

Received: 15 September 2019; Accepted: 2 October 2019; Published: 7 October 2019

Abstract: The performance of urban bridges will deteriorate gradually throughout service life. Bridge
deterioration prediction is essential for bridge management, especially for maintenance planning and
decision-making. By considering the time-dependent reliability in the bridge deterioration process,
a Weibull distribution based semi-Markov process model for urban bridge deterioration prediction
was proposed in this paper. Historical inspection records stored in the Bridge Manage System (BMS)
database in Shanghai since 2004 were investigated. The Weibull distribution was used to characterize
the bridge deterioration behavior within each condition rating (CR), and the semi-Markov process
was used to calculate the bridge transition probabilities between adjacent CRs. After that, the service
life expectancy of urban bridges, the transition probabilities of the deck system and the substructure,
and the future CR proportion change caused by deterioration was predicted. The prediction results
indicate that the life expectancy of concrete beam bridges is about 77 years. The decay rate of the deck
system is the fastest among three major parts, and the substructure has a much longer life expectancy.
It suggests that the overall prediction accuracy of the semi-Markov model in network-level is better
than the regression analysis method. Furthermore, the proportion of bridges in intact condition will
gradually decrease in the next few decades, while the percentage of bridges in the qualified and bad
state will increase rapidly. The prediction results show a good agreement with the actual deterioration
trend of the urban bridges in Shanghai. In order to alleviate the pressure of bridge maintenance in
the future, it is necessary to adopt a more targeted preventive maintenance strategy.

Keywords: bridge deterioration; prediction model; semi-Markov process; Weibull-distribution;

condition rating

1. Introduction
With environmental actions and traffic loads, the performance of urban bridges, especially
reinforced concrete (RC) bridges, will deteriorate gradually throughout the bridge service life (i.e.,
concrete damage and reinforcement corrosion may occur, with cross-section reduction leading to
a decrease in the geometric dimensions and materials properties, and thereby to a serviceability
degradation or structure failure) [1,2]. Bridge management systems (BMS) have been developing since
the early 1990s to assist the management of bridges, which can maximize the network-level bridge
performance and minimize the failure probability [3]. Based on the current state evaluation and future
bridge condition prediction for the bridge performance, the principal objective of BMS is to develop
an effective bridge maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation (MRR) strategy under a limited financial
budget [4]. In Shanghai city, the BMS has been applied to the management of small or moderately
sized urban bridges since 2004. Therefore, there were 2377 urban bridges across the city included
in the BMS database by the end of 2016, in which reinforced concrete beam bridges and prestressed
concrete beam bridges account for nearly 85% of the total urban bridge numbers. The construction
time of bridges in Shanghai is shown as the following. (Figure 1).

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524; doi:10.3390/su11195524 547 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

$OORWKHUEULGJHV
&RQFUHWHEHDPEULGJHV

1XPEHURIEULGJHV

1RZ
<HDURI&RQVWUXFWLRQ

Figure 1. The distribution of bridge construction by year in Shanghai.

The current state assessment of urban bridges is the foundation of further bridge decay process
forecasting and maintenance decision making. In China, the routine evaluation of urban bridges
mainly depends on the annual visual inspection, and the bridge condition index (BCI) is used to assess
the current state of categories II–V bridges (i.e., small or moderately sized bridges) [5]. Through a
hierarchy-weight evaluation method based on bridge components, the whole bridge is comprised of
the form “bridge-part-component.” Therefore, the BCI score can reflect the overall technical condition
of the whole bridge by comprehensively weighted damage degrees and positions of three major bridge
parts (i.e., the deck system, the superstructure, and the substructure) which are made up of other more
detailed components [6]. According to the Chinese Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridge (CJJ
99-2017) [7], BCI scores from 0 to 100 correspond to the bridge condition ratings (CR) from A to E as
shown in Table 1 [6]. It is generally believed that BCI scores evaluated through the annual inspection
will affect the MRR strategy of urban bridges in the next year, as shown in Table 1. Where, merely
routine maintenance, minor repair, or special inspection is needed for bridges with CR from A to C. As
for bridges with CR D or E, medium repair, major repair, or rehabilitation are required in the next year.

Table 1. Chinese bridge condition ratings (CJJ 99-2017).

Rating BCI Score Condition MRR Strategy

A [90,100] Intact Routine maintenance
B [80,89] Good Routine maintenance
C [66,79] Qualified Minor repair
D [50,65] Bad Routine maintenance
E [0,49] Dangerous Minor repair

The reliability of bridge serviceability behavior will gradually decrease over time due to material
degradation, increasing traffic load, and the external environment. Some of the typical problems of
RC bridges, namely, concrete carbonization, surface delamination and spalling, crack propagation,
steel rebar corrosion, cross-section reduction, and delayed debonding of the external reinforcement
may occur [8,9]. The prediction results of the bridge decay process can provide a reliable basis for the
further choice of maintenance measures and allocation of finance funds. Accordingly, deterioration
forecasting models are essential for the management of urban bridges, especially for network-level or
long-term bridge maintenance planning and decision-making. Nevertheless, the existing prediction
model for bridge deterioration forecasting in the BMS of Shanghai city still uses the deterministic
regression method, which has difficulty reflecting the uncertainty and randomness of the bridge
deterioration process. Consequently, this paper proposes a Weibull distribution based semi-Markov

548
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

process model for the deterioration prediction of urban bridges by considering the time-dependent
reliability in the process of bridge deterioration. Consequently, the Weibull distribution was used to
characterize the service-life behavior of bridge deterioration within each condition rating (CR) and the
semi-Markov process was used to evaluate the transition probabilities of bridge deterioration process
between adjacent CRs.

2. Summary of Basic Theory

The bridge deterioration process has often been modeled as the decay of performance over time,
which means that the remaining service-life and the future performance of bridges can be forecasted
by estimating the rate and pattern of bridge decay. According to different model assumptions, bridge
deterioration prediction models can be divided into deterministic models and probabilistic models [10].
Deterministic models assume that the bridge decay trend is specific [11], and mostly estimate the bridge
deterioration rate through the regression analysis method. For example, the existing deterioration
model in the BMS of Shanghai uses a deterministic regression equation, as shown in Equation (1).
Deterministic models have the advantages of simple modeling and convenient correcting [12], but it
is quite challenging to reflect the uncertainty and randomness of the deterioration process. Besides,
the requirement of high-quality historical data is usually hard to be satisfied, and the preprocessing of
original data may also cause a risk of subjective judgment [13].

α β
BCI = BCI0 [1 − exp (− ) ], (1)
y

where BCI is the bridge condition index, BCI0 = 100 is the initial BCI, y is the bridge age, α is the
bridge life factor, and β is the curve shape factor.
In probabilistic models, bridge deterioration is seen as the result of stochastic processes, and bridge
performance can be predicted by describing the probability distribution of the bridge condition state
in the future. These models can reflect the uncertainty of bridge deterioration caused by external
factors such as traffic loads, materials, environment, and maintenance [14]. Based on the concept of
probabilistic cumulative damage, these stochastic models can be further subdivided into state-based
or time-based models [15]. The state-based models such as Markov chains are modeled through a
discrete-time transition probability matrix from one condition state to another, and the distribution of
the future condition is not dependent on the past. Bridge management systems in the U.S like Pontis [16]
and BRIDGIT [17] have adopted the Markov chain theory to calculate the bridge deterioration rates [18].
The state-based models have advantages in reflecting the uncertainties of the bridge deterioration
process and can be easily applied to network-level bridge management.
Meanwhile, the time-based models such as Weibull distribution assume the duration time of a
bridge maintains a condition rating as a random variable which can be modeled through the Weibull
probability density functions [19]. Probabilistic models have the advantages of versatility and simplicity,
which can clearly describe the service-life behaviors of bridge deterioration (i.e., failure rates, reliability,
mean durations, and quantile statistics) [20]. The limitations of probabilistic models lie in need of
many accurate observational data and empirical model assumptions [18].

2.1. Defects of Markov Chains

The Markov process describes that a system can be in one of several states, and each state can be
passed to another state at a fixed probability over each time step. The Markov chain is a particular
case of the Markov process, for which time and state parameters are both discrete. For a stochastic
% & % &
process X(t), t ∈ T , if the conditional probability can be expressed as Equation (2), then X(t), t ∈ T is
a Markov chain with discrete parameters [5,21,22].

P(Xt+1 = it+1 |X0 = i0 , X1 = i1 , · · · , Xt = it ) = P(Xt+1 = it+1 |Xt = it ) , (2)

549
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

where it is the process state at the time t, and P is the conditional probability of a future event.
In Markov-chain based deterioration models, the performance of the bridge changes from one
condition state (CR) to another according to a set of transition probabilities, as shown in Equation (3).
⎡⎛ ⎞⎤ ⎧
⎢⎢⎜⎜ p11 ··· p1n ⎟⎟⎥⎥ ⎪
⎢⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥⎥ ⎪
⎪ p i, j ∈ I
⎢⎜ . .. ⎟⎟⎥⎥ ⎨ ij≥0
P = ⎢⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ .. ..
. . ⎟⎟⎥⎥ ⎪
⎪ pij = 0 i ∈ I , (3)
⎢⎢⎣⎜⎜⎝ ⎟⎟⎠⎥⎥⎦ ⎪
⎩ j∈I
pn1 ··· pnn

where P is the transition probability matrix, pij is the transition probability from the state i to the state j,
and n is the number of bridge condition states.
% &
Therefore, the deterioration process C(t), t ∈ T of bridges can be recognized as a stochastic
process represented by the initial bridge condition vector C(0) and the transition probability matrix
(TPM), as shown in Equation (4).
C ( t ) = C ( 0 ) × Pt , (4)

where C is the condition rating vector, P is the transition probability matrix, and t is the time step.
However, the Markov chain based model has two underlying assumptions, namely, memoryless
and homogeneous [9]. Memoryless means the future state of the deterioration process depends only
on the current state and has nothing to do with the past, and homogeneous requires the probability of
transition from one state to another remain constant throughout the time [23]. Therefore, this paper
develops a semi-Markov process model for bridge deterioration prediction in Shanghai. In which,
the time-dependent reliability theory was used to characterize the service-life behavior of bridge
deterioration within each condition rating (CR) and the semi-Markov process was used to evaluate
the transition probabilities of the bridge deterioration process between adjacent CRs. Thus, in the
semi-Markov process model, the bridge future state is not only based on the current state but also
associated with the history state, and the transition probability from one state to another also could
change over time [24].

2.2. Time-Dependent Reliability

When the time-dependent reliability theory can be used to describe the bridge deterioration
duration time within an individual CR, the underlying assumption is the existence of a probabilities
relationship between the observed CR of discrete-state and the unobserved continuous deterioration
process [4]. The CR of bridge performance is treated as a response variable subject to service time
and other exponential variables. The bridge performance continues to decay with the increase of
time [10]. Furthermore, once the unobserved continuous deterioration reaches or exceeds the threshold
of boundaries between different CRs, the time [0, t] will be recorded as the duration Ti of a particular
CR = i.
As shown in Equation (5), the cumulative distribution function Fi (t) of the duration Ti in CR = i
describes the probability that the bridge will transition out of CR = i by the time t.

t
Fi (t) = prob(Ti ≤ t) = fi (x)dx, (5)
0

where Ti is the duration of CR = i, and fi (t) is the probability distribution function of Ti .

Moreover, the survivor function S(Ti ) is the complement of Fi (t) which means the probability
that the bridge element would still be in CR = i by the time t, and is defined as Equation (6).

Si (t) = prob(Ti > t) = 1 − Fi (t), (6)

where Ti is the duration of CR = i, and Fi (t) is the cumulative distribution function of Ti .

550
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

Then the transition probability pij (t, Δ) out of CR = i into a worse condition state CR = j within
the period Δ after the time t can be defined as Equation (7)

Fi (t + Δ) − Fi (t) Si (t + Δ)
pij (t, Δ) = prob(t < Ti < t + Δ|Ti > t) = =1 − , (7)
Si ( t ) Si ( t )

where Ti is the duration of CR = i, Fi (t) is the cumulative distribution function of Ti , and Si (t) is the
survivor function of Ti .
As the complement of pij (t, Δ), the transition probability pii (t, Δ) of remaining in the same state
CR = i can also be given as Equation (8).

Si ( t + Δ )
Pii (t, Δ) = 1 − Pij (t, Δ) = , (8)
Si ( t )

where Si (t) is the survivor function of Ti .

Therefore, the hazard function hi (t) which describes the instantaneous rates of failure at the time t
given that individual survives up till the time t can be calculated as Equation (9).

pij (t, Δ) Fi (t + Δ) − Fi (t) fi ( t )

hi (T ) = lim = lim = i, (9)
Δ→0 Δ Δ→0 ΔSi (t) Si ( t )

where pij (t, Δ) is the transition probability from condition rating i to j within the period Δ, fi (t) is the
probability distribution function of Ti , Fi (t) is the cumulative distribution function of Ti , and Si (t) is
the survivor function of Ti .

2.3. Semi-Markov Process

The transition process between different CRs of bridge deterioration can be described as a
semi-Markov process Yn with m feasible states. The associated random variables (Xn , TSn ) are the
successive states and times of the n th transition, and the length of a sojourn time interval (TSn , TSn+1 )
is same as the random variable duration Ti of a specific condition state Xn = i described in the
time-dependent reliability theory. The distribution of duration Ti depends on both the state Xn being
visited and the state Xn+1 to be visited next [25].
For many states i, j = 1, 2, · · · , m and the time t ≥ 0, the associated matrix of the transition
probabilities Qij , formally called the semi-Markov kernel can be defined as shown in Equation (10).

Qij (t) = P(Xn+1 = j, TSn+1 − TSn ≤ t|(X0 , TS0 ), (X1 , TS1 ), · · · (Xn , TSn ))
(10)
= P(Xn+1 = j, TSn+1 − TSn ≤ t|Xn = i)

where Xn is the successive state visited of the n th transition, and TSn is the successive time of the
n th transition.
Then the cumulative distribution function Fi (T ) is the same as described in Equation (5) which
represents the duration Ti in the state i here, can be given as Equation (11).

m
Fi (T )= P(TSn−1 − TSn ≤ t|Xn = i) = Qij (t), (11)
j=1

where Qij (t) is the semi-Markov kernel, and Xn is the successive state visited of the n th transition.
As well known, the eventual transition probability peij shown as Equation (12) represents the
probability that the process can move from the state i to the state j neglecting the duration Ti in the
state i.
peij = lim Qij (t) = P(Xn+1 = j|Xn = i), i, j ∈ E, (12)
t→∞

551
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

where Qij (t) is the semi-Markov kernel, and Xn is the successive state visited of the n th transition.
Additionally, the matrix P = [peij ] is called the transition probability of the embedded Markov
chain, and the following conditions must be satisfied:
⎧
⎪
⎪ peij ≥ 0
⎪
⎪
⎨
m
⎪
⎪ . (13)
⎪
⎪ peij ≥ 0
⎩ i,j = 1

Then the conditional distribution function Gij (t) given both the current state i and next state j can
be defined as shown in Equation (14).
⎧ Q (t)
⎪
⎪ ij
peij 0
⎪
⎨ peij
Gij (t) = P(TSn+1 − TSn ≤ t|Xn = i, Xn+1 = j) = ⎪
⎪ , (14)
⎪
⎩1 peij = 0

where Qij (t) is the semi-Markov kernel, Xn is the successive state visited of the n th transition, and TSn
is the successive time of the n th transition.
Therefore, the semi-Markov process kernel Qij could be defined as:

Qij (t) = peij Gij (t), i f pij 0, (15)

where peij is the eventual transition probability, and Gij (t) is the conditional distribution function.
Therefore, the transition probability of the semi-Markov process can be defined in the following:

pij (t) = P(Xn+1 = jXn = i), (16)

where is the successive states visited of the n th transitions.

If we assume a semi-Markov process has spent initial time t0 in the state i before the time t = 0
(i.e., the age of bridge when the observation starts), with a destination state j, and the system could go
through an intermediate state l. Let τ be the time measured for the stay in the state i from the time
t = 0 to the time of transition to the state k. Then the transition probabilities φij (t) of the semi-Markov
process can be calculated as following [26]:
m )t

pij (t) = δij (1 − Fi (t)) + p (t − τ)dQil (τ)
0 lj
l=1
)
t
m (17)
= δij (1 − Fi (t)) + 0
Q il (τ)plj (t − τ)dτ
l=1

where δij is the Kronecker δ (i.e., if i = j, δij = 1 or if i j, δij = 0), Fi (t) is the cumulative distribution
function, and Qil (τ) is the semi-Markov process kernel.
Equation (17) is a complicated recursive equation, which can only be solved by Laplace transforms.
However, let h be the step measure (i.e., t = kh), and using a simplified discretization algorithm.
The approximate numerical solution of the transition probability can be calculated as following [27].

m
k
pij (kh) = δij (1 − Fi (kh)) + ( wkτ pij (kh − τh)Q il (τh)), (18)
l=1 τ=0

where h is the step measure, δij is the Kronecker delta (i.e., if i = j, δij = 1 or if i j, δij = 0), Fi (kh) is
the cumulative distribution function, wkτ is the weight related to the quadrature formula, and Qil is the
semi-Markov process kernel.

552
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

3. Deterioration Prediction Model

The BMS has been applied to the management of urban bridges in Shanghai since 2004, and most
urban bridges across the city are inspected annually. The original data used in this study is derived
from a total of 3185 urban bridge records and 13 years of historical inspection records stored in the
BMS database. Besides, the number of inspection data records in the BMS database is as following
(Table 2). It should be noted that not every bridge in the database was examined annually, owing to
some reasons that include the water level is too high; the bridge is under repair; or the structure form
does not apply to the BCI evaluation method.

Table 2. Data records in the Bridge Manage System (BMS) database of Shanghai (2004–2016).

All Bridges Concrete Beam Bridges

Year Valid Data
Bridge Inspection Bridge Inspection Records
Numbers Records Numbers Records
2004 1390 1091 1116 899 906
2005 1550 1357 1270 1152 830
2006 1601 1447 1335 1248 932
2007 1644 1486 1379 1283 1030
2008 1748 1608 1478 1391 1142
2009 1804 1590 1528 1373 1159
2010 1899 1686 1606 1463 1241
2011 1972 1727 1663 1495 1273
2012 1911 1756 1609 1500 1267
2013 1982 1801 1655 1547 1234
2014 2177 1992 1787 1668 1345
2015 2305 2027 1804 1673 1245
2016 2377 1799 1860 1545 1150
Total 3185 21,367 2468 18,237 14,754

Although there are a variety of different structural forms of the urban bridges, the concrete beam
bridge accounted for most of the total number. The necessary information about these concrete beam
bridges is also more accurate than others. Thus, the deterioration process of concrete beam bridges is
focused on in this paper.

3.1. Data Preparation Process

It is essential to avoid the interference of the inspector’s subjective deviation and the external
intervention of MRR activities, which could guarantee that data is analyzed consistent with the
deterioration phenomenon. Therefore, an active process of data preparation is crucial when developing
a bridge deterioration prediction model. In this paper, the following main steps of data preparation
were used before the development of the deterioration prediction model:

• Cleaning abnormal or null records among the inspection records and bridge ages;
• Filtering inspection records with CR non-monotonically decline or decline over two ratings in two
adjacent years;
• Filling the missing records with the same CR value if the CR is the same for three adjacent
consecutive years.
• Resetting the age of bridges with rating A which just upgraded from rating D–E to 0;
• Using the analysis-calibration method to set a reasonable data range threshold for bridge ages
and CRs based on the bridge engineering experience. (For example, the design service life of
urban bridges in China is generally 100 years. Bridges cannot decay from A to D within 20 years,
thus determining the lower boundary. Furthermore, bridges cannot remain at A for more than
40 years, then the upper limit of the reasonable data range can be set.)

553
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

After the data processing process discussed above, the obtained number of valid data is as shown
in the last column of Table 2. For example, in the year of 2016, there are 1150 accurate inspection
records of concrete beam bridges meeting the requirement for subsequent analysis and modeling.
Overall, the total number of valid data accumulated from 2004 to 2016 is 14,754. Additionally, each
of the records contains five sub-records, including the bridge age and CRs of the whole bridge and
three main components. For ease of calculation, the condition ratings stored in the BMS database are
simplified from a qualitative rating [A, B, C, D, E] to an ordinal system [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

3.2. Weibull-Distribution Parameter Estimation

Estimation of the reliability function by fitting the distribution parameters of service-life data is
the main subject of survival analysis which has been widely used for machine reliability testing and life
expectancy prediction. However, when using this method, the presence of censored observation should
be taken into account [2,23]. Censored observations are incomplete, and the different influence of the
complete, the right-censored, and the left-censored observation is considered as the following [21].

• Complete observation: if a bridge reaches a well-defined threshold value at a certain age, then we
have a complete observation about the service lifetime of the bridge.
• Right-censored observation: if a bridge had not reached the threshold value at the time of bridge
inspection, then we have a right-censored observation. The right-censored observation can tell us
the service lifetime of the bridge goes beyond its present age.
• Left-censored observation: if a bridge had already surpassed the threshold value at the time of
inspection, then we have a right-censored observation. The left-censored observation can tell us
that the lifetime of the bridges is less than or equal to the present age.

In this paper, the data size of different kinds of observations is shown as in Table 3. Compared
with the left-censored observation, the sample number of right-censored observation is relatively
large and can be more easily used to estimate parameters. Therefore, the records of left-censored
observations were eliminated, and the right-censored observation records were used in the estimation of
the Weibull-distribution parameters together with the complete observation records after the tag processing.

Table 3. Data size of different observations.

Number of Different Observations

CR Component Type
Complete Right-Censored Left-Censored
Whole bridge 1041 1023 51
Deck system 1049 912 45
1
Superstructure 1016 1112 53
Substructure 783 1362 54
Whole bridge 631 463 36
Deck system 945 385 35
2
Superstructure 555 308 27
Substructure 691 240 28
Whole bridge 234 141 18
Deck system 832 243 54
3
Superstructure 427 158 14
Substructure 228 28 11
Whole bridge 149 16 42
Deck system 549 68 32
4
Superstructure 174 47 15
Substructure 45 6 8

The Weibull distribution has been used in the analysis of time-dependent reliability and service life
behavior due to its flexibility in fitting different types of service life data. More than that, with different
values of the shape parameter β, the Weibull distribution can be related to a number of other probability

554
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

distributions such as the normal distribution, the exponential distribution, and even the Rayleigh
distribution. Once the Weibull parameters are obtained, the reliability function of Weibull distribution
can be used to model a variety of bridge service-life behaviors within different CRs (including the
survival function, the hazard function, the mean value, and the quantile statistics).
In this paper, the Weibull distribution method was used to model the observed duration Ti ,
which represents the time of the bridge staying at a particular CR = i. The Weibull distribution
is mathematically defined by its pdf equation, and the two-parameter pdf expression of Weibull
distribution is defined as follows.

βi Ti βi −1 −( Tηi )βi
f (Ti ) = e i , (19)
ηi ηi

where Ti ≥ 0 is the duration, βi > 0 is the shape parameter, and ηi > 0 is the scale parameter.
The shape parameter βi and scale parameter ηi of Weibull distribution can be both obtained
by fitting the observed durations of the whole bridge, the deck system, the superstructure, and the
substructure at different CRs. The estimated results of the Weibull distribution parameters are as
shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Estimated parameters of the Weibull-distribution at different condition ratings (CRs).

Component Estimated Weibull Distribution Parameters

CR
Type Standard
Shape βi Scale ηi Mean Value
Deviation
Whole bridge 1.458 27.531 24.944 17.388
Deck system 1.411 25.587 23.293 16.739
1
Superstructure 1.421 29.027 26.395 18.838
Substructure 1.429 37.049 33.663 23.907
Whole bridge 1.599 26.025 23.334 14.940
Deck system 1.510 21.387 19.292 13.022
2
Superstructure 1.633 23.881 21.373 13.423
Substructure 1.484 21.868 19.768 13.555
Whole bridge 1.328 31.788 29.237 22.231
Deck system 1.502 22.127 19.971 13.540
3
Superstructure 1.402 22.571 20.567 14.865
Substructure 1.616 20.832 18.661 11.833
Whole bridge 1.217 21.266 19.933 16.461
Deck system 1.417 19.824 18.034 12.906
4
Superstructure 1.315 29.686 27.356 20.996
Substructure 1.597 23.985 21.508 13.784

Through the fitting results of Weibull parameters listed in the above table, we can find that all the
shape parameters are never estimated as 1. In which, the Weibull distribution would be the same with
exponential distribution as a special case. Therefore, the memoryless and homogeneous assumptions of
the Markov chain theory seem invalid in the deterioration process of urban bridges. In fact, the Weibull
distributions under the circumstance where βi > 1 are known as wear-out failures, which means the
failure rates of concrete beam bridges in Shanghai are increasing with time.
By using the mean value of durations at each CR, the service life expectancy of urban bridges
can be predicted, as shown in Figure 2. The prediction result reveals the service life expectancy
of concrete beam bridges in Shanghai is about 77 years, while the mean life of the deck system is
only 62 years. The decay rate of the deck system is the fastest when compared with the other two
parts. Meanwhile, the substructure has a much longer life expectancy, and that is also consistent with
the actual bridge maintenance experience. As the bridge deck system directly bears the load effect,
which makes components like the deck pavement, expansion joints, etc., more susceptible to damage.
The substructure is generally less damaged, and the abutment foundation is relatively stable.

555
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

Figure 2. Deterioration prediction of urban bridges at different CRs.

3.3. Semi-Markov Transition Probability Evaluation

As mentioned above, urban bridges in Shanghai are inspected once a year, so the step measure
h in Equation (18) could be set to 1. In addition, considering the simplest quadrature method (i.e.,
rectangle formula) [26], the transition probability pij (t) can be obtained by the following equation after
the necessary simplification [24].
⎧
⎪
⎪ pij (t) = Si (t), i = j
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪ t , (20)
⎩ pij (t) =
⎪ fik (x)pk j (t − x), i j
k x=1

where Si (t) is the cumulative distribution function, k is the intermediate state between i and j, and fik (x)
is the probability density function of duration Ti from CR = i to CR = k.
In this paper, it was assumed that bridges can degrade no more than two CRs in the interval of
two adjacent years, and t = 0 and Δ = t − x were set in Equation (7) [24]. Then the calculation
equation of the semi-Markov transition probability can be rewritten as Equation (21).

t
Fk j (t−x)−Fk j (0)
pij (t) = fik (x) 1−Fk j (0)
, i j
k x=1 (21)

t
= fik (x)Fk j (t − x)
k x=1

where fik (x) is the probability density function of duration Ti from CR = i to CR = k, and Fk j (t − x)
is the cumulative density function of duration Tk from CR = k to CR = j.
For example, the CR transition probabilities pij in different years of the deck system and the
substructure starting at CR = 1 can be calculated through the semi-Markov method. As can be seen
from Figure 3, transition probabilities of the deck system decay to a worse CR are much larger than the
substructure at the same bridge age. The deck system has more than 50% probability that it may decay
to CR = 2 and CR = 3 after the 19th year, while the substructure has more than half the chance to
remain at CR = 1 till the 28th year. Additionally, the prediction result shows that the deck system
has a better chance of remaining at CR = 1 in the first 24 years and then the deck system will have
about 40% probability decay to CR = 2 between 24 and 34 years. Finally, the deck system will have
more than 40% probability transit to CR = 3 after 34 years later. As for the substructure, transition
probabilities of remaining at CR = 1 are more likely than decaying to CR = 2 or CR = 3 in the first
39 years. Then the substructure is more likely to decay to CR = 3.

556
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

=>

=%>

Figure 3. Semi-Markov transition probabilities change with bridge service time: (a) transition probability
of the deck system; (b) transition probability of the substructure.

4. Discussion
The initial condition CR(0) at the time t = 0 is needed in the form of a state vector, as shown in
Equation (22). * +
CR(0) = p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 , (22)

where pi is the proportion of the whole bridge inventory in CR = i at the time t = 0.

Then the predicted CR(t) of the semi-Markov process would be a product of the initial condition
vector and the transition probability matrix, as shown below.

CR(t) = CR(0) × Pij (t), (23)

557
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

⎡ ⎤
⎢⎢ p11 (t) p12 (t) p13 (t) 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ 0 p22 (t) p23 (t) p24 (t) 0 ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ ⎥⎥
where Pij (t) = ⎢⎢⎢ ⎢ 0 0 p33 (t) p34 (t) p35 (t) ⎥⎥⎥⎥ is the transition probability matrix of the
⎢⎢ ⎥
⎢⎢
⎢⎣ 0 0 0 p44 (t) p45 (t) ⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎦
0 0 0 0 1
semi-Markov process at the time t.
If we assume the proportion of the whole bridge, the deck system, the superstructure, and the
substructure with different CRs in 2016 as the initial proportion of the bridge inventory, then the
future CR proportion change caused by performance deterioration can be predicted through the
semi-Markov process model. The comparison between prediction results of the semi-Markov method
and the regression analysis method currently used by Shanghai BMS in 2017 and 2018 are shown
in Table 5. The predicted values of the semi-Markov method are closer to the actual values, while
the traditional approach has a significant deviation. It suggests that the overall prediction accuracy
of the semi-Markov model is better than the regression analysis method. The relative errors of the
semi-Markov model for bridges at CR = 1 are nearly 6% while the traditional ones are more than
10%. Furthermore, for bridges at CR = 2, the relative errors are less than 6% of the proposed model;
however, the traditional model has about 50% relative error. As for bridges at CR = 3, when the
relative errors of the conventional method are about 300%, the relative error of the new approach is
5% in 2017 and 35% in 2018. For bridges with more deteriorated CRs, smaller data size and external
interference may have negative impacts on deterioration prediction. However, compared to the large
deviations of the regression analysis, the prediction accuracy of the semi-Markov model for bridges at
CR = 4 and CR = 5 is also acceptable.

Table 5. Comparison of the regression analysis and semi-Markov model prediction results.

2017 2018
CR Prediction Model
Actual Expected Relative Actual Expected Relative
Value Value Error Value Value Error
Regression analysis 46.34% 11.56% 38.47% 26.36%
1 52.40% 52.24%
Semi-Markov 49.36% 5.81% 48.67% 6.83%
Regression analysis 13.73% 65.34% 20.84% 49.51%
2 39.61% 41.27%
Semi-Markov 41.72% 5.32% 41.94% 1.63%
Regression analysis 28.22% 294.73% 28.99% 398.25%
3 7.15% 5.82%
Semi-Markov 7.59% 6.18% 7.93% 36.32%
Regression analysis 9.62% 1103.57% 9.62% 1541.58%
4 0.80% 0.59%
Semi-Markov 1.22% 52.25% 1.29% 119.29%
Regression analysis 2.09% 4606.68% 2.09% 2396.51%
5 0.04% 0.08%
Semi-Markov 0.12% 165.75% 0.16% 95.55%

As shown in Figure 4, the Weibull distribution based semi-Markov process bridge deterioration
model can be used to predict the overall deterioration trend of urban bridges at network-level. It is
easy to find that the overall decay rate of the deck system is the fastest, the superstructure is the
second, and the substructure is the slowest. As for the whole bridge, there will be about 51% of bridges
remaining in CR = 1, 34% remaining in CR = 2, and 12% remaining in CR = 3 in the next decade.
It follows that the proportion of bridges with CR = 1 will gradually decrease, while the proportion
of bridges with CR = 3 and CR = 4 will increase rapidly within the next 50 years. The predicted
results are in a good agreement with the actual degrade trend of the overall urban bridges in Shanghai.
In order to reduce the bridge maintenance pressure in the future, it is necessary to adopt a targeted
preventive maintenance strategy and to delay the decay rate of bridge performance.

558
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

:KROH%ULGJH 'HFN6\VWHP

3HUFHQWDJH

3HUFHQWDJH

&5 &5
&5
&5
&5 &5
&5 &5
&5 &5


<HDU <HDU
6XSHUVWUXFWXUH 6XEVWUXFWXUH

3HUFHQWDJH

3HUFHQWDJH

&5 &5
&5
&5
&5 &5
&5 &5
&5 &5


<HDU <HDU

Figure 4. Prediction of the concrete beam bridge deterioration in Shanghai.

5. Conclusions
The performance of urban bridges will gradually deteriorate with the increase of service time.
The existing bridge deterioration prediction model of the BMS in Shanghai uses the regression analysis
method. This paper proposed a Weibull distribution based semi-Markov process prediction model by
using the bridge inspection data in BMS since 2004. The Weibull distribution was used to characterize
the bridge service-life behavior of duration time within each CR, and the semi-Markov process was
used to evaluate the transition probabilities of bridge deterioration between different CRs. The service
life expectancy of urban bridges, the transition probabilities of the deck system and the substructure,
and the future CR proportion change caused by deterioration was predicted.
The prediction result reveals that the estimated shape parameters of Weibull distribution are all
larger than 1, which indicates the failure rates of urban bridges in Shanghai are not homogeneous but
increase with time. The service life expectancy of concrete beam bridges in Shanghai is about 77 years.
Among the three major parts of urban bridges, the decay rate of the deck system is the fastest, and the
substructure has a much longer life expectancy. It may be because the bridge deck system directly bears
the load effect, which makes it more susceptible to damage. By comparison, the overall prediction
accuracy of the semi-Markov model is better than the regression analysis method. It follows that the
proportion of bridges CR = 1 with CR = 2 will gradually decrease, while the proportion of bridges
with CR = 3 and CR = 4 will increase rapidly within the next 50 years. The prediction results show
it is necessary to strengthen the maintenance of the deck system and adopt a preventive maintenance
strategy for bridges now with less deteriorated CRs to reduce the future bridge maintenance pressure.
Compared with the existing regression analysis method, the Weibull distribution based
semi-Markov process bridge deterioration model can describe the performance decay behavior
of the bridge in more detail, and the prediction accuracy is relatively higher. Therefore, when the
data size of historical bridge inspection records is big enough, this model can be well applied to the
deterioration prediction of urban bridges both at project-level and network-level. At the same time,
the proposed model can provide some basis for bridge maintenance decision-making and financial
allocation optimization.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.S.; methodology, Y.F.; software, Y.F.; validation, Y.F.; formal analysis,
Y.F.; investigation, Y.F.; resources, L.S.; data curation, L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.F.; writing—review
and editing, Y.F. and L.S.; visualization, Y.F.; supervision, L.S.; project administration, L.S.; funding acquisition, L.S.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, grant number
No. 2018YFB1600100.

559
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

Acknowledgments: Thanks to the Shanghai Road Administration Bureau for kindly providing the bridge
historical inspection records in the BMS database for this case study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Foraboschi, P. Analytical model to predict the lifetime of concrete members externally reinforced with FRP.
Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2015, 75, 137–145. [CrossRef]
2. Branco, F.A.; Brito, J.D. Handbook of Concrete Bridge Management; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston,
VA, USA, 2004.
3. Morcous, G. Performance prediction of bridge deck systems using Markov chains. J. Perform. Constr. Fac.
2006, 20, 146–155. [CrossRef]
4. Mishalani, R.G.; Madanat, S.M. Computation of infrastructure transition probabilities using stochastic
duration models. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2002, 8, 139–148. [CrossRef]
5. Li, L.; Li, F.; Chen, Z.; Sun, L. Use of Markov Chain Model Based on Actual Repair Status to Predict Bridge
Deterioration in Shanghai, China. Transp. Res. Record 2016, 2550, 106–114. [CrossRef]
6. Fang, Y.; Li, L.; Chen, Z.; Sun, L. Prediction Model of Concrete Girder Bridge Deterioration in Shanghai
Using Weibull-Distribution Method. 2017. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1438643 (accessed on
8 December 2016).
7. China, M.O.C.O. Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridges. S. In CJJ 99-2003, China; 2017. Available
online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201801/t20180104_234665.html (accessed on 31 July 2017).
8. Foraboschi, P. Shear strength computation of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with composite
materials. Compos.: Mech. Comput. Appl.: Int. J. 2012, 3, 227–252. [CrossRef]
9. Foraboschi, P. Structural layout that takes full advantage of the capabilities and opportunities afforded
by two-way RC floors, coupled with the selection of the best technique, to avoid serviceability failures.
Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 70, 387–418. [CrossRef]
10. Agrawal, A.K.; Kawaguchi, A.; Chen, Z. Deterioration rates of typical bridge elements in New York. J. Bridge. Eng.
2010, 15, 419–429. [CrossRef]
11. Lu, P.; Pei, S.; Tolliver, D.; Jin, Z. Data-based Evaluation of Regression Models for Bridge Component
Deterioration. 2015. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1337198 (accessed on 30 December 2014).
12. Chen, Z. Research on Technology Structure of Transportation Infrastructure Management System. Ph.D.
Thesis, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, July 2005.
13. Zambon, I.; Vidovic, A.; Strauss, A.; Matos, J.; Amado, J. Comparison of stochastic prediction models based
on visual inspections of bridge decks. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 553–561. [CrossRef]
14. Su, D.; Nassif, H.; Hwang, E. Probabilistic Approach for Forecasting Long Term Performance of Girder
Bridges. 2015. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1339284 (accessed on 30 December 2014).
15. Madanat, S.; Mishalani, R.; Ibrahim, W.H.W. Estimation of infrastructure transition probabilities from
condition rating data. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 1995, 1, 120–125. [CrossRef]
16. Golabi, K.; Shepard, R. Pontis: A system for maintenance optimization and improvement of US bridge
networks. Interfaces 1997, 27, 71–88. [CrossRef]
17. Hawk, H.; Small, E.P. The BRIDGIT bridge management system. Struct. Eng. Int. 1998, 8, 309–314. [CrossRef]
18. Reardon, M.F.; Chase, S.B. Migration of Element-Level Inspection Data for Bridge Management System. 2016.
Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1392750 (accessed on 1 December 2016).
19. Ng, S.K.; Moses, F. Prediction of bridge service life using time-dependent reliability analysis. Bridge Manag.
1996, 3, 26–32.
20. Medjoudj, R.; Aissani, D.; Boubakeur, A.; Haim, K.D. Interruption modelling in electrical power distribution
systems using the Weibull—Markov model. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O: J. Risk Reliab. 2009, 223, 145–157.
[CrossRef]
21. Madanat, S.M.; Karlaftis, M.G.; McCarthy, P.S. Probabilistic infrastructure deterioration models with panel
data. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 1997, 3, 4–9. [CrossRef]

560
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5524

22. Micevski, T.; Kuczera, G.; Coombes, P. Markov model for storm water pipe deterioration. J. Infrastruct. Syst.
2002, 8, 49–56. [CrossRef]
23. Wellalage, N.W.; Zhang, T.; Dwight, R.; El-Akruti, K. Bridge deterioration modeling by Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation method. In Engineering Asset Management-Systems, Professional Practices and
Certification; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 545–556.
24. Sobanjo, J.O. State transition probabilities in bridge deterioration based on Weibull sojourn times. Struct. Infrastruct. E
2011, 7, 747–764. [CrossRef]
25. Ng, S.; Moses, F. Bridge deterioration modeling using semi-Markov theory. A. A. Balkema Uitgevers B. V,
Struct. Saf. Reliab. 1998, 1, 113–120.
26. Corradi, G.; Janssen, J.; Manca, R. Numerical treatment of homogeneous semi-Markov processes in transient
case—A straightforward approach. Methodol. Comput. Appl. 2004, 6, 233–246. [CrossRef]
27. Kallen, M.J.; Van Noortwijk, J.M. Statistical Inference for Markov Deterioration Models of Bridge Conditions
in the Netherlands. 2006. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.74.
5105&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 2 March 2015).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

561
sustainability

Article
Implementing LEED v4 BD+C Projects in Vietnam:
Contributions and Challenges for General Contractor
Duy Hoang Pham 1 , Joosung Lee 2, * and Yonghan Ahn 3, *
1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangrok-gu,
Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea; [email protected]
2 Innovative Durable Building and Infrastructure Research Center, Hanyang University, 55
Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangrok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea
3 School of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro,
Sangrok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15588, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (J.L.) [email protected] (Y.A.)

Received: 13 August 2019; Accepted: 29 September 2019; Published: 1 October 2019

Abstract: Sustainable construction addresses both rising housing demand and the need to reduce
energy consumption, but is not yet widespread in Vietnam, although the number of Green Building
Certified projects has increased significantly since 2015, especially those with LEED certification.
Certification adds value to the project but also incurs additional costs and implementation challenges
for general contractors (GCs) and other stakeholders. The growing popularity of LEED buildings
requires GCs to understand their role in fulfilling the LEED requirements. We therefore conducted
a thorough review of the previous research on LEED v4 guidelines and their local equivalents to
determine what is expected of GCs working on LEED v4 BD + C projects in Vietnam. A survey
of 72 experts, engineers, and architects working in the construction sector identified the LEED
tasks where Vietnamese GCs lack experience and suggested solutions to address this shortfall were
developed. In particular, Vietnamese GCs lacked experience in implementing their sustainable roles.
These results provide a useful foundation for Vietnamese GCs seeking to expand the scope of their
LEED work and identified necessary training. Our findings will also guide future research to help
GCs in Vietnam adapt to LEED’s sustainability requirements and support sustainable construction
in Vietnam.

Keywords: sustainable roles; LEED; contractors; Vietnam

1. Introduction
Sustainable development is vital if humanity is to meet the needs of the current world population
without adversely affecting the lives of the next generation [1,2]. Over the last decade, many countries
have begun to be severely affected by the effects of climate change, global warming, pollution,
and the depletion of natural resources, all of which are the direct consequences of the industrial
revolution [2–4]. Our growing awareness of these problems has made sustainable development
a priority as it represents an important way to mitigate some of the most serious environmental
impacts of industrialization [5,6]. The construction industry is a significant consumer of energy and
raw materials and is thus a major contributor to global warming [7–11]. Several previous studies
have indicated that globally, the construction industry consumes ~50% of the energy produced,
nearly 40% of the raw materials, and 16% of the water, and is responsible for 35 % of the CO2
produced [12–19]. It also contributes to problems such as air pollution, noise pollution, and waste
pollution, among others [1,18,19]. To address these issues, sustainable construction practices and
green building solutions are being implemented in countries around the world, optimizing resource
use, reducing energy consumption, and minimizing the impact of buildings on the surrounding

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449; doi:10.3390/su11195449 563 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

environment [20,21]. Sustainable construction has become a major global trend in the construction
industry [22,23] because of its benefits and its ultimate goals of preserving our quality of life by
minimizing negative environmental impacts and protecting valuable resources that will be needed by
future generations. [24–26].
Green building certification systems promote sustainable construction activities by providing
guidance and rewarding efforts to deliver sustainable, energy-efficient buildings [27]. Many countries
have developed certification systems, including the United States (LEED; Green Building Council),
the United Kingdom (BREEAM; Building Research Establishment), and France (HQE; Association
pour la Haute Qualité Environnementale) [28–30]. Among these, LEED, which was first introduced
in 1993, aims to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of construction activities and ensure
energy/water efficiency. LEED has played a leading role in popularizing green building certification
systems worldwide [6,8,31–38], and a majority of existing green building projects are now implemented
based on the guidance provided by the LEED rating system or its local equivalent [39].
As in many other developing countries, Vietnam’s rapid economic growth is creating considerable
pressure on housing demand and raw resources, as well as environmental pollution [40,41].
Vietnam’s long coastline and low-lying and densely populated delta regions make it one of the
five nations in the world that are most severely affected by rising sea levels and climate change [42–44].
As the construction industry made up ~34.28 % of Vietnam’s GDP in 2018 [45], the government
considers promoting sustainable construction to be a potential solution that not only addresses issues
related to housing demand and energy consumption but also minimizes the nation’s environmental
vulnerability [46]. Nguyen et al. found that the low cost of electricity in Vietnam is one of the worst
drivers of investment decisions that ignore energy efficiency because of the long payback time [41].
In an attempt to address this issue, the government increased electricity prices by 8.36% in 2018,
significantly increasing operating costs for buildings. It has also implemented a policy of purchasing
electricity (paying US$0.0935/kWh) from owners who install renewable energy systems [47]. Due to
these incentives and the better payback compared to previous green investment opportunities [6],
the number of developers interested in green building projects has been increasing [41], as shown by the
significant increase in the number of green certifications issued in recent years. As of December 2018,
there were 174 LEED projects [48], 34 EDGE projects [49], and 51 LOTUS [50] projects in Vietnam,
along with a few other certifications. These figures indicate that LEED certification is by far the most
popular rating system in Vietnam.
Green building projects are increasing in popularity because of the many advantages they
bring for the buildings’ occupants [20]. Although LEED and other rating systems provide a way to
measure a green building’s quality, they also support sustainability and bring other benefits to the
building users [41] due to their more stringent construction requirements and well-considered building
designs. LEED’s Integrative Project credits (IPp1) also require substantial input from the architects
and engineers; the project manager; and all the contractors, construction consultants, and building
operation experts involved from the early-project phase onward [51–53]. Currently, green building
projects in Vietnam face many difficulties because of the participants’ lack of relevant experience and
the limited technical support available [54], which creates risks simply due to the lack of information,
the need to rework sections and the increased costs incurred for construction participants such as
GCs, architects and engineers, subcontractors, and the other partners involved in implementing
green building projects [20,55,56]. This is especially true for GCs, who are directly responsible for
ensuring the sustainability of the project [57]. With a solid understanding of their roles related to
individual sustainability construction concepts, contractors will be able to achieve a better performance
in delivering their sustainable project [57]. Thus, GCs need and want to understand their precise roles
in implementing a LEED project, which will enable them to identify cost-efficient methods to satisfy the
sustainable needs of both the building developer and the ultimate users [58]. To meet the requirements
of LEED certification with a minimal increase in the need for reworking, and the additional costs this
incurs, the GCs must gain more knowledge in order to fully understand what is expected of them when

564
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

undertaking a LEED project [59]. This study, therefore, focuses on the sustainable roles of GCs working
on a LEED v4 BD + C project by reviewing the updated “LEED v4 BD+C Technical Guidelines”,
previous papers examining this topic and local conditions and regulations. In order to identify the
risks that arise due to inexperience and the associated need to carry out extensive remediation work,
a questionnaire survey was utilized to determine the level of experience of the GCs in Vietnam who
are implementing sustainable green building projects.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Previous Studies on LEED and GCs

GCs play a vital role in the success and costefficiency of any construction project; this is especially
true for a sustainable building or a successful LEED project [53,57,59]. Many studies in the field of
construction management and sustainable building have therefore focused on the roles of GCs and
their contribution to the success of LEED projects. These studies have generally highlighted the need
for greater awareness of the importance of GCs’ roles in accomplishing sustainable building projects
on time and within budget.
A number of studies have pointed out the GCs’ roles and responsibilities and identified their
sustainable site roles. Mollaoglu-Korkmaz et al. (2013) analyzed the impact of each level of integration
achieved on success in meeting the sustainable goals of the project set by the owner and pointed
out, in particular, the potential role of the constructor in the earlier phases of the project [60].
The U.S. Green Building Council identified 17 credits that are significant for GCs and their responsibility
for implementing and documenting LEED requirements [61]. Glavinich reviewed several case studies
to evaluate the role of GCs in the design process, subcontractor management, material management,
LEED file collection, and the commissioning process (Cx) [62]. In his review of eight LEED projects
in the US, Klehm pointed out that GCs perform three management functions in LEED project, namely,
subcontractor management, materials management, and activity management [63]. Syal et al. examined
the impacts of LEED credits on the GCs’ function and the sustainable site practices required for green
building projects [64] and analyzed the roles of GCs working on LEED NC projects and its impact
on their construction management practices [65]. Frattari et al. studied the sustainable roles of the
GCs in two LEED project in Italy [66], demonstrating the international significance of the LEED
certification system.
Several studies focus on implementation guides to help GCs achieve their sustainability goals.
Kibert (2012) described GBs systems and implementation [25]. Ahn et al. developed a process model
that includes identifying the sustainable goals, implementation process, and roles of participating
teams, including GCs, throughout the construction phase [67]. Bayraktar et al. (2009) provide a set of
LEED implementation guidelines for GCs and others to assist them with the certification process [68].
Schaufelberger and Cloud also provided a four-step guide for GCs [69]. Son et al. surveyed GCs
in Korea and the U.S. to determine their level of awareness of sustainable construction measures
during the actual construction phase and developed a tool to assess and monitor the effectiveness of
construction waste management, listing 17 factors that affect the performance of contractors’ waste
management plans [16].
Other researchers have focused on analyzing the characteristics of GCs’ work on LEED projects.
Opoku et al. examined the role of integrative team coordination and its influence on achieving LEED
certification [70], Mollaoglu-Korkmaz et al. looked at the relationships and influence of project delivery
attribute in their study of 12 green office buildings in the US [60], and Uğur and Leblebici showed
the critical role played by GCs for cost estimation and the analysis of construction cost-benefit and
payback periods [31]. Research by Robichaud and Anantatmula highlighted the difference it makes
when GCs have LEED experience and participate early in the project [53], whereas Pulaski and Horman
proposed a “continuous value enhancement process” to improve the effectiveness of management practices

565
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

in sustainable construction projects [71,72]. Finally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a set
of guidelines to assist with the selection of appropriate recycled content products for construction [73].
In summary, there exists a significant need to define the role of GCs and stress the advantages
gained by their involvement in the early project phases [74–76]. Previous studies have clarified the
duties of GCs and other partners working on LEED projects and provided guides for improving the
effectiveness of GCs. However, most have focused on GCs and LEED projects in well-developed
countries [8]. There are significant differences in both the GCs’ qualifications and local technical
standards between Vietnam and more well-developed LEED markets [41]. Therefore, the roles of GCs
in implementing site sustainability and better support systems to help them perform those roles is
needed if we are to improve the competitiveness of Vietnamese GCs and enable them to participate
effectively in the trend towards sustainable construction.

2.2. Identification of GCs Sustainable Roles in LEED v4 Projects

Although GCs are not the most significant contributors in terms of the additional work caused
by LEED implementation, their involvement directly impacts the effectiveness and success of the
project [53,57,59]. The GC or construction manager should thus be involved as early as possible
in a LEED project [74–77]. Unlike traditional projects, GCs are involved in all three stages, namely,
the pre-construction, construction, and closeout phases [67,77,78]. The literature examined for this
study identified 18 potential roles for GCs in LEED v4 projects and these are summarized in Table 1.
(A) Pre-Construction Phase: An integrated design (ID) is a prerequisite to satisfy the requirements
of LEED v4 (healthcare project only) [78]. An integrative design team should be formed to
facilitate cooperation between the many different stakeholders involved, including GCs and other
participants [60,79,80]. The earlier the GC begins to work with the project team, the better for the
project as this will lower costs and shorten the construction schedule by setting suitable project goals at
every stage [16,53]. GCs provide valuable practical advice and support the ID team’s efforts to solve
problems, such as procuring sustainable materials, recycling materials, creating practical designs that
are appropriate for the region, developing realistic materials delivery schedules, and minimizing the
pollution created by construction processes [16]. GCs are thus better able to fulfill the intentions of
the design team if they have a good understanding of sustainability and its benefits, as this allows
them to develop more accurate cost estimates and assess the reliability of selected products [16,53,81].
In summary, GCs should be active participants in the integrative team to enable the team to evaluate
options and select LEED project goals that can be achieved at a reasonable cost and are feasible from
a construction perspective.
(B) Construction Phase: The GC is responsible for the majority of the construction credits
as well as several credits related to site and energy that require the involvement of other team
members [78]. According to the LEED v4 guidelines, the contractor is responsible for creating an erosion
and sedimentation control (ESC) plan, general LEED requirements, LEED product requirements,
waste management and disposal, and indoor air quality [66]. The contractor plays an essential role
in selecting the appropriate construction method and assessing constructability to meet the LEED
goals [64]. The GC must also carefully review and approve all materials before they are installed, as well
as being primarily responsible for collecting information from the subcontractors and submitting
progress reports [77]. The GCs’ on-site supervisor will oversee waste management implementation [77].
According to LEED BC+D v4 (2014), GCs play an essential role in construction activity pollution
prevention (CAPP) and construction and demolition waste management planning (CDWM) [78].
The CAPP plan must meet the requirements laid down in the erosion and sedimentation section of the
2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Construction General Permit (CGP) regulations or
their local equivalent [78]. As these LEED requirements are more rigorous than the local equivalent
in Vietnam [82–84], GCs need to understand the rules and be prepared to comply with the more
stringent LEED requirements. Regarding fundamental commissioning and verification criteria, GCs
only take the lead role for projects where the ground floor area (GFA) is below 1860 m2 [78]. For larger

566
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

projects, a commissioning authority (CxA) will assume the primary responsibility with support
from the GC. It is essential for GCs to collect all the material data sheets and take extensive job site
photographs. Many credits require documentation to be prepared continuously for submission as part
of the LEED certification process. GCs must coordinate with the LEED consultant when collecting
data on materials and the installation process for mid-project audits to review compliance with the
LEED credit requirements [66]. They must also periodically inspect the indoor air quality control
measures implemented, identify any issues that need to be corrected, and record their observations on
a checklist [77]. At the end of construction phase, the flush-out and air testing are conducted by GC or
a special contractor.
(C) Closing Phase: The GCs’ most crucial task in this phase of the project is to gather the
necessary documents and provide these to the LEED consultant. These include a list of LEED related
materials, the quantity of each utilized, purchase reports, datasheets from manufacturers, environmental
certificates, and so on (Frattari, 2012; Schaufelberger & Cloud, 2009). GCs that lack previous LEED
experience are likely to need assistance from LEED consultants when developing their LEED credit
template and LEED site checklist, as well as when preparing documents for submission [66]. GCs
may also be responsible for performing an additional building flush-out test before the building’s
occupant’s move in [78], but this is optional, quite costly, and uncommon in Vietnam.

567
Table 1. List of GCs’ roles in LEED projects identified in the literature.

ID 1 LEED v4 Credits GC’s Sustainable Roles/Function

IPp1 Integrative project team member IP1: Integrative Process worksheet of GC [66,67,69,70,77,78,84–90] (A).
SS1: Erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan [25,64,66,78,87,89,90] (A).
SSp1
Construction activity pollution prevention SS2: ESC Implementing weekly report [25,66,69,70,77,78,82–84,89–92] (B).
*
SS3: Report of compliance with EPA CGP [25,64,66,69,77,78,89,90] (B,C).
Construction activity management for greenfield Following the strategies listed in SSp1 “Construction Activity Pollution Prevention” [17,78,90] such as
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

SSc2
protection preventing construction damage to green fields, soil poisoning, soil compaction and so on.
WE1: Report of the irrigation systems purchase [66,77,78] (C).
WE All water efficiency credits WE2: Report of the water use equipment purchase (it can be replaced by on-site testing) [64,66,77,78,90] (C).
WE3: Report of the water consumption monitoring system purchase [64,66,78] (C).
Fundamental commissioning (GFA < 1860 EA1: Fundamental commissioning (Cx) & verification plan [64,69,78,89,90] (B).
EAp1
m2 —major role) EA2: Fundamental Cx & verification implementing report [64,78] (B,C).
*
(GFA > 1860 m2 —supporting role) EA3: Supporting fundamental Cx contractors by providing the necessary documentation [64,66,77,78] (B,C).
EAc1 Enhanced commissioning. v4 Not a GC roles. GCs only provide the necessary documentation (Envelope material) [64,66,77,78,90].
EQc4 Indoor air quality assessment v4 Made by the “Flush-Out” or “Air testing” contractor, GCs support for the on-site preparation (C).
EAc6 Enhanced refrigerant management EA4: Report of the fundamental refrigerant management plan (C) [66,78].

568
MRp2 CDWM Planning MR1: Construction and demolition waste management plan (B) [64,66,69,78,90].
MRc2 Environmental product declaration v4
MRc3 Sourcing of raw materials v4
AD1: Report of compliance with LEED’s material purchase requirements (B,C) [25,59,64,66,69,77,78,89,90].
MRc4 Material ingredients v4
EQc2 Low-emitting materials v4
MR2: Report of CDWM Plan implementing [64,66,69,77,78,89,90,92] (B).
MRc5 Construction & demolition waste management
MR3: Report of implementing the construction and demolition waste management result [64,66,69,77,78,89–91]
* (CDWM)
(C).
EQc3 EQ1: Report of Implementing the construction indoor air quality management plan [25,64,66,69,77,78,90] (B).
Construction indoor air quality management
* EQ2: Environmental tobacco smoke control policy [66,78] (B,C).
1:The IDs used for the credits are the same as those used on the leeduser website; * indicates the LEED V4 credits where GCs play a significant role; v4 these credits differ markedly from
those used in LEED V3. (A) The main phase is pre-construction phase; (B) the main phase is construction phase; (C): the main phase is closing phase.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

3. Research Methods

3.1. Questionnaire Design

Questionnaire surveys are used extensively to collect data on professional opinion in the
construction management field and green building research [92]. A two-part survey questionnaire was
therefore created for this study to gather expert perspectives on the current experience of Vietnamese
GCs implementing LEED projects. The first part of the questionnaire gathers background information
on the responders, including the field they work in, their years of experience, and their green building
experience. Respondents working in non-related fields or with less than one year of experience were
eliminated. The second questionnaire part was developed based on the “LEED Reference Guide for
Building Design and Construction”, 2013 Edition, and the findings of previous researchers presented
above in the literature review. A pilot questionnaire was tested to ensure its comprehensibility and
suitability for the intended purpose by administering it to a green building expert with nearly ten years
of experience in Vietnam. Four of the 22 GC roles were removed based on the expert’s feedback, as they
are seldom applicable to LEED projects in Vietnam. The final questionnaire consisted of 18 questions
examining the topics presented in Table 1 and respondents were asked to indicate their experience of
the GCs implementing the various LEED roles using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Respondents were also asked to assess the LEED experience levels of
contractors that they had worked with, or coordinated in previous building projects. The 5-point Likert
scale is widely used in green building studies because it is unambiguous and easily interpreted [93].

3.2. Data Collection

The target population for this research was the engineers and architects working in the construction
field in Vietnam who had extensive work experience and understanding of Vietnamese GCs.
As sampling this entire population would be costly to implement, the nonprobability sampling
technique was deemed suitable for selecting the sample based on the purpose of the study. Following
the study of B.G. Hwang (2017) [92], Equation (1) was utilized to determine the minimum sample size
required for significance. To maximize the number of samples collected, a relatively high standard
deviation of 4 was selected and a minimum error factor of 1; the minimum sample size of the survey
was thus 62.
Zs 2 1.96 × 4 2
n=( ) =( ) = 61.5 (1)
E 1

- n: minimum sample size.

- S: sample standard deviation
- E: error factor,
- Z = 1.96, equal to 95 percent of the confidence

The survey email was sent to potential participants on a list of surveyors’ email collected by
researchers in the construction department of Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT).
This list includes experts working in the construction sector in the southern region in Vietnam, as was
originally collected and used for previous studies in the construction management field by graduate
students attending HCMUT. The southern region is a useful location for green building studies since
the most recent data (January 2019) indicates 64 of the country’s 88 certified green building projects are
located in this area. Two versions of the survey questionnaire based on the topics in Table 1, in English
and Vietnamese, were created using the Google survey. A link to the questionnaire was included
in an email describing the objectives of the study and inviting recipients to participate in the survey.
Emails were sent to 542 people on the HCMUT email list and posted on several construction and
architecture forums in Vietnam. Recipients were also encouraged to share the survey with any of their
colleagues who are interested in green building projects. A total of 72 respondents completed the survey,
~13.3% of the emails sent out. This result is lower than the usual response rate of approximately 20 to

569
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

30% [92], suggesting that many Vietnamese construction experts still have little interest in sustainable
construction. The sample size is larger than the minimum number of samples required based on the
calculation in Equation (1).
The survey respondents had diverse backgrounds and were all active in the construction sector.
As the data presented in Figure 1 demonstrate, the majority had 1–5 years of experience, with only a few
having more than ten years of experience. Given the growth in green building projects in recent years,
it is not surprising that the most experienced respondents were engineers. There were two main groups
of experts: general contractor’s staff and non-general constructor’s staff. Half of the respondents were
green building experts working for GCs, and the remaining half were evenly split between the other
groups. This diversity was useful, introducing more perspectives on the characteristics needed for
GCs working on LEED projects.

Figure 1. The respondents’ professions.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

The data collected were statistically analyzed using the five-step data analysis framework, which is
following the studies of A.Darko et al (2017), B.G. Hwang (2017), and S. Pushkar (2018) [1,92,94].
The data were analyzed by using the SPSS 20.0 software package.
1. Cronbach’s alpha was used to evaluate the reliability of data for further analysis.
2. After that, the mean value ranking technique was applied to identify and prioritize the roles
where Vietnamese GCs are most inexperienced.
3. The Shapiro–Wilk test was then utilized to test the normality of the data collected with the
null hypothesis that each sample data came from a normally distributed population. At a 95% level
of confidence, the null hypothesis of this test is that the collected data is normally distributed. If the
p-value is less than the 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is evidence that the data tested are
not normally distributed.

570
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

4. Identifying the roles where GCs lacked experience-based on the significance of the mean values
via a t-test to determine whether the difference of the mean of each GCs’ LEED role was close to the
mean value on the Likert-scale. At a 95% level of confidence (p-value: 0.05), and against a test value
of 3.00 (neutral on the rating scale), the one-sample t-test was therefore conducted for significant
differences in the mean values for the experience levels of the Vietnamese GCs implementing LEED
projects. The null hypothesis of the t-test in is H0, and the mean value is not statistically significant.
The null hypothesis H0 would be accepted if the p-value of the GCs’ role task is more than 0.05, and the
alternative hypothesis H1 “the mean value is statistically significant” would be rejected.
5. Following the studies of A. Darko at al. (2017), the ANOVA test (parametric tests) or Kruskal–Wallis
test (nonparametric tests) are applied to identify any statistically significant differences [1]. However, in this
study, the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney (WMW) and Cliff’s effect size nonparametric tests were replaced
to compare the significance of the mean values of two or more groups because of homoscedasticity
uncertainty of the data. The data are presented as the median ± interquartile range (IQR: 25th to
75th percentile). According to suggested sampling structures of S. Pushkar (2018) study, “Cliff’s δ was
used to measure the substantive significance (effect size) between two unpaired groups”, and is calculated
as δ = #(x1 > x2) − #(x1 < x2)/(n1n2) [94]. As a result, the effect size is considered “negligible” if |δ| < 0.147,
“small” if 0.147 ≤ |δ| < 0.33, “medium” if 0.33 ≤ |δ| < 0.474, or “large” if |δ| ≥ 0.474 [94]. Where x1 and
x2 are scored within each ground and n1 and n2 are the sizes of the sample groups, and the cardinality
symbol # indicates counting. Furthermore, an approximate WMW was conducted while the sample sizes
were n1 = n2 ≥ 9 to determine statistical difference (p-value) between two unpaired groups.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Data Analyzing

In this study, the relative importance of the GCs’ experience of various LEED roles was evaluated
using a 5-point Likert scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the data packet was found to be
0.918, which is above the high-reliability threshold of 0.7 [95], thus indicating the data has high
reliability. In the second step, the full results of the survey, as well as the relevant statistical test results,
are shown in Table 2. From the results of the Shapiro–Wilk test, no p-value values of the entire GCs’
roles were above a confidence level of 0.05, indicating that the data collected from the survey was not
a normal distribution.
Based on the results presented in Table 2, 89% of the survey results had mean values below 3
(neutral level). The respondents’ overall rating for the GCs’ experience in implementing LEED roles
was only 2.66, indicating that respondents do not consider that GCs have adequate experience for
in implementing their LEED roles. This shows a serious lack of experience and indicates that GCs need
to be provided with more training if they are to fulfill their responsibility for implementing these LEED
roles, which concern fundamental commissioning, refrigerant management, material documentation,
managing indoor air quality during construction, and environment product declarations. Only two
GC LEED tasks had a mean value greater than 3.0, namely IP1 (Integrative design support; 3.39)
and EAQ2 (Smoking control policy; 3.42). This suggests that GCs in Vietnam have approached and
supported investors in the process of project formulation, possibly because the GCs who win these
contracts have worked with investors and thus have a greater understanding of the projects and their
aims. Also, most reputable contractors have implemented a smoking control policy on sites since the
Vietnamese government issued a smoking ban for workplaces in June 2018 [96].

571
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

Table 2. Mean value ranking, t-test and Shapiro–Wilk test result in the GC LEED roles.

All (n = 72)
p-value Sig. p-value Sig.
Code Mean SD Rank Code Mean SD Rank
(t-test) (SW) (t-test) (SW)
EQ2 3.42 1.3 1 0.006 * 0.00 a SS1 2.58 1 10 0.000 * 0.00 a
IP1 3.39 1 2 0.002 * 0.00 a SS3 2.54 1 11 0.000 * 0.00 a
WE2 2.89 1 3 0.369 0.00 a EA3 2.53 1 12 0.000 * 0.00 a
MR1 2.85 1 4 0.206 0.00 a EA1 2.42 1 13 0.000 * 0.00 a
WE1 2.83 1 5 0.165 0.00 a EA4 2.33 1 14 0.000 * 0.00 a
MR2 2.82 1.1 6 0.16 0.00 a EA2 2.32 1.1 15 0.000 * 0.00 a
WE3 2.76 0.9 7 0.037 * 0.00 a EQ1 2.32 1 16 0.000 * 0.00 a
MR3 2.67 1 8 0.005 * 0.00 a AD1 2.31 1.2 17 0.000 * 0.00 a
SS2 2.6 0.9 9 0.001 * 0.00 a
Notes: * t-test results with p-values below 0.05, suggesting a significant difference in the mean value. a : Shapiro–Wilk
test results with a p-value less than 0.05, indicating the data is not a normal distribution.

This study used statistical methods including mean values, ranking techniques, and one-sample
t-tests to identify any statistical significant roles that GCs are lacking experience. Although the data
from the survey is not a normal distribution, according to the central limit principle the size of samples
is more significant than 30, and therefore can be accepted as a normal distribution, so the t-test result
can be considered reasonable [97]. The results of the t-test, shown in Table 2, suggested that Vietnamese
GCs are lacked experience in most of their roles. The one-sample t-test results and the mean-value
present 12/17 GCs roles significant lacked experience when carrying out these critical LEED roles.
It included credits, which GCs have played a significant contribution in the success of LEED projects,
such as “Construction activity pollution prevention”, “material criteria”, “Construction indoor air
quality management”, and “Construction & demolition waste management”. Finally, an approximate
WMW test was conducted. However, if experimental units are pooled from the different sampling
frames, the problem of sacrificial pseudo-replication can occur [94]. Thus, the sample from each
compared group was randomly selected. To perform an approximate WMW test, minimum sample
size was n1 = n2 ≥ 9. The number of sample size with the total number of respondents and number of
randomly selected respondents’ data which is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. The number of sample size and the number of randomly selected.

Sample Size (n)

Company Types
Yes Not-yet
18
Non-GC 18 (18)
(18)
14
GC 22 (14)
(14)

There are considerable differences in opinion among expert groups that can lead to errors
in mean-value, particularly those who had (or not yet) experience in LEED project or the GC/non-GC.
Therefore, the group of respondents who have (or never) participated in the LEED project in the
group from was statistically evaluated individual working field (GC/non-GC) sampling frame
analysis (by an approximate WMW test). Data analysis results using the WMW test and Cliff’s
delta by grouped experienced/non-experience and GC/non-GC groups are presented in Table 4.
According to Tables 2 and 4, the author divides the roles of GCs through the survey into four main
groups: (i) experienced and no statistical difference, (ii) experienced and statistically different,
(iii) inexperienced and no different Statistical differences, and (iv) non-experienced and statistical
differences. As the result of GC respondents, group (i) includes EQ2, group (ii) includes IP1, WE1,
WE2, MR1, and MR2; group (iii) includes SS1, SS2, and EA3; and group (iv) includes SS3, WE3, EA1,

572
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

EA2, EA4, MR3, and EQ1. For Non-GC respondents, group (i) includes MR1; group (ii) includes
IP1, WE1, WE2, MR2, and QE2; group (iii) includes SS1, SS2, EA2: EA4, and MR3; and group (iv)
includes SS3, WE3, EA1, EA3, and EQ1. A summary of Group (iv) for the GC/Non-GC roles WE3,
EA1, EA2, EA3, EA4, MR3, and EQ1 is linked to lack of experience, but there are statistical differences
between groups of people answer each participant/have never participated in the green building
project. Respondents who participated in green building projects have a larger mean-value than the
other groups. It demonstrates that the roles in this group can be performed better than the overall
respondents expected. Summary of the group (iii) of GC and Non-GC, the roles SS1; SS2; EA2: EA3;
EA4; MR3 are agreed by both groups of respondents that GC lacks experience in implementing that
Vietnamese contractors need to give priority to the training of their staff.

Table 4. Cliff’s δ and the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney (WMW) test result.

Sample Size GB Experience Cliff’s

ID Position p-Value NFSAs
n1 = n2 Yes No Delta

Non-GC 18 3.78 ± 0.79 3.11 ± 1.15 0.353 0.071 Suspended

IP1
GC 14 3.71 ± 0.88 3.00 ± 1.00 0.418 0.049 Positive
Non-GC 18 2.72 ± 0.73 2.56 ± 1.07 0.114 0.592 Negative
SS1
GC 14 2.57 ± 0.90 2.36 ± 0.97 0.184 0.381 Negative
Non-GC 18 2.83 ± 0.69 2.50 ± 1.12 0.199 0.295 Negative
SS2
GC 14 2.43 ± 0.98 2.57 ± 0.98 -0.036 0.866 Negative
Non-GC 18 2.72 ± 0.73 2.28 ± 1.15 0.301 0.140 Suspended
SS3
GC 14 2.86 ± 1.12 2.29 ± 0.80 0.306 0.150 Suspended
Non-GC 18 3.22 ± 0.92 2.39 ± 0.89 0.461 0.011 Positive
WE1
GC 14 3.14 ± 0.99 2.36 ± 0.81 0.408 0.054 Suspended
Non-GC 18 3.28 ± 0.93 2.44 ± 0.90 0.464 0.010 Positive
WE2
GC 14 3.36 ± 1.04 2.36 ± 0.89 0.515 0.016 Positive
Non-GC 18 3.11 ± 0.87 2.33 ± 0.82 0.454 0.012 Positive
WE3
GC 14 3.21 ± 0.86 2.36 ± 0.89 0.505 0.016 Positive
Non-GC 18 2.67 ± 1.05 2.11 ± 1.10 0.261 0.111 Suspended
EA1
GC 14 2.79 ± 1.01 2.21 ± 0.56 0.301 0.137 Suspended
Non-GC 18 2.44 ± 1.12 2.06 ± 1.08 0.180 0.263 Negative
EA2
GC 14 2.79 ± 1.01 2.21 ± 0.67 0.296 0.155 Suspended
Non-GC 18 2.94 ± 1.03 2.22 ± 1.13 0.366 0.046 Positive
EA3
GC 14 2.71 ± 0.80 2.36 ± 0.61 0.260 0.201 Negative
Non-GC 18 2.67 ± 1.15 2.61 ± 1.06 0.059 0.794 Negative
EA4
GC 14 3.00 ± 0.76 2.14 ± 0.74 0.551 0.008 Positive
Non-GC 18 2.72 ± 0.93 2.50 ± 0.96 0.088 0.712 Negative
MR1
GC 14 3.14 ± 0.91 2.43 ± 0.90 0.418 0.047 Positive
Non-GC 18 3.00 ± 0.94 2.50 ± 1.17 0.261 0.185 Suspended
MR2
GC 14 3.36 ± 0.72 2.36 ± 0.89 0.577 0.007 Positive
Non-GC 18 2.89 ± 0.81 2.44 ± 1.26 0.242 0.229 Negative
MR3
GC 14 3.36 ± 0.89 2.50 ± 1.05 0.429 0.045 Positive
Non-GC 18 2.67 ± 1.00 2.22 ± 1.18 0.245 0.178 Suspended
EQ1
GC 14 2.57 ± 0.73 2.00 ± 0.76 0.429 0.036 Positive
Non-GC 18 3.44 ± 1.07 2.67 ± 1.37 0.337 0.113 Suspended
QE2
GC 14 3.86 ± 0.99 3.36 ± 1.23 0.219 0.307 Negative

4.2. Differences with Developed Countries

In general, the role of GCs in LEED projects in Vietnam is quite similar to projects in other countries.
For most criteria, like construction activity pollution prevention, commissioning activities are compliant
with equivalent standards in the US. However, as a result of inexperience, the Vietnamese GC’s role is
limited and replaced by LEED consultants or foreign contractors, especially jobs involving Cx and
flush out or air testing. Compared to well-developed countries such as the US, contractors in Vietnam

573
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

lacked experience in the majority of LEED’s work. Especially the group roles (iii) such as SS1, SS2, EA2:
EA3, EA4, and MR3. The group of sustainable site credits (SS1 and SS2), which comply with U.S. EPA
requirements, creates a new challenge for Vietnamese general contractors. The Cx process and flush-out
or air testing (EA2–EA4) are not yet common in Vietnam and may not be mentioned in the bidding
process. Construction waste management implementation (MR3) is still a big problem for Vietnamese
contractors, as the government has regulations on solid waste management in construction, but it has
not yet been applied in real conditions [96]. Furthermore, the construction materials in Vietnamese
market are also often lack of necessary green certificates for LEED evident, and it also creates confusion
for the GC in the process of purchasing materials. Besides, language differences are also a barrier for
contractors in Vietnam because it generates extra documents and consumes human resources as well
as time. Vietnamese general contractor also lacks experience in collecting LEED records of materials
and equipment. Therefore, hiring LEED specialists and conducting training programs is necessary
for contractors to improve the effectiveness of their first LEED jobs. The results of the study also
indicate that contractors need to prioritize training and pay more attention to the work in the group
(iii), and group (iv), especially the jobs in which they play a major role.

5. Conclusions
In recent years, the demand for sustainable construction to offset the shortage of resources and
minimize the environmental impacts of fast-growing industries is evidenced by the increase in the
number of green-certified buildings. If they are to remain competitive and thrive in this new market,
the study helped the Vietnamese GCs to develop a better understanding of their sustainable roles
and learn how to adapt cost-effectively and engage in more sustainable green building practices.
The following was identified.

1. This review found that Vietnamese CGs are expected to play a significant role in four types of
LEED v4 credits, namely, the implementation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan,
Construction & Demolition Waste Management, Construction Indoor Air Quality Management,
and Fundamental Commissioning. In particular, Cx and flush out or air testing can be done by
other (foreign) contractors/experts. However, it is necessary to define the role of GC in the process
of bidding and contract making.
2. The Vietnamese GCs lack experience in implementing LEED credits, which included SSp1
“Construction activity pollution prevention” (SS1–SS3), EAp1”Fundamental Commissioning”
(EA1–EA3), “Construction & demolition waste management” (MR3), and “Construction indoor
air quality management”. Moreover, Vietnamese GC also lack experience in selecting and
documenting the purchasing of LEED materials.
3. Currently, Vietnamese regulations and standards do not have such strict requirements compare
to LEED requirements. Therefore, works such as ESC and Cx should be planned according to the
requirements or standards which are mentioned by LEED.
4. The results of the study showed that the Vietnamese general contractors were lacked experienced
in most LEED roles. In which priority is given to training programs on LEED for the following
jobs (iii); SS1, SS2, EA2: EA4, and MR3, which included “Erosion and sedimentation control”
(SS1 and SS2), “Fundamental commission for project less than 1860m2” (EA2), “Enhanced
refrigerant management” (EA4), and “Construction and demolition waste management” (MR3).

Given the limited empirical studies on GCs’ experience in implementing LEED roles, especially
in Vietnam, the practical results of this study make a substantial contribution to the green building
body of knowledge and are expected to encourage sustainable construction in Vietnam. Furthermore,
the findings of this study will serve as a valuable reference to assist students and project managers,
developing a practical construction implementation to achieve more sustainable building developments.
These findings highlight the importance of involving the GC integrated design process to provide
a more efficient building project and sustainable construction. Providing the GC with an outline of

574
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

the scope of work, and the advantages and disadvantages inherent in a LEED project, will improve
the GC’s performance and support the developer’s decision to invest in a green building project,
thus contributing to sustainable construction in Vietnam.
As with most research, this study suffers from a number of limitations that remain to be addressed
in future research. Regarding the population of the study, most of the experts participating in the
survey come from the southern part of Vietnam, where most of the LEED-certified projects are
concentrated. However, a survey dataset with a larger population and nationwide distribution may
be more reliable. Although the goal is to promote the construction of sustainable green building
practices and sustainable construction in Vietnam, this research focuses solely on GCs’ roles in LEED
projects, building a foundation for future studies on the impact of LEED certification on GCs and the
optimization of LEED-related tasks for Vietnamese GCs. The GC roles identified will provide a useful
starting point for efforts to reduce the effects of LEED’s incremental work on GCs and optimize these
tasks to introduce greater cost efficiency for projects and GCs. However, these issues were outside the
scope of this research to investigate the GCs’ roles in implementing LEED project, which identified
their lack of experience related to many of their expected roles. Future studies should extend the
original research topics to examine the roles of the building developers and/or the project management
teams in implementing popular green building rating systems such as LEED in Vietnam.

Author Contributions: Supervision, J.L.; Writing—original draft, D.P.; Writing—review & editing, Y.A.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Korean Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation
and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea
(No. 20172010000370).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.; Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Ameyaw, E.E. Drivers for implementing green building
technologies: An international survey of experts. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 145, 386–394. [CrossRef]
2. U.S. Green Building Council; Sustainable Buildings Industry Council. What is a Green Building? San Marcos
2016, 888, 336–7553.
3. Wu, P.; Xia, B.; Pienaar, J.; Zhao, X. The past, present, and future of carbon labeling for construction
materials—A review. Build. Environ. 2014, 77, 160–168. [CrossRef]
4. Zhao, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Gao, Y. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk assessment: A case of
Singapore’s green projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 203–213. [CrossRef]
5. Hwang, B.G.; Zhao, X.; Tan, L.L.G. Green building projects: Schedule performance, influential factors,
and solutions. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2015, 22, 327–346. [CrossRef]
6. Mangialardo, A.; Micelli, E.; Saccani, F. Does sustainability affect real estate market values? Empirical
evidence from the office buildings Market in Milan (Italy). Sustainability 2019, 11, 12. [CrossRef]
7. Micelli, E.; Mangialardo, A. Recycling the city new perspective on the real-estate market and construction
industry. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Stephens, R.,
Elisei, P., Eds.; SSPCR 2015. Green Energy and Technology; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 115–125.
8. Amiri, A.; Ottelin, J.; Sorvari, J. Are LEED-certified buildings energy-efficient in practice? Sustainability 2019,
11, 1672. [CrossRef]
9. Nilforooshan, R.; Adamo-Villani, N.; Dib, H. A study of the effects of computer animation on college students’
learning of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-LEED. ICST Trans. eEduc. eLearn. 2013, 1, e3.
[CrossRef]
10. Gurgun, A.; Arditi, D. Assessment of energy credits in LEED-certified buildings based on certification levels
and project ownership. Buildings 2018, 8, 29. [CrossRef]
11. Ferreira, J.; Pinheiro, M.D.; de Brito, J. Portuguese sustainable construction assessment tools benchmarked
with BREEAM and LEED: An energy analysis. Energy Build. 2014, 69, 451–463. [CrossRef]

575
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

12. Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Shen, L.; Tang, L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site
prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build.
2013, 66, 165–176. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, R.J.; Zou, P.X. Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects:
A social network model. Build. Environ. 2014, 73, 208–222. [CrossRef]
14. Yang, R.J.; Zou, P.X.; Wang, J. Modelling stakeholder-associated risk networks in green building projects.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 66–81. [CrossRef]
15. Yuan, H. SWOT analysis of successful construction waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
16. Son, H.; Kim, C.; Chong, W.K.; Chou, J.S. Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry:
Constructors’ perspectives in the US and Korea. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 337–347. [CrossRef]
17. Sev, A. How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework.
Sustain. Dev. 2009, 17, 161–173. [CrossRef]
18. Berardi, U. Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013,
8, 72–78. [CrossRef]
19. Shen, L.Y.; Tam, V.W. Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 535–543. [CrossRef]
20. Shen, W.; Tang, W.; Siripanan, A.; Lei, Z.; Duffield, C.; Hui, F. Understanding the green technical capabilities
and barriers to green buildings in developing countries: A case study of Thailand. Sustainability 2018, 10,
3585. [CrossRef]
21. Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y. Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2014, 30, 271–281. [CrossRef]
22. Ahn, Y.H.; Pearce, A.R.; Wang, Y.; Wang, G. Drivers and barriers of sustainable design and construction:
The perception of green building experience. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2013, 4, 35–45.
[CrossRef]
23. Serpell, A.; Kort, J.; Vera, S. Awareness, actions, drivers and barriers of sustainable construction in Chile.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 19, 272–288. [CrossRef]
24. OECD. Environmentally Sustainable Buildings, Challenges and Policies. 2003. Available online: http://www.oecd.
org/env/consumption-innovation/2715115.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2019).
25. Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NY, USA, 2012.
26. Pham, H.; Kim, S.Y.; Luu, T.V. Managerial perceptions on barriers to sustainable construction in developing
countries: Vietnam case. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 1–25. [CrossRef]
27. Green Building Standards and Certification Systems. Available online: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/
green-building-standards-and-certification-systems (accessed on 6 May 2019).
28. Griffiths, K.; Boyle, C.; Henning, T. Beyond the certification badge—How infrastructure sustainability rating
tools impact on individual, organizational, and industry practice. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1038. [CrossRef]
29. Shin, M.; Kim, H.; Gu, D.; Kim, H. LEED, its efficacy and fallacy in a regional context—An urban heat island
case in California. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1674. [CrossRef]
30. Potrč Obrecht, T.; Kunič, R.; Jordan, S.; Dovjak, M. Comparison of health and well-being aspects in building
certification schemes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2616. [CrossRef]
31. Uğur, L.O.; Leblebici, N. An examination of the LEED green building certification system in terms of
construction costs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1476–1483. [CrossRef]
32. Pearce, D. Is the construction sector sustainable? Definitions and reflections. Build. Res. Inf. 2006, 34, 201–207.
[CrossRef]
33. Jeong, J.; Hong, T.; Ji, C.; Kim, J.; Lee, M.; Jeong, K. Development of an evaluation process for green and
non-green buildings focused on energy performance of G-SEED and LEED. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 172–184.
[CrossRef]
34. Donghwan, G.; Yong, K.H.; Hyoungsub, K. LEED, its efficacy in regional context: Finding a relationship
between regional measurements and urban temperature. Energy Build. 2015, 86, 687–691. [CrossRef]
35. Zhao, J.; Lam, K.P.; Biswas, T.; Wang, H. An online platform to automate LEED energy performance evaluation
and submission process. Constr. Innov. 2015, 15, 313–332. [CrossRef]

576
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

36. Reichardt, A. Operating expenses and the rent premium of energy star and LEED certified buildings in the
central and eastern US. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2014, 49, 413–433. [CrossRef]
37. Tsai, W.H.; Lin, S.J.; Lee, Y.F.; Chang, Y.C.; Hsu, J.L. Construction method selection for green building projects
to improve environmental sustainability by using an MCDM approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56,
1487–1510. [CrossRef]
38. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Shou, W.; Chi, H.; Chong, H.Y.; Sutrisna, M. A comprehensive analysis of the credits obtained
by LEED 2009 certified green buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 370–379. [CrossRef]
39. Xia, B.; Chen, Q.; Xu, Y.; Li, M.; Jin, X. Design-build contractor selection for public sustainable buildings.
J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 31, 04014070. [CrossRef]
40. Massoud, M.A.; Tarhini, A.; Nasr, J.A. Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management:
Applicability in developing countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 652–659. [CrossRef]
41. Nguyen, H.T.; Skitmore, M.; Gray, M.; Zhang, X.; Olanipekun, A.O. Will green building development take
off? An exploratory study of barriers to green building in Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 8–20.
[CrossRef]
42. Carew-Reid, J. Rapid Assessment of the Extent and Impact of Sea Level Rise in Viet Nam; International Centre for
Environment Management (ICEM): Brisbane, Australia, 2008; Volume 82.
43. Adger, W.N. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Dev. 1999, 27,
249–269. [CrossRef]
44. Mackay, A. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II
to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J. Environ. Qual. 2008,
37, 2407. [CrossRef]
45. Overview of Vietnam Economy and Society in 2018. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/default.aspx?
tabid=382&idmid=2&ItemID=19041 (accessed on 1 June 2019).
46. Nguyen, H.T.; Gray, M. A review on green building in Vietnam. Procedia Eng. 2016, 142, 314–321. [CrossRef]
47. Vietnam Energy Industry, Media Climate Net, Update Report 2019. Available online: https://moit.gov.vn/tin-chi-tiet/-/
chi-tiet/chinh-phu-quy-%C4%91inh-gia-ban-%C4%91ien-mat-troi-tai-viet-nam-la-9-35-uscents-kwh-2650-136.html
(accessed on 12 June 2019).
48. LEED Projects. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/projects/list?keys=vietnam (accessed on 12 June 2019).
49. EDGE Projects. Available online: https://www.edgebuildings.com/projects/ (accessed on 12 June 2019).
50. LOTUS Projects. Available online: https://vgbc.vn/en/lotus-projects/ (accessed on 12 June 2019).
51. Rohracher, H. Managing the technological transition to sustainable construction of buildings: A socio-technical
perspective. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2001, 13, 137–150. [CrossRef]
52. Pulaski, M.H.; Horman, M.J.; Riley, D.R. Constructability practices to manage sustainable building knowledge.
J. Archit. Eng. 2006, 12, 83–92. [CrossRef]
53. Robichaud, L.B.; Anantatmula, V.S. Greening project management practices for sustainable construction.
J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 27, 48–57. [CrossRef]
54. Nguyen, H.D.; Nguyen, L.D.; Chih, Y.Y.; Le-Hoai, L. Influence of participants’ characteristics on sustainable
building practices in emerging economies: Empirical case study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 05017014.
[CrossRef]
55. Chan, A.P.; Scott, D.; Chan, A.P. Factors affecting the success of a construction project. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2004, 130, 153–155. [CrossRef]
56. Inayat, A.; Melhem, H.; Esmaeily, A. Critical success factors in an agency construction management
environment. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 141, 06014010. [CrossRef]
57. Pulaski, M.H.; Horman, M.; Riley, D.; Dahl, P.; Hickey, A.; Lapinski, A.; Holland, N. Field Guide for Sustainable
Construction; Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program Office Safety Sustainability and Environment
IPT and Washington Headquarters Services Defense Facilities Directorate: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
58. Shen, L.Y.; Lu, W.S.; Hong, Y.; Wu, D.H. A computer-based scoring method for measuring the environmental
performance of construction activities. Autom. Constr. 2005, 14, 297–309. [CrossRef]
59. Bayraktar, M.E.; Owens, C.R.; Zhu, Y. State-of-practice of LEED in the United States: A contractor’s
perspective. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2011, 11, 1–17. [CrossRef]
60. Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S.; Swarup, L.; Riley, D. Delivering sustainable, high-performance buildings: Influence
of project delivery methods on integration and project outcomes. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 29, 71–78. [CrossRef]

577
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

61. U.S. Green Building Council. Green Building Facts. US Green Building Council, 2008. Available online:
https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx. (accessed on 12 June 2019).
62. Glavinich, T.E. Contractor’s Guide to Green Building Construction: Management, Project Delivery, Documentation,
and Risk Reduction; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
63. Klehm, C. Value Added General Contracting for LEED™ Rated Projects. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/
drupal/legacy/usgbc/docs/Archive/MediaArchive/608_Klehm_AB768.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2019).
64. Syal, M.M.; Mago, S.; Moody, D. Impact of LEED-NC credits on contractors. J. Archit. Eng. 2007, 13, 174–179.
[CrossRef]
65. Syal, M.; Li, Q.; Abdulrahman, K.; Mago, S. LEED® requirements and construction project management.
Int. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. 2011, 3, 257.
66. Frattari, A.; Dalprà, M.; Salvaterra, G. The role of the general contractor in sustainable green buildings:
The case study of two buildings in the LEED certification in Italy. Int. J. Hous. Sci. Its Appl. 2012, 36, 139.
67. Ahn, Y.H.; Jung, C.W.; Suh, M.; Jeon, M.H. Integrated construction process for green building. Procedia Eng.
2016, 145, 670–676. [CrossRef]
68. Bayraktar, M.E.; Owens, C.R. LEED implementation guide for construction practitioners. J. Archit. Eng. 2009,
16, 85–93. [CrossRef]
69. Schaufelberger, J.; Cloud, J. LEED certification: A constructor’s perspective. In Proceedings of the
Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a Sustainable Future, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–7 April 2009;
Ariaratnam, S.T., Rojas, E.M., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 598–607.
[CrossRef]
70. Opoku, A.; Ahmed, V.; Cruickshank, H.; Senaratne, S.; Hewamanage, P.R. The role of team leadership
in achieving LEED certification in a green building project. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015, 5, 170–183.
71. Korkmaz, S.; Riley, D.; Horman, M. Piloting evaluation metrics for sustainable high-performance building
project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 877–885. [CrossRef]
72. Pulaski, M.; Horman, M. The continuous value enhancement process to efficiently achieve sustainable project
objectives. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives, San Diego,
CA, USA, 5–7 April 2005; Tommelein, I.R., Ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2005;
pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guideline Program. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/cpg-fs.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2019).
74. Samaras, C. Sustainable development and the construction industry: Status and implications.
Carnegie Mellon Univ. Retrieved Oct. 2004, 26, 2007.
75. Riley, D.; Pexton, K.; Drilling, J. Procurement of sustainable construction services in the United States:
The contractor’s role in green buildings. Ind. Environ. 2003, 26, 66–69.
76. Mogge, J.W., Jr. Breaking Through the First Cost Barriers to Sustainable Planning, Design and Construction.
Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2004.
77. Yellamraju, V. LEED-New Construction Project Management (GreenSource); McGraw Hill Professional:
New York, NY, USA, 2010.
78. U.S. Green Building Council. Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction v4; USGBC: Washington,
DC, USA, 2014.
79. Klotz, L.; Horman, M.; Riley, D.; Bechtel, J. Process transparency for sustainable building delivery.
Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2009, 2, 298–307. [CrossRef]
80. Riley, D.; Pexton, K.; Drilling, J. Defining the Role of Contractors on Green Building Projects; International Council
for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction: Deft, Switerland, 2003.
81. Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.E.M.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency
in green buildings to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Build. Environ. 2018,
146, 119–132. [CrossRef]
82. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam. Circular No. 27/2015/TT-BTNMT on Strategic
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Environmental Protection Plans. Available
online: https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/circular-no-272015tt-btnmt-on-strategic-environmental-
assessment-environmental-impact-assessment-and-environmental-protection-plans-lex-faoc168538/ (accessed
on 12 June 2019).

578
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5449

83. The Government of Vietnam. Decree No. 18/2015/ND-CP Prescribing Environmental Protection Master Plan, Strategic
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Protection Plan. Available online:
https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/decree-no-182015nd-cp-prescribing-environmental-protection-master-
plan-strategic-environmental-assessment-environmental-impact-assessment-and-environmental-protection-plan-
lex-faoc168510/ (accessed on 12 June 2019).
84. The Ministry of Construction of Vietnam. Circular No. 02/2018/TT-BXD on Environmental Protection
in Construction and Construction and Reporting on Environmental Protection in the Construction Industry.
Available online: http://www.moc.gov.vn/home/-/legal/2pBh/vi_VN/18/428701/37 (accessed on 12 June 2019).
85. Watson, D. Environmental Design Charrette Workbook; AIA Committee on the Environment: Washington,
DC, USA, 1996.
86. Gibson, G.E., Jr.; Gebken, R.J., II. Planning charrettes using the project definition rating index. In Architectural
Engineering 2003: Building Integration Solutions; Liu, M.S., Parfitt, K.M., Eds.; American Society of Civil
Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2003; pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
87. Gibson, G.E., Jr.; Whittington, D.A. Charrettes as a method for engaging industry in best practices research.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 136, 66–75. [CrossRef]
88. Knox, M.W.; Clevenger, C.M.; Dunbar, B.H.; Leigh, K.E. Impact of charrettes and their characteristics on
achieved LEED certification. J. Archit. Eng. 2013, 20, 04013012. [CrossRef]
89. Loppnow, S.W. Current Industry Perceptions of the Role of the Contractor in the LEED Certification Process.
Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011.
90. Gürgün, A.P.; Polat, G.; Bayhan, H.G. Contractor Perspective on Material Risks in Green Building Projects.
In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey,
21–23 September 2016; Özturan, T., Luş, H., Eds.; ACE: Istanbul, Turkey, 2016; pp. 21–23.
91. Arif, M.; Syal, M.; Li, Q.; Turner, N. Constructors and innovation credits in green building projects.
Constr. Innov. 2013, 13, 320–338.
92. Hwang, B.G.; Shan, M.; Xie, S.; Chi, S. Investigating residents’ perceptions of green retrofit program in mature
residential estates: The case of Singapore. Habitat Int. 2017, 63, 103–112. [CrossRef]
93. Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Ameyaw, E.E. Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the
construction industry—An international study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 969. [CrossRef]
94. Pushkar, S. Sacrificial Pseudoreplication in LEED Cross-Certification Strategy Assessment: Sampling
Structures. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1353. [CrossRef]
95. Norusis, M. IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Guide to Data Analysis: International Edition; Pearson: London, UK, 2012.
96. Office of the National Assembly, Consolidated text 08/VBHN-VPQH on Prevention and Control of Tobacco
Harm Law. Available online: https://vanbanluat.com/y-te/van-ban-hop-nhat-08-vbhn-vpqh-van-phong-
quoc-hoi-28a30.html#noidung (accessed on 12 June 2019).
97. Odiase, J.I.; Ogbonmwan, S.M. JMASM20: Exact permutation critical values for the Kruskal-Wallis one-way
ANOVA. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2005, 4, 28. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

579
sustainability

Article
Smartphone-Based Data Collection System for
Repetitive Concrete Temperature Monitoring in
High-Rise Building Construction
Hyunsu Lim 1 and Taehoon Kim 2, *
1 Department of Architecture, Soonchunhyang University, Asan 31538, Korea; [email protected]
2 School of Architecture, Chosun University, Gwangju 61452, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-62-230-7145

Received: 6 August 2019; Accepted: 18 September 2019; Published: 23 September 2019

Abstract: The systematic collection and management of on-site information in high-rise building
construction are important factors in construction management. Recently, wireless sensor network
(WSN) technology has been utilized to manage the various tasks involved in high-rise construction
efficiently and in a timely manner. However, because of the repeated installation of sensors and
repeaters along with the construction progress, the existing WSN technology is ineffective when
applied to the temperature management of concrete in structural work. Here, we propose a new data
collection method in which a worker uses a smartphone to repeatedly monitor concrete temperature.
In field implementation, the proposed system enables concrete temperature management without
a transmission gap for monitoring in 60-min intervals with smartphones provided to 20% of the
structural workers. Next, a case study was performed on a high-rise building construction site to
analyze the effectiveness of the proposed system in terms of cost savings by avoiding schedule delay.
The results of the case study show that the proposed system can reduce the additional work costs
resulting from delays in concrete curing and save up to $18,907 in labor costs. In addition, this system
can reduce the temperature management time of the quality manager and enable more efficient
management. It is also expected that this system will contribute to on-site waste management by
reducing the number of embedded sensors.

Keywords: data collection system; worker’s smartphone; concrete temperature monitoring; high-rise
building construction

1. Introduction
Accurate and timely management of on-site information in high-rise building construction is a
crucial element for the success of a project [1]. In high-rise construction, a large amount of real-time
information is available because various tasks are performed simultaneously [2]. If on-site information
for timely management is missing or delayed in transfer, subsequent processes may in turn be delayed
or rework may be required [3]. As a result, increasing efforts are being made to collect information in
real time for on-time action in high-rise construction.
Various wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have been applied for timely and efficient construction
management in high-rise building sites. WSNs collect real-time information using the sensors installed
on the site and transfer the information to the manager’s device wirelessly through a router. It is
possible to reduce the information collection task of the manager and to share accurate information by
collecting real-time information automatically. In the construction field, WSNs are mainly applied
to progress monitoring, material tracking, and safety monitoring, in which real-time information is
required [4].

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211; doi:10.3390/su11195211 581 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

However, existing WSN-based data acquisition methods are not efficient for use in repetitive
tasks such as concrete temperature monitoring in high-rise building construction. In structural
work, the temperature of concrete is an important element to estimate the strength of concrete in
the corresponding time [5]. Because the construction process of the next floor can begin when the
strength of concrete is met, managing the temperature for strength development is very important
in the high-rise construction schedule, which has generally a short floor cycle [6]. Furthermore, it is
important to measure the concrete temperature in real time because it varies considerably depending
on the outside weather. Consequently, sensors and routers must be installed on every floor to apply a
WSN to structural work. Repeated installation of hardware on every floor requires additional work cost
and time and may negatively affect construction waste management due to the number of embedded
sensors required [7]. In addition, obstacles such as the steel materials of formwork may lower transfer
rates from sensors to routers. Maintenance of the devices installed on a site is also difficult because of
the rough environment, for example, with dust at the construction site or changes in outside weather.
Data collection by workers using smartphones can be an efficient solution for repetitive concrete
temperature monitoring in high-rise construction. Because people commonly use smartphones every
day, data collection by workers using the ubiquitous sensors embedded in smartphones has been
attempted at construction sites [8]. Smartphones can replace the sensors or routers of the existing
WSNs because they have various sensors and communication environments [9]. If smartphones are
used instead of routers in high-rise construction, data can be transferred without router installation on
every floor and the cost of devices can be saved. In addition, because workers continuously move in
the work area, data transmission failure because of obstacles can be minimized.
This study proposes a new data collection method using smartphones to improve the efficiency of
repetitive data collection such as monitoring concrete temperature in high-rise frame construction.
In this study, the concrete temperature monitoring systems using existing WSNs are reviewed. Then,
the architecture of a new monitoring system with workers using smartphones is outlined, and major
technologies are demonstrated. Next, the system is implemented through a field test on an actual
high-rise building construction site. Based on the collected data, the feasibility of the system is
discussed by analyzing the transfer rate. Lastly, the effectiveness of the proposed system is analyzed
in terms of cost savings by preventing schedule delay through a case study. It is expected that the
results of this study will enable efficient data collection and monitoring in high-rise frame construction
and contribute to preventing construction delay caused by the concrete temperature and securing
excellent quality.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Monitoring System for Concrete Temperature

In general, existing concrete temperature monitoring systems using WSNs consist of sensor nodes,
a repeater, a router, and a server (Figure 1) [10]. Sensor nodes refer to sensors and devices with a
communication function to transfer sensor data. The information measured by a sensor is transferred to
a nearby repeater or router using a local area network (LAN). The repeater also transfers the information
from a sensor node to a router if the transfer distance of a sensor node is long. The router transfers the
information to a server using a wide area network (WAN). The LAN of existing monitoring systems
uses Zigbee, Bluetooth, and radio frequency identification (RFID), while WAN performs wireless
transfer to servers using wideband code division multiple access (W-CDMA). Existing monitoring
systems have been applied to mass concrete with high hydration heat or cold weather concrete to
monitor the concrete temperature.

582
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

Figure 1. Existing concrete temperature monitoring process using a wireless sensor network (WSN).

Because existing concrete monitoring systems were developed to be used only during a required
period, they are not suitable for repeated structural work in building construction. For repeated use,
sensor nodes and routers must be continually moved to the required area. Such additional processes
increase costs and construction time, and construction waste also increases because of the required
number of embedded sensors. Furthermore, because formwork materials and structures may interfere
with transmission, more repeaters may be required depending on the building type. Thus, when
applying a WSN-based monitoring system to structural work in high-rise construction, a method
capable of minimizing the reinstallation of devices and improving transfer rates is required.
Most studies on using WSNs for concrete curing temperature monitoring are targeted at mass
concrete and focused on improving sensor accuracy and economic efficiency. Lee et al. [11] developed
a ubiquitous sensor network (USN)-based mass concrete curing management system and applied
it to foundation concrete. Embedded sensors and a radio frequency (RF) modem were used, and
the RF modem was connected to a server by cable. Because the system was installed in an open
space for mass concrete, obstacles against transmission and system reuse were not considered. Norris
et al. [12] proposed a system capable of measuring the concrete temperature and humidity using
nanotechnology/microelectromechanical devices. Accuracy was improved compared with existing
temperature sensors, but wireless communication was not considered because data were transferred
to a server by cable. Chang and Hung [13] suggested a new temperature measurement technology
considering a large-scale construction site environment. They studied the communication distance
in an environment with external obstacles using an RF integrated circuit and temperature/humidity
sensors. However, their experiment used fixed obstacles in an open area and thus had limits for
application in a site environment where actual obstacles change frequently. Lee and Park [14] developed
a reusable sensor node that can be attached to formwork. The node is reusable because the temperature
sensor is embedded in concrete and the node can be separated from the formwork. However, in
this case, cost and time increase because of the need to embed probe-type sensors and install sensor
nodes on every floor. Barroca et al. [5] developed a durable and economical system for temperature
and humidity monitoring using WSN. The temperature–humidity sensor embedded in concrete was
connected to a communication module and monitored through an external device. However, reuse
of the sensor was difficult because it was embedded and LAN has limited transfer distance. Kim et
al. [15] proposed a new temperature measurement method using the surface acoustic wave. Liu et
al. [16] improved the transfer distance of the embedded module using the embedded RFID sensor
tag and outlined an economical system. However, again, those two studies had limits with respect
to reusability because embedded sensor nodes were used. Cabezas et al. (2018) [17] developed and
field-tested a concrete curing monitoring system using a compact embedded wireless sensor. That
study focuses on determining how to withstand the harsh environments where embedded sensor nodes
are installed and how to save energy in sensor node communications. Jianshu et al. [18] proposed
a framework of cracking control for a mass concrete structure by taking advantage of Distributed
Temperature Sensing (DTS) system and showed higher efficiency in temperature data acquisition

583
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

than conventional electric converters. Angat et al. [19] developed an integrated system by analyzing
combined measurements of RFID and optical fibers. That study focused on the measurement method
for improving the measurement performance of a concrete curing monitoring.
Previous studies conducted experiments in laboratory environments and thus focused on sensor
accuracy, economic efficiency, and transfer rate of information. Thus, research on a new data collection
method is required for operation inside building construction that requires many repeated installations
and has many obstacles in the structural construction of a high-rise building.

2.2. Data Collection Systems Using Smartphones

To address the drawbacks involved in sensor installation and maintenance of existing USN
technology at construction sites, data collection methods using smartphones with built-in sensors have
been utilized [5]. Because smartphones have various sensors and communication modules capable of
accessing both WAN and LAN and are easy to carry, they have replaced most devices previously used
at construction sites.
Previous studies on smartphones focused on the manager’s smartphone and improved the
efficiency of on-site information management. Dong et al. [20] improved the information management
efficiency between the site and the office using mobile phones for construction defect management.
Lee and Kim [21] suggested measures to streamline the lifted material management process using
smartphones. Kim et al. [1] developed an on-site management system capable of performing the
functions of site monitoring, task management, and real-time information sharing using mobile
computing technology. Park et al. [22] proposed proactive construction defect management using
mobile devices and augmented reality.
As smartphone penetration continuously increases [23], studies that use workers’ smartphones
have been conducted. Cobili et al. [24] suggested a mobile system that can confirm the activities
and on-site presence of workers. Ahn et al. [25] suggested a system for checking the attendance of
workers at a construction company using the smartphone’s Global Positioning System(GPS). Dominics
et al. [26] analyzed the usability of workers’ smartphones to identify their work position information.
Dzeng et al. [27] presented an algorithm that can detect falls or signs of falls of workers using the
acceleration sensor of workers’ smartphones. Akhavian et al. [28] suggested an application capable of
recognizing the activities of workers for each process by classifying the activities for each work process
and utilizing the smartphone’s gyroscope and acceleration sensor. Yan et al. [29] developed a real-time
motion warning system to help prevent injuries that can recognize the incorrect movements of workers
using smartphones attached to helmets and vests. Zhang et al. [30] proposed a decision tree algorithm
that can more accurately recognize a worker’s activity by using the accelerometers and gyroscope
sensors of a smartphone. Zhang et al. [31] explored potential applications of the worker’s smartphone
as a data acquisition tool to detect near-miss falls on the basis of an artificial neural network.
Thus, existing studies on data acquisition systems using smartphones at construction sites have
evolved from a focus on real-time site information using the manager’s smartphone to those using
workers’ smartphones. This trend means that workers’ smartphones can be expanded to individual
monitoring systems that include sensors and network functions, thereby measuring a variety of on-site
data. However, previous studies only covered information that could be measured by the built-in
sensor of a worker’s smartphone. To better manage on-site information, the worker’s smartphone
can be used as a router for transmitting information. In this way, the smartphone can be utilized as
individual communication nodes that construct a network on site. Here, we present a new method to
monitor concrete temperature information by using workers’ smartphones as a router.
Although Lim et al. [32] conducted a preliminary analysis of a new data acquisition method using
smartphones, they only analyzed the economic aspect of the concept model for the proposed method.
The present study proposes the specific method and technical details of a fully developed system and
verifies its practical aspects through a field experiment.

584
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

3. A Smartphone-Based Data Collection System (S-DCS)

3.1. Research Method

The research method of this study is shown in Figure 2. First, the framework of S-DCS was drawn
up, and then each elementary technology was developed to produce a prototype. Next, to test the
feasibility of the S-DCS, a field test was performed to analyze the data rate for each variable. Lastly, to
verify the effectiveness of S-DCS, the cost effectiveness of this system was analyzed through a case
study of a high-rise construction site.

Figure 2. Research process. S-DCS: Smartphone-Based Data Collection System.

In the system development part, S-DCS was designed based on the requirements for repetitive
concrete temperature monitoring by dividing by sensor node, system network, and management
application. Next, we prototyped the sensor node and application for the field test of the system.
In the S-DCS implementation part, feasibility was tested by applying S-DCS to a 42-story high-rise
building construction. The sensor node was installed in the slab formwork, and the workers were
given a smartphone to measure the concrete temperature in the construction of one floor. During
the construction period, a video was taken to identify the location of the smartphone held by the
worker at the time the data were received. The time and number of times sent from the sensor node
were checked for the log data of each sensor node, and the received time and number of smartphones
were checked through the application of the smartphone. The data transfer performance and data
reception performance of smartphones are analyzed by the distance between the sensor node and
the smartphone, transmission time of the temperature data, reception time, and number of times

585
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

transmitted. In addition, based on the collected data, we analyzed the feasibility of this system through
data reception rate analysis by management time interval.
In the case study part, the effectiveness of S-DCS was analyzed in a high-rise building site
consisting of three buildings: 77 floors, 66 floors, and 42 floors. The probability of schedule delay
because of concrete curing at the site was calculated, and the delay cost for the additional work was
analyzed. In addition, cost and additional effects were analyzed when delays did not occur through
monitoring using S-DCS.

3.2. System Architecture

An S-DCS is designed so that data are transferred using workers’ smartphones instead of routers
attached to formwork for repeated use on every floor in high-rise construction. Figure 3 shows the
conceptual framework of an S-DCS. The sensor node installed in the formwork records the temperature
of the curing concrete and transfers the data to the smartphone of a nearby worker through LAN at
regular intervals. The worker’s smartphone transfers the data to a server using W-CDMA, the data
communication network of smartphones. The site manager can access the server and monitor the
temperature of the structure.

Figure 3. Architecture of an S-DCS. LAN: local area network; W-CDMA: wideband code division
multiple access.

Because the sensor node of the S-DCS is attached to the formwork, repeated installation of the
sensor node is not required. In addition, there is no need for additional routers or installation work
because the smartphone functions as a router. Furthermore, the continuous movements of a worker’s
smartphone in the workspace can minimize the transfer gaps caused by obstacles such as walls and
formwork materials.

3.3. Sensor Node

The sensor node in an S-DCS is attached to the bottom of the slab form and the probe thermistor
penetrates the formwork and measures the temperature inside the concrete (Figure 4). Because the
formwork must be installed with the sensor node attached, the sensor is attached to the formwork
using four bolts. The vertical probe thermistor attached to the node penetrates the formwork so
that the sensor can remain vertical during concrete pouring and can be easily separated from the
formwork during disassembly. In addition, a protective cap covers the probe thermistor so that it
is not in direct contact with the concrete during curing and be easily separated. Two types of probe
lengths were designed to measure the temperatures of the center and the surface of the slab concrete.
The slab thickness of the test building to which the sensor node prototype was to be applied was

586
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

250 mm, the probe length for the center was 120 mm, and the probe length for the surface was 20
mm. The measurement range of the temperature sensor was set between −40 ◦ C and 110 ◦ C, and the
experiment confirmed that the error range was within ±1 ◦ C [33].

Figure 4. Sensor node installation.

The sensor node activates the temperature sensor at 5-min intervals. Because continuous
temperature measurement and transfer can rapidly consume power and may cause additional work
because of frequent charging, the sensor node is only activated every 5 min, and with a 700-mAh battery,
it can be used for up to 30 days without charging. In addition, the sensor node has Light-Emitting
Diodes (LED) that can display the status of the sensor node. The LEDs display the operation, error, and
charge of the sensor node to allow the worker to identify the status at the site (Figure 5). The remaining
battery capacity, activation status, and transfer error of the sensor node along with the temperature
information are transferred to the server so that the manager can identify the status of each sensor
node in the office.

Figure 5. Sensor node configuration. LEDs:

A cover protects the inside of the sensor node against dust and water on site. The cover and fixing
pin are made of reinforced plastic to prevent corrosion caused by water entering through a hole in
the formwork. In addition, a 3-mm-thick rubber cover was installed on the inside edge of the sensor
node to prevent dust and water from entering, and dual rubber rings were installed where the probe
thermistor is mounted on the formwork to prevent foreign matter from entering.

3.4. System Network

The local network of an S-DCS uses the Zigbee method. The local networks that can be used
on smartphones include Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), Bluetooth, Zigbee, and Near-Field Communication
(NFC). WiFi consumes much power and is, therefore, not suitable when continuously used because of
increased maintenance work. NFC transfers data through a tag within 10 cm and is not suitable because

587
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

the measurement work of the worker increases. Bluetooth and Zigbee have suitable transfer speed and
power consumption for high-rise construction and are economical. Because routers move in an S-DCS,
information must be simultaneously transferred to as many smartphones as possible to improve the
continuity of transferred information. Zigbee can access several smartphones simultaneously, and thus,
is more suitable for an S-DCS than Bluetooth, which has a limited number of simultaneous connections.
Because smartphones simultaneously and continuously move and receive data, an algorithm for
missing and duplicated data was established. Figure 6a shows the data processing algorithm of the
sensor node. To reduce power consumption, the sensor node selects a power supply that is activated
every 5 min. When the sensor node is activated, the temperature data are collected and stored in the
internal memory. Then, the sensor node checks the smartphone within the communication radius. If
there is no smartphone, the sensor node is deactivated and reactivated after 5 min. If smartphones are
identified, the first received smartphone is selected and the temperature data in the internal memory
are transferred. When data reception confirmation is received from the smartphone, the stored data
are deleted to secure memory capacity and the sensor node is deactivated again.

Figure 6. Data processing algorithm: (a) sensor node; (b) smartphone.

Figure 6b shows the data processing algorithm of the smartphone, and the smartphone searches
for nearby sensor nodes using a Zigbee network. If a nearby sensor node is identified, data are received.
If multiple sensor nodes are recognized, the data are classified and stored by each sensor node. When
the data are received, the smartphone confirms the reception and stores the data. The stored data are
transferred to a database through the W-CDMA network, and the transferred data are checked again
for overlapping data. Any overlapping data are deleted, and the database is renewed.

3.5. Management Application

The workers’ smartphones require an application to transfer and manage data. Figure 7a illustrates
the interface of a function that shows the data collection status. There is a function window for data
collection and stop, and a data reception and storage list is displayed in the center of the screen. The
list shows the received sequence number, sensor node serial number, reception date and time, and

588
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

number of data points. The monitoring application can check the device list and work area. Figure 7b
shows details of the device information when the device icon is selected. The application displays
the remaining battery capacity, measuring start and end time, installation location, and measured
temperature graph. The sensor node information is also displayed on the floor plan when the drawing
tab is selected (Figure 7c).

Figure 7. Application for the smartphone: (a) function; (b) node information; (c) floor plan.

The interface of an application for the server was designed based on the smartphone application.
The floor plan of the work area can be loaded, and the sensor node and status information can be
displayed at corresponding locations for management. When a sensor node is selected, the screen is
converted to a monitoring screen composed of the sensor node information, and the temperature data
over time are displayed (Figure 8a). For monitoring, the strength estimation graph of a structure is
displayed based on the accumulated temperature. When each structure reaches the formwork-removal
criterion strength, the manager is notified through the alarm window (Figure 8b).

Figure 8. Application for the server: (a) node information; (b) strength estimation graph.

589
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

4. S-DCS Implementation

4.1. Outline of the Field Experiment

To test the feasibility of the S-DCS on an actual construction site, a field experiment was conducted
by applying the S-DCS to structural work during construction of a tall residential building. The site
was for a building with five underground floors and 42 ground floors, and it had a flat plate/slab
structure. Panelized aluminum forms were used as the slab and wall formwork. One floor was divided
into two work zones, and it took four working days to complete construction for each zone. The field
experiment was conducted during the construction of the 31st floor of zone A, considering that the
same floor construction was repeated on every floor.
Sensor nodes were installed on the slab form of a total of five areas; each area had a radius of 10 m,
considering the building type and data transfer rate (Figure 9). Sensor nodes of 20 mm and 120 mm
were installed side by side on a 250-mm-thick slab to examine the temperature difference according to
the concrete penetration height. Two sensor nodes were supposed to be installed in each of the five
areas, but one sensor node with a 20-mm probe in area E was broken while being installed; thus, a
total of nine sensor nodes were installed. Because there was only one sensor node in the E area, the
absolute number of transmitted and received data items may be smaller than in other areas. However,
the analysis based on area compares the ratio of received data by area. Therefore, the difference in the
number of data items because of the difference in the number of sensor nodes does not significantly
affect this field test feasibility analysis. Thus, field tests were conducted with nine sensor nodes, and
the nodes in area A were sequentially assigned a number, as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Sensor node installation layout.

Table 1 shows the number of workers to be provided with a smartphone during the test period.
On day 1, smartphones were provided to three concrete workers and one formwork inspector in zone
A and two slab formwork workers in zone B. On day 2, smartphones were provided to three workers
for dismantling the wall formwork on the 30th floor of zone A and three wall rebar workers on the 31st
floor. On day 3, smartphones were provided to three workers for installing the wall formwork on the

590
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

31st floor of zone A and three wall reinforcement workers. On day 4, smartphones were provided to
two workers for slab form dismantling on the 30th floor of zone A, to two workers for installing wall
formwork on the 31st floor, and to two workers pouring concrete on the 31st floor of zone B. The total
number of workers for the four days was 135 and smartphones were provided to 24 workers (18%).

Table 1. Number of smartphones provided to workers.

Number of Smartphones Provided Per Day

Work Zone Worker Type
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4
Formwork worker 1 3 3 4
A Rebar worker 3 3
Concrete worker 3
Formwork worker 2
B
Concrete worker 2
Total number of smartphones 6 6 6 6
Total number of structural workers 27 38 43 27
Provision ratio 22% 16% 14% 22%

4.2. Data Transfer Performance

Table 2 provides an overview of the temperature data transferred to the server. A total of 7538
temperature data points were transferred from nine sensor nodes to the server. The number of planned
data calculated from the measurement time was 7591, which differs from the number of data points
actually measured, and was caused by a delay in data transfer time and missing data. Analysis of the
time intervals of the transferred data indicates that differences of a few seconds from the set time unit
were observed; these accumulated and resulted in the difference from the planned number of data
points, which was set as the data difference. Data that had a transferred interval of over 5 min were
regarded as missing data; 46 such data points occurred because of the transfer time delay, and seven
data points were missing because of transfer failures.

Table 2. Number of data transmitted per sensor node.

Number of Data (EA)

Sensor Node
Measuring Data Transfer
Node Planned Measured Transfer Time Transfer Performance
Time (min) Rate (%)
Data Data Delay Data Failure Data Ratio (%)
Points Points Points Points
node 1 4122 824 818 6 0 99.27% 100.00%
node 2 4247 849 842 6 1 99.18% 99.88%
node 3 4248 849 845 1 3 99.53% 99.65%
node 4 4249 849 843 5 1 99.29% 99.88%
node 5 4243 848 843 5 0 99.41% 100.00%
node 6 4124 824 818 6 0 99.27% 100.00%
node 7 4248 849 843 6 0 99.29% 100.00%
node 8 4246 849 843 5 1 99.29% 99.88%
node 9 4250 850 843 6 1 99.18% 99.88%
Total 37,977 7591 7538 46 7 – –
Average 4219.67 843.44 837.56 5.11 0.78 99.30% 99.91%

The performance ratio of a sensor node can be expressed by the ratio of the number of measured
data to planned data. As an index to determine the accurate frequency of when a sensor node
performed data transfer, the ratio of the number of measured data to planned data excluding missing
data was used. As noted, the difference between the number of planned and measured data was 46,
that is, 5.11 per sensor node. The performance ratios of the sensor nodes ranged from 99.18% to 99.53%

591
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

(average, 99.30%). The results indicate that continuous monitoring is possible because the sensor nodes
perform the measurement and transfer every 5 min with >99% accuracy. The performance ratio could
be further improved by setting a shorter transfer time interval.
The data transfer rate between a smartphone and a server can be measured by considering the
measured data and missing data. Because a sensor node sends all previous records even if transfer to a
smartphone is missing, missing data occur during the transfer from a smartphone to a server. The
data transfer rate is represented by the ratio of the number of measured data to that of data before
the missing data are removed, excluding the data difference caused by the time difference. The data
transfer rate ranged from 99.65% to 100% (average, 99.91%), indicating that monitoring is feasible
almost without data transfer gaps because the server transfer rate was >99%.

4.3. Data Reception Performance of Smartphones

4.3.1. Reception Ratio by Distance

The data reception ratio of the smartphones according to various variables was analyzed to
examine their performance as routers at the construction site. Only the data during working hours
when the workers actually carried the smartphones were analyzed, that is, 1394 data points measured
for a total of 1290 min over four days. The data reception time and transfer from sensor nodes were
recorded through the log files of the smartphones, and distances to the sensor nodes were measured
from the worker’s location at the time of reception using recorded videos.
Table 3 summarizes the number of received data from each sensor node at a 5-m interval to
identify the reception rate by distance. The distances at which most data were received were 5–10 m,
accounting for 33.43% of all data. The reception rate, at 15–20 m, was the second highest at 24.46%. At
shorter distances of 0–5 m, a reception rate of just 9.9% was observed. Thus, the reception ratio was
higher at distances of 5–10 m and beyond than when workers were nearest the sensor node antenna.
Most of the reception data were attributed to workers’ smartphones received in zone B. This is likely
because when area B workers approached sensor nodes when there were no workers with smartphones
in zone A, reception occurred at 15–20 m. Because the number of data points by distance did not differ
greatly between 5 m and 20 m, where almost 80% of data were concentrated, the results indicate that
installing sensor nodes at a radius of 5–20 m can improve data reception. The maximum measurement
distance was 28.34 m, indicating that measurement was possible throughout the entire work zone.

Table 3. Number of received data by distance.

Number of Data Points

Node
0–5 m 5–10 m 10–15 m 15–20 m 20–25 m 25–30 m
node 1 20 28 19 49 7 2
node 2 13 29 34 30 21 0
node 3 25 47 11 33 13 4
node 4 11 44 40 66 17 3
node 5 11 101 23 20 27 4
node 6 11 19 29 47 23 2
node 7 18 31 19 41 15 8
node 8 22 109 26 26 8 1
node 9 7 58 70 29 19 4
Total 138 466 271 341 150 28
Rate 9.9% 33.43% 19.44% 24.46% 10.76% 2.01%

592
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

4.3.2. Reception Ratio by Work Type

The smartphone reception rate by work date was analyzed to identify the reception rate by work
type. The reception ratio of the smartphone is calculated by the ratio of the number of data points
received from the smartphone and the number of those transmitted from the sensor node every 5 min.
In other words, the reception ratio of the smartphone is an index that measures how much transmission
gap is generated in real-time monitoring. Table 4 shows the smartphone reception rate by work date.
The reception rate was lowest at 51.28% during the pouring work on the day 1 and the highest at
81.26% on day 2. The rates were 60.13% and 61.88% on days 3 and 4, respectively, giving an average of
62.85% over the four days. The reception rate of day 2 showed the largest difference of ~20% from the
average due to work being stopped when it rained during the morning of day 2. As the workers were
waiting without moving within the radius of the sensor nodes, the data reception rate increased. The
reception rate of day 3, when the same work type was performed as that of day 2, was 60.31% and
that of day 4 with a different work type was 61.88%, representing values similar to the average. These
results indicate that the reception rate is affected more by the behavior characteristics of workers than
by the work type.

Table 4. Smartphone reception rate by work type.

Number of Number of
Work Date Reception
Work Type Received Data Transmitted Data
(Month/Day) Ratio (%)
Points Points
day 1 Pouring concrete 221 431 51.28%
Installing wall rebar
day 2 347 427 81.26%
Dismantling wall form
Installing wall rebar
day 3 537 893 60.13%
Dismantling and lifting wall form
Installing wall form
day 4 289 467 61.88%
Dismantling slab form
Total 1394 2218 62.85%

4.3.3. Reception Ratio by Work Area

The reception rate by work area was analyzed to identify the reception rate according to the
installation area of sensor nodes. Table 5 shows the reception ratio of smartphones according to the
sensor node installation area. The rate was lowest at 52.89% in (A) and highest at 75.61% in (E), as
shown in Figure 9. The reception rate increased as the area moved from (A) to (E), and this was
attributed to the characteristics of the work area.

Table 5. Smartphone reception rate by work area.

Construction Area Number of Received Number of Temperature Reception Rate

Location Node Data Points Data Points (%)

(A) nodes 1, 6 256 484 52.89%

(B) nodes 2, 7 259 482 53.73%
(C) nodes 3, 8 325 499 65.13%
(D) nodes 4, 9 368 507 72.58%
(E) node 5 186 246 75.61%
Total 1394 2218 62.85%

In zone A, the work quantities of form, rebar, and concrete are not significantly different between
the left and right sides. When the work quantity is similar, the workers’ movements can affect the
exposure frequency of the sensor nodes. The form workers move frequently between the upper and

593
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

lower floors to lift the dismantling formwork and share tools. Workers move mostly along the left path
because the right path is blocked by the concrete placing boom (CPB) to go downstairs. By moving
along the left path, workers are more exposed to the sensor nodes on the left side. The rebar workers
move rebar from the stacked area to the work location. Given that the rebar was mostly stacked on the
right side on the floor by the inside left wall, the rebar workers continuously moved to the left side of
the workspace and thus the reception rate on the left side was higher.
The results show that the reception rate of smartphones—a key element for the continuity of
monitoring—is affected by the distance between the sensor nodes, the behavior of the workers, and the
characteristics of the work area. The distance between the sensor nodes must be within a radius of
20 m for a high reception rate, but it can be extended to 30 m under unavoidable conditions because of
site characteristics. The results show that the work type does not significantly affect the reception rate
if the numbers or proportions of the provided smartphones are identical. It is possible to improve the
reception ratio by providing smartphones first of all to workers who move little during their work
because the rate is affected by the movement frequency of workers. The reception rate is also affected by
the movement path of workers according to the work area. Therefore, the reception rate of smartphones
can be increased by positioning more sensor nodes at locations with low movement frequency after
analyzing the movement paths of workers according to the building type, work quantity, location of
stairs, and material storage location of the project.

4.4. Data Reception Rate Analysis by Management Time Interval

Because different management information requires different management time intervals, it is
important to verify if data are received without data gaps within the management time for practical
application of the system. In general, the maturity of concrete is measured by a time unit. Therefore,
the reception rate of data was analyzed with the management time interval set to 5, 10, 30, and 60 min.
Because two sensor nodes were installed in each area, the data of the two sensor nodes were combined
for analysis of the reception rate.
Table 6 shows the data reception rate for each area during each time interval. For monitoring
at a 5-min interval, the transfer rate was 62.85%, which was the same as the smartphone reception
rate. The transfer rate increased to 80.36% for the 10-min unit and 91.67% for the 30-min unit. As the
management unit time increased, data transfer gaps decreased. In particular, for the 60-min unit, the
transfer rate was 100% for all areas. The maximum transfer gap occurred in area (D), where reception
of the smartphones was not examined because there was no movement of the workers for 45 min.

Table 6. Data reception rate by management time interval.

Management Time Interval

Construction Area
5 min 10 min 30 min 60 min
(A) 52.89% 79.73% 91.67% 100.00%
(B) 53.73% 81.82% 96.00% 100.00%
(C) 65.13% 80.65% 90.00% 100.00%
(D) 72.58% 80.28% 91.30% 100.00%
(E) 75.61% 78.85% 87.50% 100.00%
Average 62.85% 80.36% 91.67% 100.00%

The results indicate that the S-DCS is optimal for concrete temperature monitoring at the 60-min
interval with six smartphones at the site. Because the smartphones used as routers were provided to
~20% of the structural workers, it would be possible to reduce the transfer gap time and management
time unit if the application were carried by more workers. Furthermore, a higher reception rate can be
achieved when there is much work quantity and many workers. Considering the characteristics of

594
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

high-rise sites and curing management, the S-DCS shows sufficient feasibility in terms of continuity of
data transfer.

5. Case Study

5.1. Case Description

To meet the objective of S-DCS development, a high-rise building site with more than 50 floors
with many repetitive floors and short construction period was selected as the case site. The case site
is a high-rise building located in Busan consisting of three buildings of 77 floors, 66 floors, and 42
floors. The time for concrete curing is very short because construction proceeds at a rate of one floor
every four days. Therefore, if the curing temperature is not properly controlled, the concrete strength
cannot be met and the construction is delayed. To analyze the effect of the proposed system, a high-rise
building under construction in winter was selected.
The time required for dismantling the slab form after pouring was 28 h. The site was constructed
with a 4-day cycle for a typical floor, and heat curing and concrete temperature management were
performed because of the lack of slab-curing time during the day when the average temperature was
below 10 ◦ C. During the heating curing period, floors 29–49 of building A were built, floors 27–49 of
building B, and floors 18–31 of building C; concrete was poured 174 times. Table 7 shows the slab
formwork area and the number of workers: 22 in building A, 19 in building B, and 21 in building C.

Table 7. Slab area and form workers by building.

Building A Building B Building C

Slab area (m2 ) 636 566 602
Number of workers 22 19 21

5.2. Delay Cost Analysis

In the existing curing temperature management process, the concrete may not reach the designed
compressive strength because of various environmental factors. Management cannot immediately
respond to variable factors that arise during the night by installing a temperature measuring device
and checking the next day. Consequently, scheduling delay occurs because of insufficient management,
damage to heating facilities, and sudden changes in temperature during the night. From interviews
with the quality managers of three high-rise building construction projects over 50 floors, schedule
delays caused by curing occurred in just 5–10% of instances of pouring concrete.
If the curing strength is not satisfactory at the time of dismantling the slab formwork, the schedule
for slab formwork will be delayed, and additional work for 2 h will be required to install the slab
formwork the next day to proceed as planned. The additional work cost can be estimated as the labor
cost of overtime work for 2 h, and calculated by multiplying the number of slab form workers by
overtime wages times the number of delays [34].
Table 8 shows the additional costs for different numbers of delays. Because the concrete is poured
174 times, delays could occur between nine and 17 times. The minimum cost of delays (9× in building
B) is $8645 and the maximum (17× times in building A) is $18,907.

595
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

Table 8. Additional work costs based on the number of delays.

Additional Work Costs ($)

Number of Delays
Building A Building B Building C
9 10,010 8645 9555
10 11,122 9605 10,616
11 12,234 10,566 11,678
12 13,346 11,526 12,740
13 14,459 12,487 13,801
14 15,571 13,447 14,863
15 16,683 14,408 15,925
16 17,795 15,369 16,986
17 18,907 16,329 18,048

The S-DCS can prevent delays through immediate response by monitoring in real time the strength
degradation of the concrete due to various environmental factors. Applying the S-DCS to our case
site will save additional work costs of $8645 to $18,907. In addition to cost-effectiveness, real-time
management also helps quality managers to reduce the time needed to install devices and manage
concrete temperature, ensuring that quality managers use their time more efficiently. The number
of temperature sensors embedded in concrete for temperature management can also be reduced,
contributing significantly to waste reduction in the field.

6. Conclusions
In this study, a new data acquisition system was proposed for concrete temperature monitoring in
high-rise construction. A network system suitable for repeated processes in high-rise construction
was designed using smartphones provided to workers. The feasibility of the S-DCS was verified by
applying the proposed system to a high-rise construction site. The results showed that the S-DCS can
be used to monitor the 60-min management time unit without data gaps regardless of the movements
of workers/smartphones.
Our study outlines the practical application of a smartphone-based data acquisition method and
the variables to be considered according to the construction site. To perform real-time monitoring
without transmission gaps when using this method, the following aspects should be considered. (1) If
the distance of the sensor nodes exceeds 20 m, the reception ratio is lower. (2) Because the reception
ratio is influenced by the behavioral characteristics of workers, it is possible to increase the reception
ratio by equipping with smartphones the workers who remain for a long time in a specific area, which
is the case with, for example, rebar workers. (3) It is possible to increase the reception ratio by installing
more nodes in an area where there are few moving paths of workers, by considering the layout plan of,
for example, material storage, the location of stairs, and floor shape. (4) The S-DCS can be practically
applied in 60-min units without transmission gaps in management, and equipping >20% of structural
workers with smartphones can shorten the management time interval.
The proposed system can prevent schedule delays resulting from improper concrete curing, and
utilize managers’ time more efficiently by omitting inconvenient tasks in the monitoring process. This
system can also improve the sustainability of the construction field by avoiding material waste through
the reuse of sensors and improving the structure quality through concrete monitoring. The proposed
method can be applied to other data collection tasks in repetitive high-rise building construction.
The proposed system can also be extended to the monitoring of various structures through data
collection methods using smartphones. For example, Chiara Bedon [35] used micro-electromechanical
systems sensors to measure the information of the structure of a glass suspension footbridge and to
perform diagnostic analysis. If an information collection method using smartphones is applied to the

596
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

glass suspension footbridge, it is possible to efficiently monitor the information such as temperature,
humidity, and vibration through the smartphone of the maintenance manager or safety manager, and
the structural safety can be predicted by accumulating data. In addition, it is possible to practically
apply the data collection method of this study to various structural health monitoring systems using
wireless sensors.
Additional research is required on a more efficient network construction method for non-working
hours when workers are not present.

Author Contributions: In this paper, H.L. developed the research ideas and completed the writing; H.L. and T.K.
collected and analyzed data; T.K. designed and organized the overall research flow.
Funding: This research was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund (No. 20181000) and by
research fund from Chosun University, 2016.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kim, C.; Park, T.; Lim, H.; Kim, H. On-site construction management using mobile computing technology.
Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 415–423. [CrossRef]
2. Quesada-Olmo, N.; Jimenez-Martinez, M.J.; Farjas-Abadia, M. Real-time high-rise building monitoring
system using global navigation satellite system technology. Measurement 2018, 123, 115–124. [CrossRef]
3. Louis, J.; Dunston b, P.S. Integrating IoT into operational workflows for real-time and automated
decision-making in repetitive construction operations. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 317–327. [CrossRef]
4. Soman, K.; Rapheal, B.; Varghese, K. A system identification methodology to monitor construction activities
using structural responses. Autom. Constr. 2017, 75, 79–90. [CrossRef]
5. Barroca, N.; Borges, M.; Velez, J.; Monteiro, F.; Górski, M.; Castro-Gomes, J. Wireless sensor networks for
temperature and humidity monitoring within concrete structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 1156–1166.
[CrossRef]
6. Kim, H.R.; Kim, H.G.; Jeon, J.H.; Kim, I.S. Curing Temperature Management of In-Placed Concrete at
Early-Ages by Application of the Wireless Sensor Network. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2009, 21, 50–57.
7. Lee, S.; Bea, K.; Lee, D. Application for Measurement of Curing Temperature of Concrete in a Construction
Site using a Wireless Sensor Network. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2011, 11, 283–291. [CrossRef]
8. Akhavian, R.; Behzadanb, H. Smartphone-based construction workers’ activity recognition and classification.
Autom. Constr. 2016, 71, 198–209. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, S.; Kim, T.; Ok, H. A Study on Developing the System for Supporting Mobile-based Work Process in
Construction Site. Smart Media J. 2017, 6, 50–57.
10. Kim, K. A Study on the Implementation of USN Technologies for Safety Management Monitoring of
Architectural Construction Sites. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2009, 9, 103–109.
11. Lee, U.K.; Kang, K.I.; Kim, G.H. Mass concrete curing management based on ubiquitous computing. Comput.
Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2005, 21, 148–155. [CrossRef]
12. Norris, A.; Saafi, M.; Romin, P. Temperature and moisture monitoring in concrete structures using embedded
nanotechnology/microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 111–120.
[CrossRef]
13. Chang, C.; Hung, S. Implementing RFIC and sensor technology to measure temperature and humidity inside
concrete structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 628–637. [CrossRef]
14. Lee, S.; Park, S. Development of integrated wireless sensor network device with mold for measurement of
concrete temperature. J. Korea Inst. Struct. Maint. Insp. 2012, 16, 129–136. [CrossRef]
15. Kim, J.; Luis, R.; Smith, S.; Figueroa, A.; Maloch, C.; Boo, H. Concrete temperature monitoring using passive
wireless surface acoustic wave sensor system. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2015, 224, 131–139. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, Y.; Deng, F.; He, Y.; Li, B.; Liang, Z.; Zhou, S. Novel concrete temperature monitoring method based on
an embedded passive RFID sensor tag. Sensors 2017, 17, 1463. [CrossRef]
17. Cabezas, J.; Sanchez-Rodriguez, T.; Gomez-Galan, J.; Cifuentes, H.; Carvajal, R. Compact embedded wireless
sensor-based monitoring of concrete curing. Sensors 2018, 18, 876. [CrossRef]

597
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5211

18. Ouyang, J.; Chen, X.; Huangfu, Z.; Lu, C.; Huang, D.; Li, Y. Application of distributed temperature sensing
for cracking control of mass concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 778–791. [CrossRef]
19. Bhatia, A.; Lopez, R.; Moein, T.; Chon, J.; Moon, S. Integrated System for Concrete Curing Monitoring: RFID
and Optical Fiber Technologies. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 06018028. [CrossRef]
20. Dong, A.; Maher, M.; Kim, M.; Gu, N.; Wang, X. Construction defect management using a telematic digital
workbench. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 814–824. [CrossRef]
21. Lee, J.; Kim, Y. The effective process of tower crane lifting & material management using smart-phone. J.
Archit. Inst. Korea Struct. Constr. 2012, 28, 141–150.
22. Park, C.; Lee, D.; Kwon, O.; Wang, X. A framework for proactive construction defect management using BIM,
augmented reality and ontology-based data collection template. Autom. Constr. 2013, 33, 61–71. [CrossRef]
23. Korea Development Institute. 2016 Mobile Trend Forecast; Digieco: Seoul, Korea, 2016.
24. Covili, J.; Ochoa, S. A lightweight and distributed middleware to provide presence awareness in mobile
ubiquitous systems. Sci. Comput. Program 2013, 78, 2009–2025. [CrossRef]
25. Ahn, C.; Yoon, S.; Chin, S. Diligence and Indolence Management System for Specialty Contractor on
Construction Site -Using GPS of Smart Phone. Korean J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 13, 56–66. [CrossRef]
26. Dominicis, C.M.; Depari, A.; Flammini, A.; Rinaldi, S.; Sisinni, E. Smartphone based localization solution for
construction site management. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium, Galveston,
TX, USA, 19–21 February 2013; pp. 83–88. [CrossRef]
27. Dzeng, R.; Fang, Y.; Chen, I. A feasibility study of using smartphone built-in accelerometers to detect fall
portents. Autom. Constr. 2014, 38, 74–86. [CrossRef]
28. Ranza, J.; Aparicioa, S.; Fuenteb, J.V.; Anayaa, J.J.; Hernándeza, M.G. Monitoring of the Curing Process in
Precast Concrete Slabs: An Experimental Study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 122, 406–416. [CrossRef]
29. Yan, X.; Li, H.; Li, A.; Zhang, H. Wearable IMU-based real-time motion warning system for construction
workers’ musculoskeletal disorders prevention. Autom. Constr. 2017, 74, 2–11. [CrossRef]
30. Zhang, M.; Chen, S.; Zhao, X.; Yang, Z. Research on construction workers’ activity recognition based on
smartphone. Sensors. 2018, 18, 2667. [CrossRef]
31. Zhang, M.; Cao, T.; Zhao, X. Using Smartphones to Detect and Identify Construction Workers’ Near-Miss
Falls Based on ANN. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 145, 04018120. [CrossRef]
32. Lim, H.; Lee, J.; Kim, T.; Cho, K.; Cho, H. Economic analysis of USN-based data acquisition systems in tall
building construction. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1360. [CrossRef]
33. Jo, A.; Kim, T.; Cho, H.; Kang, K.I. Data acquisition method using a smartphone on construction site. ICCEPM
2013, 5, 245–248.
34. Construction Association of Korea. Construction Industry Wage Survey Report; CAK: Seoul, Korea, 2018.
35. Bedon, C. Diagnostic analysis and dynamic identification of a glass suspension footbridge via on-site
vibration experiments and FE numerical modelling. Compos. Struct. 2019, 216, 366–378. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

598
sustainability

Article
Identifying Significant Risks and Analyzing Risk
Relationship for Construction PPP Projects in China
Using Integrated FISM-MICMAC Approach
Xiaoyan Jiang 1, *, Kun Lu 1 , Bo Xia 2 , Yong Liu 3 and Caiyun Cui 4
1 School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, Anhui, China;
[email protected]
2 School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point,
Brisbane, QLD4001, Australia; [email protected]
3 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China;
[email protected]
4 North China Institute of Science and Technology, Langfang 065201, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 30 August 2019; Accepted: 17 September 2019; Published: 23 September 2019

Abstract: To meet the growing demand for public facilities and services, many developing countries,
including China, have adopted the concept of public–private partnership (PPP). However, there are
many risks in PPP projects. Furthermore, these risks affect each other, which may lead to project
failure. However, the existing research on the PPP risk relationship has not gone into sufficient detail.
Therefore, in order to fill this literature gap, this study proposes a procedural method to analyze the
correlation between PPP risks. Firstly, this study, identifies the risks of construction PPP projects in
China by combining the literature review with a case study and interviews. Then, fuzzy interpretative
structural modeling (FISM) is used to reflect the relationships between these risks and reveal the
failure mechanisms of PPP projects. In addition, based on matrix impact cross-reference multiplication
applied to a classification (MICMAC) analysis, the risk is divided into four clusters, according to
the driving and dependence power, to show the relationship level of the risk. Finally, the paper
compares and discusses the research results with other studies and puts forward some suggestions
on PPP risks. The FISM-MICMAC method adopted in this study considers the fuzzy of the PPP
risk relationship and improves upon previous studies. In addition, the method of FISM-MICMAC
can provide a new risk assessment tool for risk management strategies in the field of construction
engineering and management.

Keywords: Public–private partnership (PPP); risk identification; risk relationship; triangular fuzzy
number; ISM; MICMAC

1. Introduction
A PPP (public–private partnership) refers to a partnership between the government and private
investors to provide public infrastructure projects, public goods, and services [1,2]. PPP originated
in the UK [3]. As it can deliver high-quality results within the concession period and budget [4],
PPP has attracted extensive attention from the public sector and has been adopted in a number of
countries [5–7].
However, PPP projects are characterized by large scale investments, long contract concession
periods, and complex technologies, which give rise to many potential risk factors in the implementation
process, which could also lead to the failure of PPP projects [8–10]. According to the World Bank,
279 PPP projects have been “Cancelled” since 1990 [5].

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206; doi:10.3390/su11195206 599 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

In the wake of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, the Chinese government has become
increasingly interested in PPP as a way for local governments to transfer their debts [10]. However,
compared with developed countries, the growth of PPP in China is still in its infancy [11]. Furthermore,
some PPP projects cannot be successful in China [12,13]. As a result, on 16 November 2017, China’s
Ministry of Finance announced the “Notice of standardizing project library in PPP integrated
information platform” (hereafter referred to as “No. 92”) [14], designed to correct the current
problem of deviation and variation in the course of PPP project implementation, further improve the
quality of the project library storage, as well as project effectiveness and information given to the public,
and improved social supervision. Since the release of No. 92, from 16 November 2017 to 16 August
2019, the number of "withdrawal projects" reduced by the PPP project library of the Ministry of Finance
has reached 6955, and there are 12,561 existing PPP projects in the PPP project library [15].
PPP project failures and cost overruns are not rare, and they pose a threat to sustainable
development [16]. The failure of a PPP is largely due to PPP risks [10,17]. There are many risks in PPP
projects which, furthermore, are correlated [18,19]. According to accident causal chain theory, accidents
are usually caused by a chain of events in the system and the sequential occurrence of causality [20,21].
The failure of PPP projects is usually not caused by a single risk factor, but by a single risk inducing
other risks, forming a chain of PPP project risks and, finally, leading to the failure of the PPP [18,19].
Existing studies have mainly focused on the key success factors of PPP [10], risk factors [18,22], risk
allocation [17,23], and risk assessment [11,24], etc. However, no in-depth studies on the relationships
between PPP risks have been carried out. It is crucial to know what relationships exist between PPP
risks, and which risks play a leading role in triggering project failure, in order to help PPP managers to
better understand the impact of the relationship between risks on project failure, and to distinguish the
key points in future risk management and control.
This study identifies the key risk factors of PPP projects by literature survey, case study, and
interviews. Then, fuzzy interpretative structural modeling (FISM), which combines fuzzy theory and
interpretative structural modeling (ISM), is used to reflect the relationships between these risks and
reveal the failure mechanisms of PPP projects. In addition, key risk factors are classified with the
MICMAC (matrix impact cross-reference multiplication applied to a classification) method, and the
driving effect of each risk factor on the failure of PPP project is analyzed. Finally, the similarities and
differences between this study and other studies are analyzed, and suggestions for managing key risk
factors of PPP projects are given.

2. Literature Review

2.1. General Review of PPP Risks

The impact of risks on the completion of a PPP project is usually significant [11]. In PPP projects,
various risks exist, not only due to the complexity of the financial and organizational structures of the
project, but also due to the large amount of investment, long operation period, sophisticated technical
know-how of the project, political impact, and government involvement [25].
The existing studies on PPP risks have mainly been focused on risk factors, risk allocation, risk
assessment, and risk identification, etc. Only a limited number of studies have investigated the
relationships of PPP risks. Some researchers have sought to identify the risk factors associated with
PPPs in specific projects or in specific countries [26,27], and have generally categorized them in terms
of being equally shared by both parties or mostly allocated either to the public or private partners [28].
In addition, many scholars have also studied proper allocation of risk factors between the project
participants [1,29,30]. Jin combined fuzzy logic with artificial neural network techniques to design a
neuro-fuzzy model to help the effective allocation of risks in PPP projects [31]. Ameyaw and Chan’s
approach based on fuzzy set theory outlined the risk allocation principle, explained the fuzziness
inherent in the human cognitive process, and made a case study of risk allocation in a PPP water supply
project in Ghana [32]. According to the findings of Jayasuriya et al., there has often been disagreement

600
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

between PPP regulators (public partner) and operators (private partner) about the preferred risk
allocation [28]. For PPP risk assessment, efforts have also been made to develop models to evaluate
PPP risk values [11,24,33,34]. Li and Zou applied a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) to the risk
assessment of PPP projects [24]. Mazher et al. proposed a PPP infrastructure project risk assessment
method based on a fuzzy measure and a non-additive fuzzy integral [35]. Thomas et al. proposed a
risk probability and impact assessment framework for build–operate–transfer (BOT) roads, based on a
fuzzy-fault tree and the Delphi method [36]. Bai et al., based on the methods of fuzzy comprehensive
evaluation model and failure mode, conducted an effects and criticality analysis for evaluating the
sustainability risk level of PPP projects [37].
PPP risks identification and relationships among PPP risks will be described in the
following subsections.

2.2. Identification Methods of PPP Risks

As mentioned, some scholars have systematically reviewed the risk factors. PPP risks are specific
for different types of projects. For sponge city projects [38], water projects [29], highway projects [39],
waste-to-energy projects [26], marine projects [40], and other project types, the inherent PPP risks are
different. In addition, for different countries, such as Indonesia [41], China [26], the United States [42],
Iran [9], and Malaysia [43], the PPP risks are also different.
Due to the specificity of PPP project risks, specific risks should be extracted for different types of
PPP projects in different countries. Some scholars and risk managers have attempted to introduce a
variety of different risk identification methods into PPP projects, among which the three most frequently
used risk identification methods are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Common methods for identifying public–private partnership (PPP) risks.

Method Advantage Disadvantage Reference

Experts have rich experience Xu et al. [30]
Subject to the subjective
and knowledge, which is Ke et al. [17]
Interview method influence of experts; experts
conducive to the rapid Chan et al. [44]
require higher ability.
identification of risks. Ke et al. [45]
Risk identification is easy to It is necessary to consider
Osei-Kyei et al. [10]
operate and is low cost, the influence of different
Xu et al. [11]
Literature survey which is conducive to industrial categories,
Ameyaw et al. [46]
reducing the interference of regions, and other factors on
Ameyaw et al. [47]
subjective factors. risk identification.
Case collection and analysis Xu et al. [48]
High credibility with the
Case study requires much time Ameyaw et al. [46]
actual situation.
and money. Ameyaw et al. [47]

2.3. Relationship among PPP Risks

From the above analysis, it is evident that there are relationships between PPP risks that lead to
the mutual influence of risks [18,19]. In analyzing risks at different project stages, it is important to
consider their interrelationships, because an understanding of the relationships between the risks can
facilitate a more holistic risk identification and assessment. The existence of risk at an earlier stage may
contribute to increased risk manifesting in later stages, or it may not. Sometimes a less important risk
can affect a more significant risk, both in terms of likelihood and severity [49].
For example, Valipour, A. et al. identify PPP shared risks using an approach in the form of a
hybrid Fuzzy method and Cybernetic Analytic Network Process (CANP) model [50]. Wang et al.
proposed a risk model, named the Alien Eye’s Risk Model, to show the hierarchical levels of the risks
and the influential relationship among the risks in a risk influence matrix [51]. Aladağ and Işık used
FAHP to determine the priority factors of design and construction risks in build–operate–transfer
(BOT) type mega transportation projects [52]. Furthermore, a fuzzy analytic network process (FANP)

601
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

method was applied for overcoming the problems of interdependencies and feedback among different
risk-ranking alternatives in freeway PPP projects [53]. Multiple-regression analysis was also proposed
to estimate and quantify risk interrelationship [54].

2.4. Research Gap and Contribution

These studies have used techniques, such as fuzzy synthetic evaluation [11], fuzzy analytic
hierarchy processes [24,33], 2-dimensional linguistic information [34], ISM-MICMAC method [19],
hybrid fuzzy cybernetic analytic network process model [50] and multiple-regression analysis [54] etc.,
to analyze PPP risks and their relationships. However, studies on these relationships and influences
based on failed PPP cases in China is lacking. Moreover, it is common to utilize a single approach,
but less common to utilize a fuzzy-ISM integrated MICMAC method comprehensively in PPP risks
relationship analysis.
The main contribution of the study is to present the application of the fuzzy-ISM technique
integrated MICMAC analysis on the relationship among significant PPP risks, which affect the
implementation of PPP projects in China, and also to analyze which risks play a leading role in
triggering project failure. The 28 cases in this study also make an important contribution to PPP case
studies, because failed PPP projects in China can be used as important references for other countries.
In addition, this study makes a contribution to relevant literature on common methods for identifying
PPP risks and to our understanding of failed PPP projects by summarizing some abnormal phenomena,
such as government buyback, project predicament or no operations, severe losses, management right
transfers, failure to realize value for money (VFM), and contract cancellations.

3. Research Methods
This study draws on literature, case studies and expert interviews to collect data, and identifies
the significant PPP risks in China. Then, the fuzzy ISM (FISM) approach is adopted to clarify the
interaction relationships among the PPP risks and to establish a hierarchical structure of these risks.
Finally, the MICMAC integrated with fuzzy-ISM approach is employed to determine the significant
risks from the perspective of their interaction status. There are six analysis steps in this study, as shown
in Figure 1. The details of these six steps will be described in the following subsections.

602
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

&DVHVWXG\
6WHS,GHQWLI\LQJ 3UHOLPLQDU\OLVW ([SHUW )LQDOOLVWRIULVN
ULVNIDFWRUV /LWHUDWXUH RIULVNIDFWRUV LQWHUYLHZ IDFWRUV
VXUYH\

6WHS8VLQJWULDQJXODU )X]]\GLUHFW &RQYHUWLQJ 7ULDQJXODU 7ULDQJXODUIX]]\

4XHVWLRQQDLUH
IX]]\QXPEHUWREXLOG UHODWLRQ IX]]\GDWDLQWR IX]]\UHODWLRQ QXPEHURIYDOLG
VXUYH\
IX]]\GLUHFWUHODWLRQPDWUL[ PDWUL[ FULVSVFRUHV PDWUL[ TXHVWLRQQDLUH

6WHS8VLQJWKH
LQWHUFHSWFRHIILFLHQWWR ,QWHUFHSWFRHIILFLHQW VNHOHWRQPDWUL[ %RROHDQRSHUDWLRQ
REWDLQVNHOHWRQPDWUL[

6WHS&DOFXODWLQJUHDFKDELOLW\ UHDUUDQJHPHQW
UHFRQILJXUDEOH
PDWUL[DQGUHFRQILJXUDEOH DFFRUGLQJWRGULYLQJ 5HDFKDELOLW\PDWUL[
UHDFKDELOLW\PDWUL[
UHDFKDELOLW\PDWUL[ SRZHU

6WHS8VLQJ,60WR 6WHS8VLQJ0,&0$&
,60GLDJUDP 0,&0$&GLDJUDP
KLHUDUFKL]HULVNIDFWRUV WRFODVVLI\ULVNIDFWRUV

Figure 1. Research framework of the study.

3.1. Step 1: Collecting Data and Identifying Risk Factors

The preliminary factor list is extracted by case analysis and literature review, following which, the
factor list is modified and simplified by expert interview.
The 28 failed PPP projects are from the World Bank website [55] and China Public–Private
Partnerships Center [56]. In order to comply with Chinese national conditions, all of these cases and
the literature were based on the actual situation of China. But we cannot find a unified definition
on “failed project”. Based on prior studies [57,58], this study deems a PPP “failure” as when the
following phenomena occur: government buyback, project predicament or no operations, severe losses,
management right transfers, failure to realize VFM, and contract cancellations. The cases were chosen
as typical examples of the failed PPP projects, with their unique characteristics and failure causes
were an excellent match to the critical PPP risk identification. Details of the 28 cases can be found in
Appendix A. We have adopted a broadly similar format where possible, in each case drawing out the
key risk factors relevant to failure or problem description.

3.2. Step 2: Using Triangular Fuzzy Number to Build Fuzzy Direct Relation Matrix
This study utilizes triangular fuzzy number to build fuzzy direct relation matrix. It has been
found that fuzzy research, as applied in the construction management discipline, can be divided into
two broad fields—fuzzy sets and hybrid fuzzy techniques [59]. The triangular fuzzy number method
belongs to the former category [60].
Since the publication of the seminal work "Fuzzy sets" by Zadeh [61], defuzzification by using the
fuzzy approach has led to many successful practical applications. For example, Paek applied a fuzzy
set approach to price to analyze construction risk [62]. Zhang and Zou used a fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (FAHP) for the appraisal of the risk environment pertaining to joint ventures, in order to
support the rational decision-making of project stakeholders [63]. Abdelgawad and Fayek used Fuzzy
fault-tree analysis to quantitatively assess risk events in the construction industry [64].
Zadeh proposed the concept of fuzzy sets in order to solve problems described as semi-structured
or ill-structured, which allows us to process and transform imprecise information effectively and

603
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

flexibly [57]. Because of the uncertainty of objective things and the fuzziness of human thought,
fuzzy decision-making based on fuzzy sets theory has become a basic method for decision-making,
meanwhile triangular fuzzy numbers have been extensively applied in fuzzy control and fuzzy
decision-making [65–67].
In this study, the fuzzy triangle number of the relationship between various factors is obtained by
expert scoring. A triangular fuzzy number is usually represented by three letters: l, m, and r. These
three parameters, respectively, represent the minimum possible value, the median value, and the
maximum possible value, (i.e., l ≤ m ≤ r) [49]. Referring to the value table of language operators
and triangular fuzzy numbers given by Li [68] (as Table 2), we let experts judge the strength of the
relationship between the two risk factors.

Table 2. Triangular fuzzy number corresponding to language operator.

Language Operator Triangular Fuzzy Number

Very low impact (VL) (0, 0, 0.25)
Low impact (L) (0, 0.25, 0.5)
medium impact (M) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
High impact (H) (0.5, 0.75, 1)
Very high impact (VH) (0.75, 1, 1)

According to the results of the questionnaire, a triangular fuzzy relation matrix is established
to judge the strength of the relationship between
failure
risk factors. In triangular fuzzy relation
, ,
matrix D , the triangular fuzzy number d = l , m , r is used to represent the judgment result of the
k k k k k
ij ij ij ij
influence degree of the risk factor Ri on R j , given by the expert (as follows).
⎡ ⎤
⎢⎢
⎢⎢ 0 d,k12 ··· d,k1n ⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢⎢ d,k21 ··· d,k2n ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ 0 ⎥⎥
D = ⎢⎢⎢
, k
.. .. .. .. ⎥⎥
⎥⎥ (1)
⎢⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ . . . . ⎥⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
d,kn1 d,kn2 ··· 0
Then, the fuzzy direct relation matrix D. of failure risk factors can be obtained by converting fuzzy
data into crisp scores (CFCS) method [69]. The specific steps are shown below:
1. Standardize the triangular fuzzy number

akij = lkij − min lkij /Δmax
min
bij = mij − min mij /Δmax
k k k
min
(2)
cij = rij − min rij /Δmin
k k k max

Δmax
min
= max rkij − min lkij

2. Calculate the left and right limits of the standardized values ukij and vkij

ukij = bkij / 1 + bkij − akij
(3)
vkij = ckij / 1 + ckij − bkij

3. Calculate the total value of the standardized values

2
ukij 1 − ukij + (vkij )
wkij = (4)
1 − ukij + vkij

4. Calculate the exact value of expert triangle fuzzy judgment dkij

604
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

dkij = min lkij + wkij · Δmax

min (5)

5. Calculate the standardized accurate value dij , as evaluated by experts

1 k
p
dij = · dij (6)
p
k =1

6. Determine the fuzzy direct relation matrix D of key risk factors

⎡ ⎤
⎢⎢ 0 d12 · · · d1n ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢⎢ d21 0 · · · d2n ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎥⎥
D = ⎢⎢⎢ .. .. .. . ⎥⎥ (7)
⎢⎢ . .. ⎥⎥
⎢⎢⎣ . . ⎥⎥
⎦
dn1 dn2 ··· 0

3.3. Step 3: Using the Intercept Coefficient to Obtain the Skeleton Matrix
By using appropriate intercept coefficients α, the fuzzy direct relation matrix is transformed into a
skeleton matrix S, which can be directly used for Boolean operation. When the elements in the fuzzy
direct relation matrix are greater than or equal to α, the corresponding position of the elements in the
skeleton matrix is set to 1; otherwise it is set to 0.
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎨ 1 dij ≥ α
sij = ⎪
⎪ (8)
⎩ 0 (dij < α)

3.4. Step 4: Calculating Reachability Matrix and Reconfigurable Reachability Matrix

ISM is an effective model that can clearly define inter-relationships between multiple elements of
a problem [70]. In order to study the correlation between evaluation objects, Mandal and Deshmukh
introduced interpretative structural modeling (ISM) [71]. ISM has become an analytical tool widely
used by scholars to study the interdependence and interaction of factors, and is widely used in policy
analysis, supply chains and in other fields [72,73]. For example, Tseng et al. used ISM to construct a
systematic model of interconnected natural disaster risks [74]. Yanmei et al. identified power overload
risk factors and established ISM to analyze the relationships between these factors [75]. Li et al. also
used ISM to assess the risks of India’s thermal power plants [76].
The advantage of ISM is that it requires fewer questionnaires than other methods, such as
structural equation modeling and the Delphi technique, and is able to extract a clear structural view
from unstructured models [77,78]. However, in ISM, only the existence of an influencing relationship
between two factors is investigated; if there is a relationship between factors, it is denoted by “1”,
otherwise, it is denoted by “0” [78]. However, the association between the factors is fuzzy and cannot
be easily divided into “related” or “unrelated” [79]. To solve this problem, many scholars have applied
fuzzy set theory to ISM, in order to consider the degree of influence between factors, in an approach
called fuzzy interpretative structural modeling (FISM) [78,80,81].
As described in the previous section, this study uses the triangular fuzzy number method
integrated with ISM in this paper. The process is as follows.
First, the Boolean operation of the skeleton matrix and the identity matrix is performed, where
the operation rules are as follows:

0 + 0 = 0, 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 1, 0 ∗ 0 = 0, 0 ∗ 1 = 0, 1 ∗ 0 = 0, and 1 ∗ 1 = 1

Meanwhile, it must follow the shift law characteristic of matrix operations; that is, when a directly
reaches b through a path of length 1 and b directly reaches c through a path of length 1, then a must
reach c through a path of length 2.

605
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

Then, the reachability matrix R can be obtained through a Boolean operation of the skeleton matrix
S. When all products are equal, the reachability matrix R can be obtained.

(S + I ) (S + I )2 · · · (S + I )r−1 (S + I )k = (S + I )k+1 = R (9)

Lastly, based on the reachability matrix, the risk factors of failure are rearranged according to the value
of driving power and the reconstituted reachability matrix R∗ is obtained.

3.5. Step 5: Using ISM to Hierarchize Risk Factors

According to the interaction relation of failure risk factors, the hierarchical results can be obtained
by referring to the values of elements in the reconstructed reachability matrix. Connecting all the
factors with arrow lines, the ISM diagram of the interaction of failure risk factors will be achieved.

3.6. Step 6: Using MICMAC to Classify Risk Factors

After ISM, MICMAC (matrix impact cross-reference multiplication applied to a classification) is
often used as a complementary method to analyze the driver power and dependence power of the
risks [82]. The driver power of a risk means the total number of risks it can influence, whereas the
dependence power of a risk means the total number of risks which can influence it [83]. According to
the driver and dependence powers of the factors, they can be divided into four groups: autonomous,
dependent, linkage, and independent. Issues having weak driving and dependence powers are in the
autonomous group, whereas issues having strong dependent and driving powers are in the linkage
group [78]. Issues which have strong driving and weak dependence powers are known as independent
issues, whereas issues which have strong dependence power and weak driving power are known as
dependent issues [78].
Many scholars have applied ISM-MICMAC to PPP risk analysis. Iyer et al. analyzed the hierarchical
structure of PPP risks of Indian roads for the first time by combining ISM and MICMAC [19]. Han et al.
used ISM-MICMAC to analyze PPP risks in brownfield remediation projects in China [83]. Li and
Wang used a fuzzy analytic network process and ISM-MICMAC for PPP risk assessment [18].
Although these analyses based on ISM-MICMAC have achieved some beneficial results, they
have all ignored the notion that the impact degree of PPP risks is vague and cannot be judged simply
by the impact or no impact. Based on this, FISM is adopted in this paper to consider the fuzziness of
the relationships between PPP risks, replacing the traditional “0 or 1” judgment with a fuzzy number,
in order to reduce the subjectivity of expert judgment.
In this study, the categories of risk factors are determined by FISM integrated MICMAC method.
Based on the reconstituted reachability matrix Rˆ*, each factor is plotted as a point in the four quadrants
of the rectangular coordinate system, according to the driving power and dependency power of each
failure risk factor, and the key risk factors are classified.

4. Results and Findings

By following Step 1 in Section 3, a literature review and case study analysis was conducted to
elicit the preliminary list of risk factors. A total of 29 preliminary risk factors were extracted to the
preliminary risk list.
To mitigate the deficiency of the literature review and case study, we invited five experts for two
rounds of interviews to validate the preliminary list. We chose experts who had sufficient time available
for being interviewed and for summarizing these risk factors. Other experts that were considered,
but who were too busy, were excluded from the risk identification stage. These experts included one
lawyer involved in PPP consulting, one manager of a PPP project company, two managers of a PPP
consulting company and one PPP research scholar, all of whom have participated in the management
of PPP projects and have a rich knowledge of PPP theory and practice.

606
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

After the first round of interviews, based on the opinions of various experts and further
confirmation in the second round of interviews, the risk factors that led to the failure of PPP
projects were summarized into 20 risks (see Table 3). The literature and case sources of these 20 risks
can be seen in Tables 4 and 5.
These 20 risks are: government decision-making approval risk (R1); policy and regulatory change
risk (R2); government credit risk (R3); government regulatory risk (R4); planning and design risk (R5);
bidding risk (R6); contract risk (R7); facility matching risk (R8); financing risk (R9); economic risk (R10);
project change risk (R11); construction risk (R12); project income risk (R13); parallel project competitive
risk (R14); operation and maintenance risk (R15); force majeure risk (R16); public opposition risk (R17);
organizational coordination risk (R18); environmental risk (R19); and project company violates laws
and regulations (R20).
In this study, in addition to the five original experts who participated in expert interviews, another
10 experts were invited to conduct a questionnaire survey on the relationship between PPP risk factors
by means of e-mail, WeChat and on-site survey (see Appendix B). All 15 experts have rich knowledge
of PPP theory and practice, and their background information is shown in the Table 6. Through
comparative analysis of questionnaire data, the high impact of other risks on the force majeure risk of
R16 was taken as an invalid judgment standard to eliminate the invalid questionnaires. In total, there
were 9 valid questionnaires.

Table 3. Preliminary risk list and final risk list.

Preliminary Risk List (29 Risks) Final Risk List (20 Risks)
Lengthy government decision-making and approval
Government decision-making approval risk (R1)
Lack of PPP co-operation experience
Policy and regulatory change risk Policy and regulatory change risk (R2)
Government official corruption
Government credit risk (R3)
Government intervention
Government regulatory risk Government regulatory risk (R4)
Planning and design risk Planning and design risk (R5)
Bidding risk Bidding risk (R6)
Imperfect price adjustment mechanism
Unreasonable profit distribution
Contract risk (R7)
Imperfect dispute settlement mechanism
Incomplete contract risk
Facility matching risk Facility matching risk (R8)
Financing risk Financing risk (R9)
Economic risk Economic risk (R10)
Project change risk Project change risk (R11)
Construction cost overruns
Construction quality risk
Construction risk (R12)
Construction schedule risk
Completion risks
Changes in market demand
Project income risk (R13)
Insufficient expense payment
Parallel project competitive risk Parallel project competitive risk (R14)
Operation and maintenance risk Operation and maintenance risk (R15)
Force majeure risk Force majeure risk (R16)
Public opposition risk Public opposition risk (R17)
Organizational coordination risk Organizational coordination risk (R18)
Environmental risk Environmental risk (R19)
Project company violates laws and regulations Project company violates laws and regulations (R20)

607
Table 4. Literature statistics for PPP risk factors.

Risk Factors 1 [38] 2 [83] 3 [84] 4 [18] 5 [39] 6 [85] 7 [86] 8 [34] 9 [29] 10 [26] 11 [12] 12 [11] 13 [17] 14 [87] 15 [27] 16 [44]
Government decision-making
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
approval risk (R1)
Policy and regulatory change risk
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(R2)
Government credit risk (R3) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Government regulatory risk (R4) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Planning and design risk (R5) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

Bidding risk (R6) O O O O O O O O O

Contract risk (R7) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Facility matching risk (R8) O O O O O O O O O
Financing risk (R9) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Economic risk (R10) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Project change risk (R11) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Construction risk (R12) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Project income risk (R13) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Parallel project competitive
O O O O O O O O O
risk (R14)
Operation and maintenance
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
risk (R15)
Force majeure risk (R16) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Public opposition risk (R17) O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Organizational coordination
O O O O O O O O O O O O O

608
risk (R18)
Environmental risk (R19) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Project company violates laws and
O O O O O O O
regulations (R20)
Table 5. Case statistics for PPP risk factors.

Cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Risk Factors
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R5 √ √ √ √ √
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

R6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R7 √ √ √
R8 √ √ √
R9 √
R10 √ √ √ √
R11 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R12 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R13 √ √ √ √ √
R14 √ √ √
R15 √
R16 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R17 √ √ √ √ √
R18 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
R19 √ √ √ √ √
R20

609
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

Table 6. Background information of 15 experts.

Number of PPP
No. Education Profile Work Experience Company
Participated
1 PhD 6 to 10 years Three University
2 PhD Under 5 years One University
3 Master 6 to 10 years Two Government
4 Master 11 to 15 years More than 4 Consulting
5 Master 6 to 10 years Three Consulting
6 Master Under 5 years Two Consulting
7 Bachelor 11 to 15 years Three Consulting
8 Master 6 to 10 years One Private
9 Master 6 to 10 years One Private
10 Master 11 to 15 years Two Private
11 Master 6 to 10 years One Private
12 Master 6 to 10 years Two Private
13 Bachelor More than 16 years Two Private
14 Bachelor More than 16 years Two Private
15 Bachelor 11 to 15 years Two Private

The triangular fuzzy number of 9 valid questionnaires were filled in the triangular fuzzy relation
matrix. Then, we converted triangular fuzzy relation matrix to fuzzy direct relation matrix through
converting fuzzy data into crisp scores (CFCS) method. The final fuzzy direct relation matrix is shown
in Table 7.

Table 7. Fuzzy direct relation matrix of the PPP key risk factors.

Risk R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
R1 0 0.20 0.51 0.35 0.51 0.45 0.34 0.36 0.28 0.15 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.49 0.17 0.00 0.39 0.38 0.28 0.13
R2 0.38 0 0.54 0.40 0.15 0.23 0.54 0.12 0.43 0.41 0.63 0.38 0.35 0.24 0.33 0.00 0.19 0.14 0.46 0.20
R3 0.40 0.25 0 0.38 0.24 0.30 0.49 0.37 0.39 0.31 0.45 0.38 0.45 0.65 0.33 0.08 0.25 0.35 0.15 0.20
R4 0.29 0.05 0.40 0 0.33 0.53 0.31 0.41 0.35 0.28 0.30 0.60 0.35 0.31 0.33 0.02 0.46 0.37 0.52 0.49
R5 0.18 0.04 0.10 0.04 0 0.28 0.35 0.25 0.32 0.18 0.74 0.38 0.57 0.31 0.38 0.00 0.51 0.09 0.45 0.02
R6 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.17 0 0.43 0.23 0.31 0.22 0.37 0.45 0.60 0.07 0.57 0.02 0.15 0.32 0.19 0.45
R7 0.12 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.15 0.07 0 0.27 0.19 0.28 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.18 0.40 0.12 0.19 0.40 0.25 0.38
R8 0.17 0.05 0.17 0.07 0.19 0.15 0.33 0 0.24 0.12 0.33 0.60 0.38 0.08 0.49 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.22
R9 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.38 0.10 0 0.33 0.22 0.50 0.53 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.07 0.15 0.12 0.25
R10 0.25 0.32 0.27 0.14 0.04 0.17 0.31 0.18 0.59 0 0.16 0.35 0.53 0.10 0.35 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.41
R11 0.15 0.12 0.38 0.28 0.25 0.09 0.41 0.30 0.39 0.02 0 0.71 0.60 0.07 0.52 0.02 0.11 0.27 0.24 0.27
R12 0.04 0.07 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.07 0.43 0.15 0.33 0.02 0.45 0 0.65 0.07 0.35 0.13 0.35 0.20 0.35 0.33
R13 0.16 0.15 0.44 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.44 0.12 0.60 0.10 0.43 0.32 0 0.27 0.46 0.00 0.27 0.17 0.10 0.36
R14 0.12 0.12 0.57 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.52 0.12 0.31 0.07 0.36 0.26 0.52 0 0.24 0.00 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.41
R15 0.07 0.12 0.30 0.23 0.17 0.07 0.38 0.17 0.22 0.10 0.28 0.04 0.80 0.10 0 0.00 0.37 0.22 0.46 0.32
R16 0.12 0.15 0.33 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.22 0.38 0.24 0.52 0.43 0.47 0.04 0.55 0 0.12 0.17 0.29 0.22
R17 0.51 0.22 0.46 0.33 0.27 0.09 0.22 0.19 0.33 0.15 0.56 0.45 0.33 0.17 0.49 0.07 0 0.17 0.20 0.17
R18 0.33 0.09 0.32 0.43 0.33 0.32 0.46 0.23 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.57 0.49 0.17 0.52 0.02 0.25 0 0.15 0.41
R19 0.22 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.10 0.35 0.20 0.24 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.63 0.07 0.54 0.07 0.77 0.12 0 0.28
R20 0.04 0.11 0.35 0.28 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.17 0.38 0.04 0.41 0.54 0.57 0.12 0.48 0.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0

After obtaining the fuzzy direct relation matrix, the intercept coefficient α was adopted to convert
the fuzzy direct relation matrix into a skeleton matrix, which was directly used for Boolean operation,
as shown in Table 8.

610
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

Table 8. Skeleton matrix of the PPP key risk factors.

Risk R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
R1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
R4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
R5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
R7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
R12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R14 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
R15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
R16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
R17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
R19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
R20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Reachability matrix was obtained after Boolean operation of the skeleton matrix, and on the basis
of the reachability matrix, all failure risk factors were rearranged according to the value of driving
power to get the reconfigurable reachability matrix (see in Table 9). In order to reduce the amount of
calculation, we used Python programming in the operation process.

Table 9. Reconfigured reachability matrix of the PPP key risk factors.

Risk R7 R9 R12 R13 R8 R10 R15 R6 R11 R18 R3 R14 R16 R2 R1 R5 R17 R19 R20 R4 Dr
R7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R9 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
R12 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
R13 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
R8 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
R10 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
R15 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
R6 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
R11 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
R18 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
R3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
R14 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
R16 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
R2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
R1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 11
R5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 11
R17 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 11
R19 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 12
R20 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 13
R4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 14
De 10 19 19 19 1 1 12 2 9 1 9 9 1 1 6 6 6 3 1 1

Risk factors were hierarchized by using the ISM diagram. In the ISM diagram, the classification
of a risk factor hierarchy can be determined by the driving power of a risk factor; that is, the risk
factor with smaller driving power sits on the higher level in the risk system of ISM diagram, and the
risk factor with higher driving power sits on the bottom position in the ISM diagram. We obtained
the hierarchical partition results and ISM diagram according to the driving power of each risk in
reconfigured reachability matrix. According to the positions of the risk factors in the ISM diagram,
they were divided into three areas: upper, middle, and bottom, as shown in Figure 2. In Figure 2,
we can see that:

611
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

1. The upper risk factors included R7 (contract risk), R9 (financing risk), R12 (construction risk), and
R13 (project income risk), and there was a strong connection between R9, R12, and R13. These
risks directly led to the failure of PPP projects.
2. The middle risk factors included R3 (government credit risk), R11 (project change risk), R14
(parallel project competitive risk), R15 (operation and maintenance risk), R6 (bidding risk), R2
(policies and regulations change risk), R8 (Facility matching risk), R10 (economic risk), R16 (force
majeure risk), and R18 (organizational coordination risk).
3. The bottom risk factors included R4 (government regulatory risk), R20 (project company violates
laws and regulations), R19 (environmental risk), R17 (public opposition risk), R1 (government
decision-making approval risk), and R5 (planning and design risk). It can be considered that
these risk factors are the most critical and fundamental in the risk system.

)DLOXUHW\SHVRI333SURMHFWVJRYHUQPHQWUHSXUFKDVHGLVWUHVVHGRUVHULRXVORVVHV
WHPSRUDU\RUORQJWHUPVXVSHQVLRQIDLOXUHWRDFKLHYH9)0UHQHJRWLDWLRQ

5

8SSHU
5 5 5 IDLOXUHULVN

5 5 5

5 5 5 0LGGOH

IDLOXUHULVN

5 5 5

5

5 5 5

%RWWRP
5 IDLOXUHULVN

5

5

Figure 2. Interpretative structural modeling (ISM) diagram of the PPP key risk factors.

After obtaining the ISM diagram that represents the mutual influence of key risk factors in PPP,
it is necessary to refer to the MICMAC method to determine the categories of risk factors, so as to
provide corresponding prevention suggestions for different types of risk in a more targeted way.
Based on the reconfigurable reachability matrix, each factor was plotted as a point in the
conventional X-Y coordinate system according to the values of driving power and dependence power.
Thus, the 20 key risk factors were divided into four categories and distributed in four quadrants,
as shown in Figure 3.

612
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

< 'HSHQGHQFH

5

5 5

Č ċ

5
5

5
5 5
5

ĉ
5 Ċ
5

5 5
5
5
5 5
5
5 5


; 'ULYLQJ

Figure 3. The driving–dependence power diagram of the PPP key risk factors.

Each quadrant contains risk factors as follows: Quadrant I (Autonomous risks) includes: R2
(policies and regulations change risk), R3 (government credit risk), R6 (bidding risk), R8 (facility
matching risk), R10 (economic risk), R11 (project change risk), R14 (parallel project competitive risk),
R16 (force majeure risk), R18 (organizational coordination risk). The driving power and dependence
power of the risk factors are relatively low, which means they are not easily influenced by other risk
factors, and also do not easy to lead to the occurrence of other risk factors;
Quadrant II (Dependent risks) includes: R1 (government decision-making approval risk), R5
(planning and design risk), R4 (government regulatory risk), R17 (public opposition risk), R19
(environmental risk), R20 (project company violates laws and regulations). They have a powerful
driving power and weak dependence power, which are key risk factors and basic conditions in
the system;
Quadrant III (Linkage risks): there is no any risk. It means that there is no risk that is susceptible
to, and affects other, risks
Quadrant IV (Independent risks) includes: R7 (contract risk), R9 (financing risk), R12 (construction
risk), R13 (project income risk), and R15 (operation and maintenance risk). They all have stronger
dependence, meaning that the occurrence of these risk factors is largely due to the change or
accumulation of other risk factors.

5. Analysis and Discussion

5.1. Discussion of Method

In this study, the FISM is adopted to understand the magnitude of the relationships between
the risks [80]. This takes the fuzzy of relationships between PPP risks into account, which has a
greater advantage than the traditional ISM method. It also helps in identifying the magnitude of
cascading relationships between lower-level issues to higher-level issues [78]. In addition, the method
of FISM-MICMAC can provide a new risk assessment tool for risk management strategies in the field
of construction engineering and management.
FISM combines fuzzy theory and uses fuzzy language conversion to convert the subjective risks
that are difficult to quantify, which is caused by too many uncertain factors in PPP, so as to realize the
process of risk evaluation from subjective to objective, and to provide a more scientific theoretical basis
for risk response. Compared with traditional ISM, FISM has shown greater advantages [78,80,81,88].

613
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

In this study, the reachability matrix is obtained by using the intercept coefficient to fuzzy direct
relation matrix. This method shows that risk managers can obtain different reachability matrices through
different intercept coefficients, according to their own requirements of the risk correlation degree.

5.2. Risk Structure Analysis

(1) The bottom risk factors of Figure 2 can be classified into two categories. One is likely to
occur at any stage in the life cycle of a PPP project, including R4 (government regulatory risk), R20
(project company violates laws and regulations), R19 (environmental risk), and R17 (public opposition
risk); whereas R1 (government decision-making approval risk) and R5 (planning and design risk) are
pre-project risks. Once these occur, they may cause the formation of a risk chain. Therefore, in the
early stages of a PPP project, attention should be paid to the government’s decision-making and the
planning and design of the PPP project. In the life cycle of PPP projects, there should be focus on
government regulation, delinquency of private, environmental pollution and public opposition.
An empirical study in 2011 showed that the three most important risk factors for Chinese PPP
projects are government intervention, government corruption, and poor public decision-making
processes [89], which is consistent with our research. In addition, we also need to make a special
description of R19 (environmental risk), as China imposed an environmental tax in January 2011 [90].
With increasingly strict environmental protection policies, the price of raw materials in the construction
industry has been generally rising, which leads to the rising cost of many construction projects which,
finally, leads to the failure of projects. From the above analysis, we can see that the fundamental risks
affecting PPP projects are not invariable, but rather, are closely related to the actual situation.
(2) From Figures 2 and 3, we found that the R7 (contract risk), R9 (financing risk), R12 (construction
risk), R13 (project income risk), and R15 (operation and maintenance risk) have higher dependency
values (R15 is in the middle of Figure 2, but in the Quadrant IV of Figure 3), indicating that they are
easily affected by other risks. The occurrence of these risks is often caused by the accumulation of
other risks and, when these risks occur, they can easily and directly cause the failure of the project,
in agreement with the study of Li and Wang [18]. We can prevent such risk factors by controlling the
occurrence of the other risks that have an impact on them. In addition, it should be realized that, as
these risk factors are easily influenced by other risk factors, their own performance can reflect whether
the risks affecting them have been well-controlled or not; that is to say, they can also serve as an
indicator of the effect of risk management.
(3) In addition, it can be seen, from Figure 3, that no risk factors are located in Quadrant III, which
reflects that there is no PPP risk that can be affected by many factors and can affect many factors, which
is consistent with the research of Iyer et al. [19]. This is demonstrates that the key risk factors usually
do not lead to project failure through a singular role, but rather, increase the impact on the project
through a correlation between risks, cumulatively contributing to the failure of a PPP project.

5.3. Comparison with Other Studies

By comparing Iyer’s study on the Indian highway PPP [19], Han’s study on the Chinese brownfield
remediation projects PPP [79], and Li’s ISM study on Chinese PPP [18], we find that:
1. In Iyer’s study on PPP of Indian highways [19], environmental risk was also at the bottom of the
risk level, which could easily induce permit risk and direct political risk, eventually triggering
schedule risk and cost overrun risk, which is consistent with our study and indicates that there
are similarities between India and China, in this respect.
2. Comparing the PPP risk studies of Han [83] and Li [18], based on Chinese national conditions,
Han believed the bottom of the risk was an immature legal system, inadequate experience,
inadequate data and research, lack of a standard PPP contract template, private inability, and
technique risk. Meanwhile, in Li’s research, legal and policy risk, organization and coordination
risk, rights, responsibility, and risk allocation between the co-operative parties were considered to
be at the bottom. Although they each had different opinions of risk, their research was consistent:

614
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

a government with weak supervision and ability, a private party with inability and irregularities,
and the lack of organization and coordination between them, are projected at the bottom of the
risk. These risks can be controlled, and the managers and decision-makers must work to control
these risks.
3. Previous studies and this study, have found that both contract risk and financing risk can induce
the failure of PPP projects, as triggered by construction risk (including schedule risk and cost
overrun risk).
4. As for the MICMAC analysis, each study differed. In our study, there was no risk found in
Quadrant III. In the study of Iyer [19], there was no risk in Quadrant III and IV; in the study of
Li [14], there was no risk in Quadrant I; meanwhile, in the study of Han [83], there was risk in all
quadrants. Therefore, in the present study and that of Iyer, the risks were more independent of
each other. In contrast, the degree of risk interrelation in the studies of of Han and Li was higher.
This difference was caused by one the of factors influencing the existence of ambiguity, which
further proves the advantages of FISM-MICMAC method. For a different cutting coefficient, we
could control the threshold value of correlation degree between various factors.

5.4. Suggestions to the Government

1. China’s current PPP related policies and regulations are not perfect [91,92]. The government
should summarize the many problems existing in current PPP projects, and formulate special PPP
laws and regulations, as soon as possible, to protect the rights and interests of both parties, reduce
the negative effects caused by changes in policies and regulations, and enhance the investment
confidence of the private parties involved.
2. The choice of private sector is very important. A private sector with strong financing, technical
ability, and high reputation will provide higher advantages in a PPP project, such as by realizing
project appreciation, reducing financing risk, construction risk, operation and maintenance risk,
and the risk of the project company violating laws and regulations. In No. 27 case in Appendix A,
the wrong choice of private party leads to improper subcontracting of PPP projects, which
ultimately leads to the failure of the PPP projects.
3. In addition, the government should regard PPP as a governance scheme, rather than a pragmatic
economic tool [92]. Governmental departments should strengthen the PPP-relevant theoretical
knowledge and practical experience, learn from similar projects, pay attention to the feasibility in
early stages of the project, establish and perfect project decision-making mechanisms, and conduct
in-depth research on the project for scientific planning and design. In addition, governmental
departments should strengthen supervision and management, perfect their regulation systems,
and reduce the PPP project risk that exists because of inadequate supervision.
4. The government should realize that the relationship with stakeholders in a PPP project is key to
the sustainable development of the project [93,94]. The government should attach importance to
the relationship with private parties, avoid the risk of governmental decision-making approval as
much as possible, reduce late-project changes, avoid competition of similar projects caused by
unreasonable commitments in the early stage, and gradually improve government credit.
5. In terms of PPP project contract, the rights and obligations of the public and private should be
reasonably distributed, the contents (such as the distribution of benefits and risks) of dispute
resolutions and renegotiation mechanisms should be clarified, and the behaviors of both parties
should be regulated [1,29,30]. According to the actual situation of the project, a reasonable
risk sharing mechanism should be determined for planning and design risks, financial risks,
environmental risks, change risks, force majeure risk, and public opposition risks.
6. In the past, government departments have paid too much attention to economic evaluation while
ignoring social evaluation when evaluating investment projects, leading to higher rates of public
opposition [95]. In the implementation of PPP projects in the future, the period for soliciting
public opinion should be extended, and public information should be kept open throughout the

615
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

period for soliciting public opinion, so as to improve public participation, give full play to the
role of public supervision, and ensure the normal operations of the project.

5.5. Limitations of this Study

This study, has some limitations:

1. The cases in this paper were consulted on the Internet, without field verification, meaning that
certain risks may be missed. However, the combination method of case study, literature survey
and expert interview makes up some deficiencies. Moreover, with the development of PPP
projects, there will be increasingly similar projects. Future work will further supplement the cases.
2. Due to the limited number of PPP experts and their limited time availability, in addition to
the means of on-site, we also used WeChat, e-mail and other methods in questionnaire survey,
which may could have affected the quality of the questionnaire. It takes much time and effort to
complete 380 triangular fuzzy numbers for the 20 risk correlations in one questionnaire. Some
experts did not have enough patience and/or time to fill out the questionnaire, so the data through
WeChat and e-mail are often chaotic. However, by taking the high impact of other risks on the
R16 (force majeure risk) as an invalid judgment standard, the validity of the questionnaire could
be guaranteed.
3. The risks in this study are mainly about PPP risks in China, and the relationships between analyzed
risks are mainly applicable to the current situation in China. For example, the environmental risk
(R19) is at the bottom of the risk hierarchy, which is related to China’s sudden environmental
policies. This may be not in line with other countries. However, the research methods and
framework proposed in this study, can be applied to other studies on the relationship between
PPP risks in different countries and regions.
4. A total of 20 items are identified as PPP project failure risk factors, which is a broadly representative
result, suitable for the key risk factors identified in most PPP projects. However, in a specific
project, depending on the specific situation of a PPP project, it may be appropriate to supplement
or adjust the key risk factors. For example, in a PPP project for waste incineration, there is often
public opposition, while in PPP projects for sponge cities or wetland parks, there is usually
no public opposition. In these circumstances, public opposition risk (R17) should be adapted
according to the characteristics of the PPP projects.
5. Although fuzzy theory reduces the subjectivity of expert judgment, it also increases the workload
of data processing, requiring more resources to be invested into modeling and analysis. Thus, the
method in this paper would benefit from programs to facilitate its application.
6. The triangular fuzzy number given by experts will have significant impact on the results. If there
are disputes among experts about the risk relationship (the triangular fuzzy number of different
experts varies greatly), it will be difficult to calculate the results. In addition, the selection of the
intercept coefficient requires PPP experts with abundant experience and professional insight.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

There is a close interaction between PPP project risks, which has been neglected in relevant
literature. Furthermore, the existing research on the interaction of PPP risks lacked consideration of
complexity and ambiguity among risks. Based on this, this study has adopted the FISM-MICMAC
method to discuss the risk factors and their hierarchical relationship of PPP projects. In addition, the
method of FISM-MICMAC can provide a new risk assessment tool for risk management strategies in
the field of construction management.
This study started by identifying key risk factors that lead to the failure of PPP projects, using a
combination of various risk identification methods, such as case study, literature survey, and expert
interviews, in order to identify 20 key risk factors that have an important impact on the success
or failure of PPP projects. Then, FISM was used to discuss the PPP project risk factors and their

616
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

hierarchical relationship, where the hierarchical structure chart of the key risk factors of PPP projects
was constructed. Moreover, MICMAC was used to classify the driving power and dependence power
of the risk factors, so as to solve the complex problems of the interaction and feedback relationships
between key risk factors in PPP projects. The final sequence of factors, which have the obvious
characteristics of network, was obtained as a result of an analysis of the dependencies between
risk factors.
On the basis of this study, further research can be carried out in the future: (1) Although we have
ascertained relationships of influence between risks, the degree of influence, impact speed, and impact
mechanisms remain to be further studied; (2) The coupling effect between risk factors needs to be
further analyzed, and the overall risk of the project under the coupling effect needs to be evaluated;
(3) In future studies, risk factors for the failure of PPP projects can be combined with liability sharing to
establish a liability sharing model under the interaction of risks, which can provide a decision-making
basis for clearly defining responsibility and compensation for failure.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.J.; methodology, X.J. and K.L.; software, K.L.; formal analysis, X.J.
and B.X.; investigation, Y.L. and C.C.; data collection, K.L. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.J. and
K.L.; writing—review and editing, B.X.; funding acquisition, X.J. and Y.L.; supervision, X.J.
Funding: The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71672180),
the Soft Science Research Plan of Department of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of Anhui Province in
China (No. JS2016AHST0011), Innovation Research Plan of Anhui Construction Engineering Group in China
(No. W2018JSZX0002).
Conflicts of Interest: There is no conflict of interest.

617
Appendix A Case Description and Risk Factor Extraction for 28 Failed PPP Projects

Table A1. Project overview, problem description, and risk extraction of 28 failed PPP projects.

No. Project Project Overview and Results Failure or Problem Description Risk Factor Extraction
Signed the contract in 2000 with an investment The government abolished franchise schemes and stopped
Changchun Policy and regulatory change risk; Government credit risk;
scale of $32 million dollars, and defaulted on paying water bills. It was difficult to maintain the normal
(1) Huilu sewage Project income risk; Government regulatory risk; Project
the water bill in 2002. Government made operations of the project. The sewage plant has failed in the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

treatment plant company violates laws and regulations; Environment risk.

buyback in 2005. appeal. The project experienced two years of legal disputes.
Government credit risk; Lack of PPP co-operation
The government had limited understanding of PPP. After the
Qingdao Veolia Signed in 2003, with an investment scale of experience; Operation and maintenance risk; Government
contract was signed, the government thought the price was
(2) sewage treatment $42.8 million. After renegotiation, $32.7 million regulatory risk; Project company violates laws and
unfair and unilaterally asked for renegotiation. Lack of effective
plant of reconstruction in 2015. regulations; Environmental risks; Imperfect price
supervision and pollution incidents led to public protests.
adjustment mechanism; Public opposition risk.
Wuhan The surrounding sewage network was not equipped, there was
Government decision-making approval risks; Changes in
Townsend Construction in 2001; $12.8 million investment; no water source for operation, and the problem of a sewage
(3) market demand; Imperfect price adjustment mechanism;
sewage treatment Government made buyback in 2004. treatment fee was not solved. The project is idle after
Facility matching risk.
plant completion.
Long-term failure to sign a contract after winning the bid.
The project was initiated in 1998 with an Lengthy government decision-making and approval;
Market supply and demand upside down, the risk was mainly
Beijing No.10 investment scale of $326.6 million and started Planning and design risk; Changes in market demand;
(4) borne by investors. Banks did not lend. Difficulties in land
water plant in 2012. It was not officially operational in Construction cost overrun; Public opposition risk;
allocation and rising construction costs. Network changes.
2015. Financing risk.
Water prices raised public opposition.

618
Lengthy government decision-making and approval;
Delay in project approval. Water price below cost was difficult
Shanghai Dayang Signed in 1996 with an investment of $70 Imperfect price adjustment mechanism; Unreasonable
(5) to increase. Government fixed rate of return, conflict with
water plant million. Government made buyback in 2004. profit distribution; Government credit risk; Policy and
policy, renegotiation failed.
regulatory change risk.
Water quantity and price agreement could not be implemented.
Lianjiang Signed in 1997, invested $16.69 million. It sat Lack of PPP co-operation experience; Government official
The price of water was too high for the public to afford, and the
(6) zhongfa water idle and sued in 1999, and government made corruption; Government credit risk; Imperfect price
government could not continue to pay for it. Chinese and
plant buyback in 2009. adjustment mechanism; Project income risk.
French water companies suffered losses.
Equity transfer negotiated in 1996, and The sewage treatment fee was higher than the market price, and Lack of PPP co-operation experience; Government official
Shenyang No.9
(7) contract changed in 2000. Government made Shenyang water supply company lost money. Contract corruption; Imperfect price adjustment mechanism;
water plant
two buybacks in 2001 and in 2006. negotiation and modification. Unreasonable profit distribution.
Table A1. Cont.

No. Project Project Overview and Results Failure or Problem Description Risk Factor Extraction
Some of the projects changed for legal reasons were BT projects.
Built in 2000 with an investment of $106.5 Planning and design risk; Lack of PPP co-operation
Chengdu Veolia The economic situation was not reasonably predicted and the
(8) million. It was put into operation in February experience; Unreasonable profit distribution; Changes in
No.6 water plant water supply market was seriously surplus. The water
2002. The project suffered heavy losses. market demand; Policy and regulatory change risk.
company suffered heavy losses.
During the construction period, the government required
Quanzhou
In Phase I, investment was 6.66 million yuan, speeding up of the construction, with construction cost
Donghai Government intervention; Construction cost overrun;
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

bidding price was $0.12 dollar/m3. Project overruns. According to the contract, the adjustment period of
(9) municipal Imperfect price adjustment mechanism; Imperfect dispute
completed in 2011 and did not implement water price was five years, which led to great market risks.
sewage treatment settlement mechanism.
VFM. Suspension of franchise period and adjustment ambiguity were
plant
controversial.
The government took most of the premium to the state-owned
In January 2007, the contract was signed, and assets supervision and administration commission, which is Operation and maintenance risk; Government credit risk;
Lanzhou Veolia the private contributed $242.8 million. In 2014, unfavorable to the operation of a joint venture. Public Government regulatory risk; Environmental risks; Public
(10)
water the tap water was polluted. The project did not opposition to water price increases. The separation of pipe opposition risk; Project company violates laws and
implement VFM. network water plant ownership, unfavorable maintenance of regulations; Imperfect price adjustment mechanism.
equipment, resulting in water pollution incidents
The selection process of social capital was not transparent, the
Shanghai Won the bid in 2000, completed the whole line
project company had poor management, and there were many Government regulatory risk; Construction risk; Operation
Huqingping in 2005. In July 2008, the contract was
(11) violations. The project capital and financial supervision were and maintenance risks; Bidding risks; Changes in market
(Huyu) suspended ahead of schedule and government
not in place, the project payment is in arrears, and the actual demand; Project company violates laws and regulations.
expressway withdrew the operation.
income is low.

619
Sewage discharge was not up to standard, and the government
Jinzhou
Constructed in 2001 with an investment of did not pay sewage treatment fees. In 2005, water pollution Environment risk; Government credit risk; Planning and
municipal
(12) $2.56 million and put into operation in January caused by intermittent shutdown. Design process defected. The design risk; Government regulatory risk; Insufficient
sewage treatment
2004. Intermittent stop after operation. inlet water quality exceeded the standard. After many expense payment.
plant
consultations, consensus was reached for renovation.
Private capital transfer and withdrawal, the government to buy
Started in 2003 and opened in 2008 with a total
Hangzhou Bay back 80% of the equity. During the construction period, the Planning and design risk; Construction cost overrun;
investment of about $1675.5 million yuan. It
(13) sea-crossing government repeatedly proposed to change the rate of return Change in market demand; Parallel project competitive risk;
lost money in 2013 and government made
bridge on investment. Suffer from interest rate increase inflation, Contract risk; Economic risk.
buyback.
serious losses, unable to recover the principal on schedule.
Quanzhou government to build a number of free competitive
Project started in May 1995 with a total
Quanzhou Bridges to disperse traffic. Defects of legal contract, unclear Policy and regulatory change risk; Parallel project
investment of $35.5 million and was put into
(14) Wiliongtong division of responsibilities and rights. The contract stipulated competitive risk; Government credit risk; Insufficient
operation in 1997. Government made buyback
bridge that the concession period exceed the state regulation, and fee expense payment; Incomplete contract risk.
in 2016.
increase was not permitted
Table A1. Cont.

No. Project Project Overview and Results Failure or Problem Description Risk Factor Extraction
Started construction in 2004 with an The government defaulted, the compensation for land
Government intervention; Parallel project competitive risk;
Changtan west investment of $122.1 million and opened to expropriation and demolition failed, and the toll station was
(15) Insufficient expense payment; Planning and design risk;
expressway traffic in 2007. The project suffered heavy repeatedly changed during construction. A number of
Completion risk.
losses. competitive toll highways existed.
Construction started in 1997 with an The government failed to provide a fixed return and
Wuhan Yangtze Government credit risk; Parallel project competitive risk;
investment of $156.2 million and opened to non-competitive guarantee, as agreed, to build several Bridges.
(16) river three Project income risk; Government regulatory risk;
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

traffic in 2000. The project suffered heavy Long operation period for maintenance, overload was a serious
bridges Construction quality risk.
losses. issue.
Affected by SARS in the early stages of project construction,
Started in 2003 and was opened to traffic in labor shortage. The traffic volume forecast was insufficient, the Government credit risk; Force majeure risk; Parallel project
Xianyang Weihe
(17) 2004, with a total investment of about $17.0 construction scale was insufficient. In the operation stage, the competitive risk; Public opposition risk; Planning and
river No.3 bridge
million. Government made buyback in 2011. service quality was not up to standard, and traffic jams on the design risk; Organizational coordination risk.
bridge caused public opposition.
Shandong Reform of electric power system in the operation period. The
Lack of PPP co-operation experience; Government credit
Zhonghua power Initiated in 1997 and completed in 2004. government promised that the minimum purchase power was
(18) risk; Changes in market demand; Contract risk; Policy and
generation Project collaboration is in trouble. insufficient, so could not co-operate. In 2002, fees were reduced
regulatory change risk.
project and revenues reduced.
The location was remote, the road network on both sides was
Started construction in 2002 and opened to
Nanjing Yangtze not perfect, the traffic flow was seriously lower than expected,
traffic in 2005 with a total investment of $438.7 Planning and design risk; project income risk; Facility
(19) river three and the financial cost was high, resulting in a project loss. In
million. After opening to traffic, the project matching risk.
bridges 2009, the government negotiated an extension of the franchise
suffered serious losses.

620
to 30 years.
Tianjin
Waste incineration pollution, poor government supervision,
Shuanggang Started construction in 2003 and went into Planning and design risk; Environmental risk; Government
public opposition. The amount of subsidy promised by the
(20) waste operation in 2005 with a total investment of credit risk; insufficient expense payment; Government
government was not clear, and the project was not profitable
incineration $76.7 million. Project is in trouble. regulatory risk.
enough
power plant
The technology was not mature and the argument was not
Shandong Heze In 2013, a co-operation agreement was signed, sufficient. Accumulated losses of more than $2.1 million in four Planning and design risk; Policy and regulatory change
(21) waste-to-power with an initial investment of $49.7 million. The years of operation. Failure to implement government subsidy risks; Government credit risk; Project changes risk; Project
plant project suffered serious losses. schemes. Mix-in coal amount exceeded national regulation, income risk; Project company violates laws and regulations.
became small thermal power plant.
Project planning was lagging behind, the site was close to a
Approved in 2005 and planned to start
diversion canal and residential air outlet, and the odor affected
Beijing Liulitun construction in 2007. In 2007, the state
the surrounding environment, strongly opposed by residents. Government decision-making approval risk; Planning and
(22) waste-to-power environmental protection administration
The state environmental protection administration ordered a design risk; Public opposition risk; Environmental risk.
plant ordered a moratorium, and the project was
moratorium on construction, and the project has been
halted in 2011.
suspended for a long time.
Table A1. Cont.

No. Project Project Overview and Results Failure or Problem Description Risk Factor Extraction
The voltage of the power grid was unstable, the flue gas
Shenzhen Started in 2002 and put into operation in treatment system could not work normally, and toxic gas was
Nanshan December 2003, with a total investment of discharged directly. No agreement was been reached on Environmental risk; Government credit risk; Facility
(23)
waste-to-power $51.4 million. The project did not implement garbage disposal fee and electricity price after production. matching risk; Insufficient expense payment; Contract risk.
plant VFM. Garbage disposal fee and Internet electricity fee payment
delayed.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

In 2002, the total investment was $174.6 billion. The introduction of new laws and regulations made it more
Policy and regulatory change risk; Organizational
Construction had not started for 8 years, and difficult to raise the cost of land acquisition. Social capital
(24) Chaojie highway coordination risk; Financing risk; Bidding risk;
resumed in 2010. Shenzhen Taibang company financing difficulties, request to adjust the budget, and the
Construction cost overrun.
took over the project. government conflict.
Started in 2003 and completed in 2008, with a Social capital side had serious lack of experience in the
Public opposition risk; Contract risk; project income risk;
total investment of $445.7 million. In 2009, it operations and management of stadiums, gymnasiums, and
Beijing bird’s nest Bidding risks; Organizational coordination risk;
(25) was taken over by State-owned assets sports industry resources. After one year of operation, the
stadium Construction cost overrun; Operation and maintenance
supervision and administration commission. joint-stock reform agreement was re-signed, and the project
risk.
The project did not implement VFM. company converted the 30-year franchise into equity.
More traffic than expected, public opposition to congestion.
In 1997, 50% of the shares were transferred to
Shenzhen Lack of perfect contract terms, the repo two sides bid a large Planning and design risk; Public opposition risk;
the Hong Kong Dajia company. In 2004, the
(26) Wutong gap, negotiations reached a deadlock. The government built Government credit risk; Incomplete contract risk; Parallel
government repurchased the shares, but the
mountain tunnel new roads around it for free, and social capital was forced to project competitive risk.
negotiation was unsuccessful.
abandon franchises.
Illegal subcontracting of the project resulted in economic

621
contract disputes, resulting in a disturbance of visiting events, Bidding risks; Government regulatory risk; Policy and
Started in 2009, and the planned construction
Chenganyu project progress lagging behind, and a state of repeated regulatory change risk; Financing risk; Organizational
(27) period was three years. In 2016 the government
highway suspension and resumption of work. The relevant national loan coordination risk; Project company violates laws and
cancelled the concession agreement.
policy adjustment, the project company’s own capital turnover regulations.
was difficult, loan difficulty, capital chain interruption.
The government has repeatedly proposed changes to increase
Started in 2010, with a planned period of three the construction cost of the project, resulting in fund turnover Planning and design risk; Project change risk; Bidding risk;
Changan
(28) years, to stop at the beginning of 2013. In 2015, difficulties and forced large-scale shutdown of the project. Government credit risk; construction cost overruns;
highway
the government took over the project. Invitation to tender, social capital review was not in place, and Construction schedule risk
the cost estimate was inaccurate.
Table A2. 28 failed projects and their links to websites.

No. Project Links to Websites (Accessed on 19 September 2019)

(1) Changchun Huilu sewage treatment plant http://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20150305/594592.shtml
(2) Qingdao Veolia sewage treatment plant http://www.h2o-china.com/news/243917.html
(3) Wuhan Townsend sewage treatment plant http://www.h2o-china.com/news/243917.html
(4) Beijing No.10 water plant http://www.xcar.com.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=26304486
(5) Shanghai Dayang water plant http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_99ca571e0102vzcd.html
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

(6) Lianjiang zhongfa water plant http://mini.eastday.com/mobile/180326172138091.html#

(7) Shenyang No.9 water plant http://mini.eastday.com/mobile/180326172138091.html#
http:
(8) Chengdu Veolia No.6 water plant
//www.cspea.org.cn/article/hydt/hydt/201708/20170800006038.shtml
(9) Quanzhou Donghai municipal sewage treatment plant https://max.book118.com/html/2017/1126/141657699.shtm
(10) Lanzhou Veolia water http://www.tanpaifang.com/ppp/201612/0757836_4.html
(11) Shanghai Huqingping (Huyu) expressway https://www.zjtcn.com/baike/hygsgl
(12) Jinzhou municipal sewage treatment plant https://www.tianyancha.com/company/2333146105
(13) Hangzhou Bay Sea-Crossing Bridge http://www.360doc.com/content/17/0210/11/366082_627991592.shtml
(14) Quanzhou Wiliongtong bridge http://opinion.caixin.com/2014-09-25/100732936.html
(15) Changtan west expressway https://www.sohu.com/a/217236864_99929980
(16) Wuhan Yangtze river three Bridges https://www.sohu.com/a/205755812_100012673

622
(17) Xianyang Weihe river No.3 bridge https://www.docin.com/p-1434785098.html
(18) Shandong Zhonghua power generation project https://www.zhihu.com/question/28741657?sort=created
(19) Nanjing Yangtze river three Bridges http://www.360doc.com/content/16/0722/13/366082_577533747.shtml
(20) Tianjin Shuanggang waste incineration power plant http://mini.eastday.com/mobile/180326172138091.html#
(21) Shandong Heze waste-to-power plant http://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20171227/870276.shtml
(22) Beijing Liulitun waste-to-power plant https://news.qq.com/a/20110120/000136.htm
(23) Shenzhen Nanshan waste-to-power plant http://www.sohu.com/a/214527318_100053329
(24) Chaojie highway http://www.gongdaogc.com/show.asp?id=40917
(25) Beijing bird’s nest stadium https://www.sohu.com/a/142496023_798724
(26) Shenzhen Wutong mountain tunnel https://www.sohu.com/a/133919852_739751
(27) Chenganyu highway http://www.sohu.com/a/19689655_116913
(28) Changan highway http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-293-152478-1.shtml
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

B. Questionnaire on the Risk Relationship of PPP Projects

Dear experts,
Hello! Research Group of Dr. Jiang, School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology,
is carrying out research on " the risk relationship of PPP projects ". Our research group sincerely invites
you to give your opinion on this survey based on your past experience and relevant knowledge in
PPP projects. Your opinion is very valuable and will play an important role in our research. The data
and information collected in this questionnaire will only be used for academic research and will not
negatively affect your daily work and life. Thank you for your understanding and support!
Jiang Group
Table 1 shows the list of key risk factors of PPP and their meaning explanation. This survey gives
a list of risk factors according to the past practice in the 28 failure PPP project cases, related literature
survey, and expert interview. After familiarizing the risk factors in Table 1, please complete Table 3
according to the reminders in Table 2.

Table 3. Risk factors and their meaning explanation for PPP projects.

Risk Factor Meaning Explanation

Government Government decision-making procedures are irregular. The government has limited
decision-making understanding of PPP. Project decisions go wrong. The approval process is lengthy
approval risk (R1) 政府决策程序不规范。政府对PPP的理解有限。项目决策存在错误。审批过程很冗长。
Existing PPP-related policies and regulations are unsound, including low legislative level, poor
Policy and regulatory
operability, and conflict.
change risk (R2)
现有的PPP相关政策法规不健全、立法层级低、可操作性差、相互冲突；
The government does not fulfill the responsibilities and obligations stipulated in the contract.
Government credit The government excessively interferes in the construction or operation of the project. There is
risk (R3) official corruption in government.
政府不履行合同规定的责任和义务。政府过分干预项目的建设或运行。政府中有官员腐败。
The government does not have adequate supervision over the project, and the supervision
Government
system is not perfect.
regulatory risk (R4)
政府对项目监管不到位, 监管体系不完善。
The project lacks detailed argumentation and investigation. The planning and design scheme
(including project scale, technology, equipment standard, etc.) is unreasonable and unfeasible.
Planning and design
It does not meet the requirements of practical application and future development.
risk (R5)
该项目缺乏详细的论证和调查。规划设计方案(包括项目规模、技术、设备标准等) 不合理、不
可行。不符合实际应用和未来发展的要求
These are vicious competition or insufficient competition among private capital, unreasonable
bidding, tendering procedures, lax qualification examination conditions and insufficient
Bidding risk (R6) supervision, etc. The government choose the incompetent private capital.
社会资本方之间存在恶性竞争或竞争不足、招标投标程序不合理、资格审查条件不严格、监督
力度不够等。政府选择了不称职的私人资本方。
There are problems with the contract design, including: contract ambiguity, contract document
conflict, contract storage not in place, imperfect price adjustment mechanism, unreasonable
profit distribution, imperfect dispute settlement mechanism, and incomplete contract. Risk
allocation and income distribution are not reasonable. The scope of rights and responsibilities is
Contract risk (R7)
not clear.
合同设计存在问题，包括:合同歧义、合同文件冲突、合同保管不到位、价格调节机制不完善、
利润分配不合理、纠纷解决机制不完善、合同不完整等。风险配置和收益分配不合理。权利和
责任范围不明确。
Facility matching risk The project is idle due to the lack of supporting infrastructure and insufficient supply.
(R8) 相关的基础设施配套不到位、供应不足等致使项目闲置，
The financial market is not sound, financing channels are not smooth, financing structure is not
reasonable with high debt ratio. It is difficult to raise funds for the project.
Financing risk (R9)
融资市场不健全，融资渠道不畅通，融资结构不合理，负债率高。为这个项目筹集资金
是困难的

623
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

Table 3. Cont.

Risk Factor Meaning Explanation

It refers to the uncertainty of expected cash flow of PPP projects caused by changes in
macroeconomic factors and fragility of the financial system, as well as the possibility of expected
income loss of PPP projects caused by changes in exchange rate, interest rate, commodity price
Economic risk (R10) and inflation.
指宏观经济因素的变动以及金融体系内在的不稳定性和脆弱性而带来的PPP项目预期现金流的
不确定性，以及由于汇率、利率和商品价格变动以及通货膨胀带来的PPP项目预期收益损失的
可能性变动
The project changes, including the change of the construction object, the change of the operation
Project change risk
scope, the change of the contract
(R11)
项目变更，包括建设对象的变更、运营范围的变更、合同的变更
Project construction management level is poor. Construction cost overruns. Project delays. The
Construction risk
quality is not up to standard. Project construction cannot be completed.
(R12)
项目建设管理水平较差。建设成本超支。项目延迟。质量不符合标准。项目建设不能完工。
Due to the change of market demand or insufficient expense payment, project investors cannot
Project income risk recover the investment cost or achieve the predetermined income level
(R13) 市场需要的变化或者支付能力不足，导致项目投资者不能收回投资成本或不能达到预定收益水
平
The government or other investors build or rebuild similar projects, which form substantial
Parallel project
commercial competition with the original PPP projects.
competitive risk (R14)
政府或其他投资人新建或改建相似的项目，与原有项目形成实质性商业竞争
The project company’s operation efficiency is low. The price of raw materials, fuels and power
increases. The equipment is of poor quality and often maintained. The operation cost and
Operation and
maintenance cost increase.
maintenance risk (R15)
项目公司运营效率低。原材料、燃料和电力价格上涨。设备质量差，经常维修。运营和维护成
本增加。
Force majeure means that both parties have no control over the event or situation that cannot be
avoided or overcome before the signing of the contract，such as war, embargo, terrorism, and
Force majeure risk other social force majeure; floods, typhoons, earthquakes, fires, epidemics, and other natural
(R16) disasters.
不可抗力是指双方合同签订前无法避免或克服的事件或情况，如战争、禁运、恐怖主义等社会
不可抗力;洪水、台风、地震、火灾、疫病等自然灾害
Due to the lack of protection of public interests, the public is dissatisfied with the project and
even opposes it. In order to protect the public interest and social stability, the government
Public opposition risk
usually negotiates with private capital.
(R17)
由于社会公共利益得不到保护或受损，引起公众对项目产生不满甚至反对项目建设，而政府为
维护公众利益和社会稳定，通常会与私人资本谈判。
Coordination between government departments is difficult. The organization and coordination
ability of the project company is insufficient. Communication costs among participants are
Organizational
increase, and conflicts arise among participants.
coordination risk (R18)
政府部门之间协调困难。项目公司组织协调能力不足。参与者之间的沟通成本增加，参与者之
间存在冲突。
During the implementation of the project, the improvement of environmental protection
standards may lead to the increase of investment in new equipment. The project company failed
Environmental risk
to take effective control measures and emergency measures due to the environmental damage.
(R19)
在项目实施过程中，环保标准的提高可能会导致新设备投资的增加。项目公司未能采取有效的
控制措施和应急措施导致环境破坏。
During the implementation of the project, the project company or private capital violates laws
Project company
and regulations, such as using projects for fraud or modifying the project data maliciously。
violates laws and
在项目实施过程中，项目公司或私人资本方违反法律法规，比如，利用项目进行欺诈或者恶意
regulations (R20)
修改项目数据

According to the scoring in Table 2, please judge the mutual relationship of two factors, and fill
the evaluation results into the corresponding positions in Table 3.

624
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

Table 4. Language operator, triangular fuzzy number, and scoring.

~k
Language Operator. Triangular Fuzzy Number (dij ) Scoring

Very low impact (VL) (0, 0, 0.25) 1

Low impact (L) (0, 0.25, 0.5) 2
medium impact (M) (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) 3
High impact (H) (0.5, 0.75, 1) 4
Very high impact (VH) (0.75, 1, 1) 5
Example: when you consider the impact of the risk factor R1 on R2 to be very low impact, you
should fill the “1” in the second row and third column of Table 3.

Table 5. Mutual relationship intensity between two risk factors.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
R1 0
R2 0
R3 0
R4 0
R5 0
R6 0
R7 0
R8 0
R9 0
R10 0
R11 0
R12 0
R13 0
R14 0
R15 0
R16 0
R17 0
R18 0
R19 0
R20 0
Note: the risk factors affecting are column and the risk factors bearing the influence are row; there is an asymmetric
relationship between risk factors. Please complete this questionnaire as soon as possible. Thank you again for
your patience.

References
1. Ma, G.F.; Du, Q.J.; Wang, K.D. A Concession Period and Price Determination Model for PPP Projects: Based
on Real Options and Risk Allocation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 21.
2. Hodge, G.A.; Greve, C. On public–private partnership performance: A contemporary review. Public Work.
Manag. Policy 2017, 22, 55–78. [CrossRef]
3. Delorme, C.D.; Thompson, H.G.; Warren, R.S. Public infrastructure and private productivity:
A stochastic-frontier approach. J. Macroecon. 1999, 21, 563–576. [CrossRef]
4. Yuan, J.; Wang, C.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Li, Q. Developing Key Performance Indicators for Public-Private
Partnership Projects: Questionnaire Survey and Analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2012, 28, 252–264. [CrossRef]
5. BANK, W. Private Participation in Infrastructure Database. Available online: http://ppi.worldbank.org/
customquery (accessed on 19 September 2019).
6. W˛egrzyn, J. The perception of critical success factors for PPP projects in different stakeholders groups. Entrep.
Bus. Econ. Rev. 2016, 4, 81–92. [CrossRef]

625
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

7. Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A.; Trojanowski, D. Principles of public-private partnership financing–Polish

experience. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2013, 31, 329–344. [CrossRef]
8. Tang, L.; Shen, Q.; Cheng, E.W.L. A review of studies on Public–Private Partnership projects in the construction
industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 683–694. [CrossRef]
9. Heravi, G.; Hajihosseini, Z. Risk Allocation in Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects in Developing
Countries: Case Study of the Tehran-Chalus Toll Road. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2012, 18, 210–217. [CrossRef]
10. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Review of studies on the critical success factors for public-private partnership
(PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1335–1346. [CrossRef]
11. Xu, Y.; Yeung, J.F.Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, Q.W.M.; Wang, S.Q.; Ke, Y. Developing a risk assessment model for
PPP projects in China—A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 929–943. [CrossRef]
12. Shen, L.Y.; Platten, A.; Deng, X.P. Role of public private partnerships to manage risks in public sector projects
in Hong Kong. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 587–594. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, C.; Doloi, H. BOT application in China: Driving and impeding factors. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26,
388–398. [CrossRef]
14. Ministry of Finance. Notice of Standardizing Project Library in PPP Integrated Information Platform “No. 92”;
Ministry of Finance, Ed.; Ministry of Finance: Beijing, China, 2017.
15. Bridata. Data Custom Download. Available online: http://bridata.com/t#/tools (accessed on 19 September 2019).
16. Liang, Y.; Wang, H. Sustainable Performance Measurements for Public–Private Partnership Projects: Empirical
Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3653. [CrossRef]
17. Ke, Y.J.; Wang, S.Q.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I. Preferred risk allocation in China’s public-private partnership
(PPP) projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 482–492. [CrossRef]
18. Li, Y.; Wang, X.Y. Using fuzzy analytic network process and ISM methods for risk assessment of public-private
partnership: A China perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 168–183. [CrossRef]
19. Iyer, K.C.; Sagheer, M. Hierarchical Structuring of PPP Risks Using Interpretative Structural Modeling.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 151–159. [CrossRef]
20. Heinrich, H.W. Industrial Accident Prevention; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
21. Bird, F.E. Management Guide to Loss Control; International Loss Control Institute: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1974.
22. Choi, J.H.; Chung, J.; Lee, D.J. Risk perception analysis: Participation in China’s water PPP market. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 580–592. [CrossRef]
23. Ke, Y.; Wang, S.; Chan, A.P.C. Risk Allocation in Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects:
Comparative Study. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2010, 16, 343–351. [CrossRef]
24. Li, J.; Zou, P.X.W. Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2011, 137, 1205–1209. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, S.; Chan, A.P.C.; Feng, Y.; Duan, H.; Ke, Y. Critical review on PPP Research—A search from the
Chinese and International Journals. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 597–612. [CrossRef]
26. Liu, Y. Identification of Risk Factors Affecting PPP Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects in China: A Multiple
Case Study. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 16, 4983523. [CrossRef]
27. Song, J.; Sun, C.; Xia, B.; Liu, S.; Skitmore, M. Risk identification for PPP waste-to-energy incineration projects
in China. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 953–962. [CrossRef]
28. Jayasuriya, S. Challenges in public private partnerships in construction industry. Built Environ. Proj. Asset
Manag. 2019, 9, 172–185. [CrossRef]
29. Shrestha, A.; Chan, T.K.; Aibinu, A.A.; Martek, L.; Chen, C.; Asce, A.M. Risk Allocation Inefficiencies in
Chinese PPP Water Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018013. [CrossRef]
30. Xu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yeung, J.F.Y. Developing a Fuzzy Risk Allocation Model for PPP Projects in China.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 894–903. [CrossRef]
31. Jin, X.H. Model for efficient risk allocation in privately financed public infrastructure projects using
neuro-fuzzy techniques. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 1003–1014. [CrossRef]
32. Ameyaw, E.E.; Chan, A.P.C. Risk allocation in public-private partnership water supply projects in Ghana.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 187–208. [CrossRef]
33. Zou, P.X.W.; Li, J. Risk identification and assessment in subway projects: Case study of Nanjing Subway Line
2. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 1219–1238. [CrossRef]

626
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

34. Wu, Y.; Xu, C.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, K.; Xu, R. A risk assessment framework of PPP waste-to-energy
incineration projects in China under 2-dimension linguistic environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 602–617.
[CrossRef]
35. Mazher, K.M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Zahoor, H.; Khan, M.I. Fuzzy Integral-Based Risk-Assessment Approach for
Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018111. [CrossRef]
36. Thomas, A.V.; Kalidindi, S.N.; Ganesh, L.S. Modelling and assessment of critical risks in BOT road projects.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 407–424. [CrossRef]
37. Bai, L.B.; Li, Y.; Du, Q.; Xu, Y. A Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model for Sustainability Risk Evaluation
of PPP Projects. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1890. [CrossRef]
38. Zhang, L.; Sun, X.J.; Xue, H. Identifying critical risks in Sponge City PPP projects using DEMATEL method:
A case study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 949–958. [CrossRef]
39. Zheng, C.J.; Yuan, J.; Li, L.; Skibniewski, M.J. Process-Based Identification of Critical Factors for Residual
Value Risk in China’s Highway PPP Projects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 21, 5958904. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, Y.; Hao, Y.; Lu, Y.L. Improved Design of Risk Assessment Model for PPP Project under the Development
of Marine Architecture. J. Coast. Res. 2018, 83, 74–80. [CrossRef]
41. Wibowo, A.; Kochendoerfer, B. Selecting BOT/PPP Infrastructure Projects for Government Guarantee
Portfolio under Conditions of Budget and Risk in the Indonesian Context. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137,
512–522. [CrossRef]
42. Nguyen, D.A.; Garvin, M.J.; Gonzalez, E.E. Risk Allocation in US Public-Private Partnership Highway Project
Contracts. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018017. [CrossRef]
43. Alireza, V.; Mohammadreza, Y.; Zin, R.M.; Yahaya, N. An enhanced multi-objective optimization approach
for risk allocation in public-private partnership projects: A case study of Malaysia. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 41,
164–177. [CrossRef]
44. Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Wen, Y.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Wang, S. Cross-sectional analysis of critical risk factors for
PPP water projects in China. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014031. [CrossRef]
45. Ke, Y.; Wang, S.; Chan, A.P.C.; Cheung, E. Understanding the risks in China’s PPP projects: Ranking of their
probability and consequence. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2011, 18, 481–496. [CrossRef]
46. Effah Ameyaw, E.; Chan, A.P.C. Identifying public-private partnership (PPP) risks in managing water supply
projects in Ghana. J. Facil. Manag. 2013, 11, 152–182. [CrossRef]
47. Ameyaw, E.E.; Chan, A.P. Risk ranking and analysis in PPP water supply infrastructure projects. Facilities
2015, 33, 428–453. [CrossRef]
48. Xu, Y. Critical risk factors affecting the implementation of PPP waste-to-energy projects in China. Appl. Energy
2015, 158, 403–411. [CrossRef]
49. Shrestha, A. Risks in PPP water projects in China: Perspective of local governments. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2017, 143, 05017006. [CrossRef]
50. Valipour, A.; Yahaya, N.; Md Noor, N.; Mardani, A.; Antuchevičienė, J. A new hybrid fuzzy cybernetic
analytic network process model to identify shared risks in PPP projects. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2016, 20,
409–426. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, S.Q.; Dulaimi, M.F.Y.; Aguria, M. Risk management framework for construction projects in developing
countries. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2004, 22, 237–252. [CrossRef]
52. Aladağ, H.; Işık, Z. Design and construction risks in BOT type mega transportation projects. Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manag. 2019.
53. Valipour, A. A Fuzzy Analytic Network Process Method for Risk Prioritization In Freeway Ppp Projects:
An Iranian Case Study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 933–947. [CrossRef]
54. Jang, G.W. Bids-Evaluation Decision Model Development and Application for PPP Transport Projects: A Project
Risks Modeling Framework; Colorado State University: Denver, CO, USA, 2010.
55. World Bank Group. Available online: https://ppi.worldbank.org/en/ppi (accessed on 29 August 2019).
56. China Public-Private Partnerships Center. Available online: http://www.cpppc.org/ (accessed on
29 August 2019).
57. Pinto, J.K.; Mantel, S.J. The causes of project failure. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1990, 37, 269–276. [CrossRef]
58. Jamali, D. Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships (PPPs) in developing countries:
Insights from the Lebanese context. Int. J. Public Sector Manag. 2004, 17, 414–430. [CrossRef]

627
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

59. Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, D.W.M.; Yeung, J.F.Y. Overview of the Application of "Fuzzy Techniques" in Construction
Management Research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 1241–1252. [CrossRef]
60. De, P.K.; Rawat, A. A Fuzzy Inventory Model Without Shortages Using Triangular Fuzzy Number. Fuzzy Inf.
Eng. 2019, 3, 59–68. [CrossRef]
61. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
62. Paek, J.H.; Lee, Y.W.; Ock, J.H. Pricing construction risk: Fuzzy set application. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1993,
119, 743–756. [CrossRef]
63. Zhang, G.; Zou, P.X.W. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for joint venture
construction projects in China. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 771–779. [CrossRef]
64. Abdelgawad, M.; Fayek, A.R. Fuzzy reliability analyzer: Quantitative assessment of risk events in the
construction industry using fuzzy fault-tree analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 294–302. [CrossRef]
65. Fahmi, A. Expected Values of Aggregation Operators on Cubic Triangular Fuzzy Number and Its Application
to Multi-Criteria Decision Making Problems. Eng. Math. 2018, 2, 1–11. [CrossRef]
66. Wang, J. A synthetic method for knowledge management performance evaluation based on triangular fuzzy
number and group support systems. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 39, 11–20. [CrossRef]
67. Chakraborty, D.; Jana, D.K.; Roy, T.K. A new approach to solve fully fuzzy transportation problem using
triangular fuzzy number. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 26, 153–179. [CrossRef]
68. Li, R.J. Fuzzy method in group decision making. Comput. Math. Appl. 1999, 38, 91–101. [CrossRef]
69. Wu, W.W.; Lee, Y.T. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert
Syst. Appl. 2007, 32, 499–507. [CrossRef]
70. Govindan, K. Analysis of third party reverse logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 204–211. [CrossRef]
71. Mandal, A.; Deshmukh, S.G. Vendor Selection Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 1994, 14, 52–59. [CrossRef]
72. Govindan, K.; Shankar, K.M.; Kannan, D. Application of fuzzy analytic network process for barrier
evaluation in automotive parts remanufacturing towards cleaner production—A study in an Indian scenario.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 199–213. [CrossRef]
73. Luthra, S. Adoption of smart grid technologies: An analysis of interactions among barriers. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 554–565. [CrossRef]
74. Tseng, C.P.; Chen, C.W.; Tu, Y.P. A new viewpoint on risk control decision models for natural disasters.
Nat. Hazards 2011, 59, 1715–1733. [CrossRef]
75. Yanmei, L.; Yanmei, L.; Zi, C. Analysis of load factors based on interpretive structural model. J. Comput.
2012, 7, 1704–1711.
76. Li, Y. Risks assessment in thermal power plants using ISM methodology. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 279, 89–113.
[CrossRef]
77. Yadav, D.K.; Barve, A. Analysis of critical success factors of humanitarian supply chain: An application of
Interpretive Structural Modeling. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 12, 213–225. [CrossRef]
78. Chakraborty, K.; Mondal, S.; Mukherjee, K. Critical analysis of enablers and barriers in extension of useful
life of automotive products through remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 1117–1135. [CrossRef]
79. Tseng, M.L.; Lim, M.K.; Wu, K.J. Improving the benefits and costs on sustainable supply chain finance under
uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 218, 308–321. [CrossRef]
80. Chaudhuri, A. Risk propagation and its impact on performance in food processing supply chain: A fuzzy
interpretive structural modeling based approach. J. Model. Manag. 2016, 11, 660–693. [CrossRef]
81. Ragade, R.K. Fuzzy interpretive structural modeling. J. Cybern. 1976, 6, 189–211. [CrossRef]
82. Bhosale, V.A.; Kant, R. An integrated ISM fuzzy MICMAC approach for modelling the supply chain
knowledge flow enablers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 7374–7399. [CrossRef]
83. Han, Q. Public private partnership in brownfield remediation projects in China: Identification and structure
analysis of risks. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 87–104. [CrossRef]
84. Zhang, L. Risk identification and analysis for PPP projects of electric vehicle charging infrastructure based
on 2-tuple and the DEMATEL model. World Electr. Veh. J. 2019, 10, 4. [CrossRef]
85. Wu, Y. Risk management of public-private partnership charging infrastructure projects in China based on a
three-dimension framework. Energy 2018, 165, 1089–1101. [CrossRef]

628
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206

86. Li, Y.; Wang, X.Y. Risk assessment for public-private partnership projects: Using a fuzzy analytic hierarchical
process method and expert opinion in China. J. Risk Res. 2018, 21, 952–973. [CrossRef]
87. Ke, Y.J.; Wang, S.Q.; Chan, A.P.C. Risk Misallocation in Public-Private Partnership Projects in China. Int. Public
Manag. J. 2013, 16, 438–460. [CrossRef]
88. Wang, W. Assessing contributory factors in potential systemic accidents using AcciMap and integrated fuzzy
ISM—MICMAC approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 68, 311–326. [CrossRef]
89. Chan, A.P.C. Empirical Study of Risk Assessment and Allocation of Public-Private Partnership Projects in
China. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 136–148. [CrossRef]
90. The National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. Environmental protection tax law
of the People’s Republic of China. 2018. Available online: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c12435/201811/
5e7d3cfb3afa4ef79428c0ff7a29fdd7.shtml (accessed on 29 August 2019).
91. Zhang, S. PPP application in infrastructure development in China: Institutional analysis and implications.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 497–509. [CrossRef]
92. Chen, C.; Li, D.; Man, C.X. Toward Sustainable Development? A Bibliometric Analysis of PPP-Related
Policies in China between 1980 and 2017. Sustainability 2019, 11, 142. [CrossRef]
93. Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A.; Wegrzyn, J. Understanding of Public-Private Partnership Stakeholders as a
Condition of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1194. [CrossRef]
94. Li, L. Enhanced Cooperation among Stakeholders in PPP Mega-Infrastructure Projects: A China Study.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2791. [CrossRef]
95. Henjewele, C.; Fewings, P.; Rwelamila, P.D. De-marginalising the public in PPP projects through
multi-stakeholders management. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2013, 18, 210–231. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

629
sustainability

Article
Development of a Bridge Management System Based
on the Building Information Modeling Technology
Chunfeng Wan 1, *, Zhenwei Zhou 1 , Siyuan Li 1 , Youliang Ding 1 , Zhao Xu 1 , Zegang Yang 2 ,
Yefei Xia 2 and Fangzhou Yin 1
1 Key Laboratory of concrete and pre-stressed concrete structure of Ministry of Education, Southeast
University, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, China
2 Huatong Engineering Co, Ltd, Nanjing 210000, Jiangsu, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 20 July 2019; Accepted: 20 August 2019; Published: 23 August 2019

Abstract: With the development of the Chinese transportation industry, the number of bridges has
increased significantly, but this results in high pressure of structural maintenance and management.
Bridge management system (BMS) is critical for efficient maintenance and ensured safety of bridge
structures during long-term operation. Building information modeling (BIM) is an emerging
technology with powerful visualization and informatization capability, making it an ideal tool
for developing modern management systems. This paper introduces the development of a
bridge management system based on the BIM technology. Industry Foundation Classes (IFC)
and International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD) standards are studied and extended, and coding
rules are proposed for the Chinese bridge industry. Also, a standard structural modeling method is
proposed to fast build the bridge BIM model. Web-BIM oriented bridge management is proposed, and
portable devices are introduced into the system. Collaborative management is realized for different
users. The BIM-based maintenance management system is designed. Finally, a practical BIM-based
BMS is established for a long-span cable-stayed bridge in China. This system integrates the BIM
with the geographic information system (GIS) and contains information management, inspection
management, technical condition evaluation, and enables users to cooperate with each other. Such a
BMS could help to improve the management efficiency and ensure its normal operation, providing a
useful platform for the maintenance of massive bridges in China.

Keywords: BIM; information model; bridge; maintenance; management system

1. Introduction
In recent years, with the rapid development of the economy and the advancement of urbanization,
China’s bridge construction has reached its crescendo. Bridges play an important role in the
transportation system by supporting economic and social development and are therefore regarded
as one of the most important and indispensable infrastructures. According to the statistics, there are
currently more than 800,000 road bridges in China, ranking first in the world [1], which gives severe
pressure to their maintenance. However, at the present stage in China, people still mainly focus on
construction but not maintenance. During the long-time operation of the bridges, bridge structures
suffer different levels of damages caused by loads and environmental effects, which then reduces
the structures’ reliability and shortens their expected service life-time. For example, severe rust and
breakage of the boom can result in bridge collapse, such as the destruction of the Yi Bin south gate
bridge in China. There are also many similar cases of bridge defect or even destruction accidents, and
the main cause is the lack of maintenance [2,3].
Bridge management system (BMS) is an integrated computer system to provide decision support
throughout design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases. BMS can improve the efficiency of

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583; doi:10.3390/su11174583 631 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

management and decrease redundant costs in dealing with infrastructure management issues [4]. Many
countries invested a great deal of resources and efforts to develop efficient BMSs, including Finland [5],
Denmark [6], Germany [7], and Japan [8]. In China, Chinese Bridge Management System (CMBS) was
developed by the Ministry of Transport of China (MOT) in 1993 and has been widely used in China after
continuous improvement. The main functions of CBMS are to master the basic data of highway bridges,
supervise the regular inspection, and provide technical support for maintenance [9]. However, there
are still many problems during the application of CBMS. Firstly, the information stored in the system is
fragmented and isolated. Secondly, it is hard to realize visualization when the maintenance information is
separated from the bridge model and makes it difficult to handle for users. Additionally, bridge engineers
and managers find it difficult to collaborate with each other through the system.
In recent years, building information modeling (BIM) has become the most flourishing technology
in the building industry, and it has been extended to infrastructure engineering [10]. This technology
is a new approach and can be used for design, construction, and facilities management of structures,
wherein a digital representation of the building process is used to facilitate the exchange and the
interoperability of information [11]. The application of BIM brings about cost reduction, quality control,
and efficiency improvement throughout the life cycle of the project. A survey by Stanford University
in the United States pointed out that BIM can eliminate 40% of extra changes, reduce the contract
price by 10% by discovering and resolving conflicts, and shorten the project duration by 7% [12].
With these advantages, BIM has also been adopted by commercial software, such as Autodesk Revit,
ArchiCAD, and Allplan [13]. Furthermore, BIM has been successfully implemented in many bridges’
designs [14,15] and constructions [16–18]. However, the application in the maintenance phase started
relatively late. McGuire and Atadero [19] utilized the BIM to manage the inspection and evaluate
information. Abudayyeh and Al-Battaineh [20] adopted the as-built bridge information model for
maintenance and management. Some scholars [21–23] also combined the BIM with the traditional
management system to improve maintenance efficiency.
In China, however, the lifecycle bridge management system based on the BIM technology is still
under development. This paper introduces the development of a BIM-based BMS, which integrates the
geographic information system (GIS), develops the necessary Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and
International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD) standards, which are still in blank in China, implements
the Web-BIM oriented management, and realizes the collaborative work among all related users. This
BIM-based bridge management system is supposed to improve the efficiency of maintenance management
in order to satisfy the keen demand of maintenance management from substantive bridges in China.

2. System Goal and Requirement

With the huge inventory of Chinese bridges, maintenance of these bridges becomes especially
important and challenging. An informationalized management system is helpful and necessary. Many
BMS have been developed, and fairly good practical results have been achieved, such as GIS-based
BMS [24], visual inspection data-based BMS [25], and consecutive condition assessments-based
BMS [26]. In this paper, we introduce a BIM-based BMS. The main target is to increase the management
efficiency, make it visualized and easy to use, and provide a collaborative management platform for all
people involved in the projects. To realize it, the bridge management system should:
(1) Integrate the BIM with the GIS. As a node of the transportation network, geographic information
is crucial to the bridge. Moreover, our management is not only focused on a single bridge but the
bridges at a certain transportation line or a certain area. Information of the group of the bridges helps
to grasp the overall condition of the transportation and gives us guidance in maintenance.
(2) Realize the Web operable BIM system. Confining the users to computers is no longer welcome.
The system should be operable at the Web, reducing the dependency on heavy BIM software, and,
most importantly, making the portable device based operation possible.

632
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

(3) Have a unified database. The database of the system should support different kinds of data.
Information should have the same coding rule so that all data can be searched, retrieved, and analyzed.
Interaction between systems can also be implemented.
(4) Realize the function of structural inspection and monitoring. Condition of the bridges reveals
the safety of the bridges. Structural inspection, health monitoring, as well as the performance evaluation
are therefore the most important in the management system.
(5) Realize the collaborative management. By collaborating, all people with different jobs work
together; collaborative management is a key issue to increase the efficiency of the management.
(6) Achieve the multi-scale visualization during the management. Visualization is a significant
advantage of the BIM-based management system. It makes the system easy to understand and easy to
grasp for people.
As a popular informationalized method, the term BIM itself has several definitions, such as a
product, a collaborative process, and a facility life cycle management requirement [27]. It can also be
regarded as a combination of the concepts of building information modeling and building information
management. Three-dimensional representation, information integration, and digital models are the
three significant features of BIM. The collaborative management system utilizes the advantages of BIM
to provide better service for bridge maintenance, which makes up for deficiencies of the traditional
management system. Considering the merit of the BIM technology, a BIM-based bridge management
system is developed in this paper to improve the maintenance efficiency and release the management
pressure of large numbers of existing bridges.

3. Key Points of the Proposed Bridge Management System

3.1. BIM Standard Extension

As mentioned earlier, some relevant standards are still incomplete or blank in the bridge industry
in China. The lack of uniform BIM standards has become one of the main obstacles to the application
and the development of BIM [28]. Compared with other industries, civil engineering projects usually
include many stages—planning, design, and construction—and involve many participants. Different
types of BIM software are adopted in the process. Without a unified BIM standard, it is hard to achieve
information sharing among different stages and software, which leads to a large number of repetitive
works. It is necessary to establish information storage and exchange standard. Otherwise, the values
of BIM are not realized fully.

3.1.1. IFC Standard Extension

The IFC standard is an open international standard for the expression and the exchange of
building product data, supporting data exchange, and sharing throughout the life of a building project.
The architecture of the IFC standard consists of four levels; from the bottom to the top, these are
resource layer, core layer, interoperability layer, and domain layer.
At present, the IFC standard is incomplete, and it is hard to cover the whole life-cycle information of
a bridge [29]. Thus, it is necessary to make an extension by using EXPRESS language based on the existing
IFC framework. The bridge member, such as beam and abutment, can directly refer to IfcBuildingElement
in the existing IFC framework. However, structural defect, inspection, and evaluation information should
be defined by extending the attribute set. Table 1 defines the attribute set of bridge defect information and
reinforcement information. Tables 2 and 3 list the specific attribute name and the type of the attribute set.
Table 4 lists the attribute definition of the concrete crack. Finally, the bridge maintenance information is
attached to the bridge members through IFC relationship entity. In this way, the IFC framework targeting
at bridge maintenance is built completely, which provides a uniform standard for information exchange
and delivery. Bridge information models can be imported and exported by mainstream BIM software
such as Autodesk, Bently, Dassault, etc. Since the unstructured data cannot be directly expressed in the
existing IFC standard, it is necessary to extend to encoding the attribute information. Parameter and

633
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

attribute information sets can be added to unstructured data, including disease information, assessment
information, files, pictures, and videos. As shown in Figure 1, the attribute information set combined
with the structured information through data sources is compressed together and integrated with IFC
parsing. Thus, the entity model of the IFC extension for bridge disease and evaluation is completed, and
the structural defect extension rules are formed.

Table 1. Attribute set definition of maintenance information.

Attribute Set Name Applicable Entity Applicable Type Definition

Pset-diseasetype IfcBuildingElement UserDefined Disease type
Pset-reinforcetype IfcBuildingElement UserDefined Reinforcement method

Table 2. Attribute definition of structural defect information.

Attribute Name Attribute Type Data Type Definition

Crack IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Concrete crack
HungrySpots IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Voids and pits of concrete
Spalling IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Concrete spalling
Corrosion IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Corrosion of steel bar
Deformation IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Excessive deformation

Table 3. Attribute definition of reinforcement information.

Attribute Name Attribute Type Data Type Definition

ElargeSection IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Elarging section
BondFRP IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Bonding FRP
BondSteel IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean Bonding steel plate
ExternalPrestress IfcPropertySingleValue IfcBoolean External prestressing

Table 4. Attribute definition of crack.

Attribute Name Attribute Type Data Type Definition

CrackDirect IfcPropertySingleValue Ifclabel Direction of crack
CrackLength IfcPropertySingleValue Ifcreal Length of crack
CrackWidth IfcPropertySingleValue Ifcreal Width of crack

%U,0 &ROOHFWLRQ
LQIRUPDWLRQ V\VWHP

6WUXFWXUHGGDWD 8QVWUXFWXUHGGDWD

(OHPHQWSDUDPHWHUV 3DUDPHWHUVDQG
,)&H[WHQVLRQ
DQG,)&GDWD DWWULEXWHV

LQWHJUDWH 'HIHFW (YDOXDWLRQ 3LFWXUH

0RGHOFRPSUHVVLRQ ,)&SDUVLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ 'RFXPHQWV
LQIRUPDWLRQ YLGHRV

GDWDVRXUFH

TXDQWLWDWLYH TXDOLWDWLYH
PRGHOLQJ UHIHUHQFH
'DWDEDVH

Figure 1. Expression of attribute information using Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) extension.

634
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

3.1.2. IFD Standard Extension

The descriptions of information are usually distinguished in different languages and under
different situations, which makes information uncertain and inaccurate. The IFD defines a globally
unique identifier for each conception. In China, IFD standards have been established in the field of
architecture and railway industry [30]. However, the IFD standards in the highway field are still
blank in China. This paper proposes the IFD standard for Chinese high way industry and makes a
supplement for the highway bridge maintenance.
International Standard Organization (ISO) provides the information classification framework (ISO
12006-2). This framework [31] divides the building information into three categories: construction
resources, construction processes, and construction results. Construction results are produced by
applying construction resources to the construction process, as Figure 2 shows. Among them, the
primary construction resources include products, tools of production, roles of bridge engineers, roles of
bridge engineering organizations, information, materials, attributes, etc. Meanwhile, the construction
process includes the behavior of bridge engineering, the project phase of bridge engineering, the
professional field, etc. The construction results consist of the structures classified by function,
morphology, and so on. The classification and the encoding of the bridge maintenance information can
refer to or extend from the existing IFD standards. For the cases where the current standards cannot
satisfy the needs, information needs to be classified and encoded based on the ISO 12006-2 framework.

Figure 2. Classification framework.

The numerical method is applied to encode the information. The coding consists of two parts:
table name and coding of different levels (each two numbers represent one level), which are separated
by a dividing line. A part of coding is to directly quote IFD standards in the field of construction,
while another part is to extend the building standards. Coding should independently compile the
information. Among them, codes with initial numbers 71, 72, 41, 74, and 78 indicate bridge type, bridge
component, attribute, bridge behavior, and bridge characteristics, respectively. The coding principles
of the bridge type and the bridge component are shown in Figure 3. Because of the limitation of space,
Table 5 only lists a part of the engineering behavior information coding in the bridge maintenance
phase. Table 6 gives a part of the structural defect, evaluation, and reinforcement information coding
of the bridge. Defect levels, associated maintenance, and repair priorities are defined as well.

D ;; ;; ;; ;;

&RGLQJ &ODVVLILFDWLRQ 0DMRU 0HGLXP 0LQRU

SULQFLSOH FDWHJRU\ FDWHJRU\ FDWHJRU\

E
;; ;; ;;

&RGLQJ 'LYLVLRQDO &RPSRQHQW

3DUWW\SH
6WUXFWXUH W\SH

Figure 3. Coding principles using International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD) standard extension:
(a) bridge type, (b) bridge component.

635
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

Table 5. Engineering behavior information.

Coding First Level Second Level Third Level Forth Level

74-10 00 00 Investment
74-20 00 00 Design
74-30 00 00 Construction
74-40 00 00 Maintenance
... ... ... ... ...
74-40 10 00 Inspection
74-40 10 10 Daily Inspection
74-40 10 10 10 Day patrol
74-40 10 10 20 Night patrol

Table 6. Bridge maintenance information.

Coding First Level Second Level Third Level

78-10 00 00 Defect
78-10 01 00 Crack
78-10 01 01 Vertical crack
78-10 01 02 Horizontal crack
78-10 01 03 Longitudinal crack
... ... ... ...
78-10 01 04 Oblique crack
78-10 01 05 Bursting crack
78-10 01 06 Circumferential crack
78-10 01 07 Reticulate crack

3.2. Structural Modeling Method

In the bridge life-cycle planning, the information model is expected to be established during
the design and the construction phases and then delivered to the maintenance phase. However, at
present, most existing bridges did not apply the BIM technology in design and construction. Besides,
some as-built information models make it hard to satisfy the needs of bridge maintenance due to the
restriction of software. As a result, a bridge information model for maintenance needs to be rebuilt in
most cases. This part introduces a structural modeling method by using Autodesk Inventor, taking
the Grand Canal Bridge modeling process as an example. The background of Grand Canal Bridge is
introduced later in Section 5.
Autodesk Inventor is modeling software that has strong curve design capability, powerful
assembly, and information integration functions, which gives it the ability to build the model of
the Grand Canal Bridge. Since the workload of modeling is large, it is necessary to unify the basic
information such as coordinate system, unit, and storage path before building the model. The specific
modeling steps are as follows:
(1) Establish component models. The Grand Canal Bridge is divided by structural components
such as bridge decks, abutments, pile foundations, etc., and each component is modeled separately
by creating a “part” in the Autodesk Inventor. However, to build all the components one by one is
inefficient. The software provides a parametric method, which can be used for building different types
of components effectively.
(2) Assembly of components. The separate components need to be assembled to form the bridge
model. For components with geometric constraints, users can assemble them directly. For component
types without direct constraint relationships, the reference surfaces and the reference points need to be
created to help determine the location of the components. The assembly details can be seen in Figure 4.
(3) Level adjustment. The requirements of the model for maintenance are somewhat different
from design and construction. The model should have a hierarchical characteristic in the maintenance
phase because the structural safety assessment is usually carried out upwards from the bottom layer
to the top layer. Engineers could adopt the degrading function of the Autodesk Inventor to adjust

636
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

the hierarchical relationship among the components. The final model of the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand
Canal Bridge is shown in Figure 5.
(4) Information integration. After completing the model building, the information of design
and construction need to be attached to the bridge model. Autodesk Inventor provides common
information addition. If the types of information are not provided, users also can make a customized
expansion. The Bill of Material (BOM) table can be used for adding information in bulk.

Figure 4. Modeling process.

Figure 5. The Grand Canal Bridge model.

637
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

3.3. Web-BIM Oriented Management

Traditional bridge management systems are usually based on computers. Users need to install all
the software at computers and finish all the work in front of the computers. However, from another
point of view, users are confined to those computers. Nowadays, portable devices, such as pads
and cell phones, give significant convenience and flexibility to their management works. However,
portable devices do not have powerful enough central processing units (CPU) or sufficient memory
and cannot support heavy BIM software such as the Revit. Also, expensive BIM software needs to be
installed at each user’s computer. Data such as inspection data and monitoring data usually need to
be copied into some memory devices and then inputted into the system. All of these aspects make
the management system expensive and inefficient. Web-BIM techniques have been developed and
applied in the building management system but seldom in the bridge management system. Here, we
propose the Web-BIM based management system with the lightweight techniques, thus the system can
be operated at Web and could adapt to different users.
To develop the Web-BIM system, the structural model is required to be built using BIM software
such as Revit, and then the model is exported and transferred to a certain file with OBJ format. Such
OBJ files can then be uploaded to the server and used as a calling file to the webpage. By running the
JavaScript software and calling the WebGL program, the structural model can then be transferred to a
3D web file and can be displayed on internet browsers.
For a bridge structure, especially the large-scale bridges, the converted structural model is often
very huge and can hardly be displayed and operated smoothly. The lightweight model technique is
necessary to reduce the data volume of the model. To realize that, a three-step lightweight approach is
implemented as follows:
(1) Establish a hybrid space index. Separate the model into different scales and build the index.
Trim the model to show only the information within the visual field.
(2) Establish the Levels of Detail (LOD) to the model data. Erase the information related to the
unnoticeable details.
(3) Reduce the rendering batch numbers. Incorporate the objects with the same texture and render
them together so that rendering efficiency can be significantly increased.

4. Design of BIM-based maintenance management system

The development of the bridge management system requires the cooperation of different specialties.
The system takes management as the basic requirement, information technology as the means,
and bridge professional knowledge as the basis. This part introduces the detailed process of the
system design.

4.1. Computer Network Design

As Figure 6 shows, C/S (client/server) models and B/S (browser/server) models are currently
mainstream network structures. The C/S model belongs to a distributed application structure that
can partition tasks or workloads between the providers of a resource or service, called servers, and
service requesters are called clients. Often, there is communication between clients and servers over
a computer network on separate hardware, but both the client and the server may reside in the
same system. The device utilization is highly efficient, and the security can be ensured. However,
this structure is less scalable and is generally limited to local networks. The cost for the system’s
maintenance and upgrade is high. The B/S model developed along with the rise of the Internet. This
model centralizes the core part of the system's functional implementation to the server, which greatly
simplifies the client computer load and reduces the cost of system maintenance and up-gradation.
Users only need a web browser to get access to the system without installing a client. B/S model’s
security is relatively poor, which is why some measures such as permission control are needed.

638
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

Figure 6. Computer network.

In the bridge maintenance project, a large number of stakeholders are involved. The management
system usually has many users, including investors, managers, and engineers. They are likely to get
access to the system from different locations and with different access methods [such as a local area
network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and Internet/Intranet]. Taking the convenience and the
cost into consideration, the B/S structure is in accordance with the Web-BIM oriented management and
therefore more applicable to the BIM-based management system.

4.2. System Framework

The BIM-based system mainly includes four parts: data collection system, data center, model
layer, and evaluation system. The framework of the system is shown in Figure 7, which displays the
connections and the relationship between the different modules of the system.
The data center plays a significant role in the system, which consists of four layers: cloud resource
layer, access layer, storage layer, and application layer. The cloud resource layer provides computing
services by renting existing mature cloud computing resources for implementing various functions
of the data center. The access layer provides a unified interface for the import of different types of
data. The storage layer provides centralized storage of all bridge management-related data. The
application layer includes the implementation of various user-oriented functions such as data query,
data management, and database management tools.
The data center obtains static and dynamic data of bridges from scattered data resources through
the data acquisition system of bridge maintenance. The dynamic data collection system includes two
parts: the front-end collection program and the background management program. The front-end
collection program is mainly the mobile APP software, which is responsible for real-time collection,
input of maintenance data, and uploading information to the background management program.
During the process, the background management program is responsible for managing the collected
data and generating reports.
The bridge automatic analysis and evaluation system relies on the data center to obtain various
types of data required for bridge condition assessment, bridge data statistics, and in-depth analysis.
Through the calculation and the analysis of relevant models and algorithms, output evaluation,
statistics, and analysis results are obtained and submitted to the data center. Also, the evaluation
results would be presented in the bridge model.
The model layer is one of the important distinguishing points of the BIM-based bridge maintenance
management system compared with the traditional systems. Because the system is based on the
three-dimensional model for operations, it can make many maintenance services more intuitive and
vivid. Considering that the size of the model is huge and takes up too much memory, the model is
then transformed into a lightweight model to better display in the portable terminals. The model
layer correlates the information such as inspection, evaluation, and maintenance reinforcement in the
database with the component of the bridge, thus different information can be displayed through the

639
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

model. Therefore, the model layer part effectively connects the data layer part and the functional layer
part together and plays a central role in the whole system framework.

Figure 7. System framework.

5. The application on the Grand Canal Bridge

5.1. Project Overview

The Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal is the longest artificial river in the world, starting at Beijing,
passing through Tianjin and provinces of Hebei, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, and finally
arriving in the city of Hangzhou. The total length of the Grand Canal reaches 1776 kilometers. The
Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal Bridge is located at the south of Yangzhou, Ning yang Expressway. As
is shown in Figure 8, the main bridge across the Grand Canal is a double-tower semi-floating system
concrete cable-stayed bridge, the length of which is 464 meters (108 m + 248 m + 108 m). On each side
of the main bridge is 11-span (6 × 30 m + 5 × 30 m) prefabricated, prestressed concrete approach bridge.

640
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

(a) (b)
Figure 8. The Grand Canal Bridge: (a) bridge deck; (b) whole bridge.

5.2. Implementation in Grand Canal Bridge

Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal Bridge is classified in the second level according to its present
structural condition. Many shrinkage cracks have appeared on the cable-stayed bridge tower and the
main beams of the bridge. Some protective covers of the cable anchorages have deformed severely.
Moreover, there are a lot of longitudinal cracks on the box girder of the approach bridge and transverse
cracks on the wet joints. Some of the laminated rubber bearings have been damaged.
In order to realize the effective management and maintenance of the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand
Canal Bridge, the BIM-based management system was built. Firstly, the bridge model was established
using Inventor, and a special lightweight processing that could significantly reduce the data volume was
implemented to form the model layer. Then, the lightweight model was connected to the GIS system,
which showed the geographic information of the bridge, as Figure 9 shows. Also, it is associated with
the bridge maintenance information database. The database is an important foundation for further
evaluation and decision-making, which are the core parts of the function layer.

Figure 9. System homepage.

641
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

With the Web-BIM oriented approach, the stakeholders of the bridge can get access to the system
through the Internet. The homepage of the system includes three parts: function modules, bridge
model, and static information, as Figure 9 shows.

5.2.1. Static information module

Static information management in this BMS platform was established and is shown in Figure 10.
This system accumulates the scattered information in the design and the construction phases to
formulate the “bridge life card”. The results indicate that users could choose the members in the bridge
model to query corresponding static information such as design drawings, design parameters, material
usage, etc. Moreover, the model tree is one type of dendrogram based on the hierarchy characteristic of
the model, which is provided for accurate localization of members in the model. As Figure 11 shows,
users can unfold the dendrogram to click the pile foundation of thirteenth span, which was highlighted
in the model automatically.

Bridge card

Multi-condition
Model tree
search

Bridge data Components Quick search

3D model Attributes

Relevant drawing

Figure 10. Visualization management of static information.

Figure 11. Pile foundation of thirteenth span in the model tree.

642
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

5.2.2. Inspection and evaluation module

Inspection and evaluation have great significance for BMS. Based on this, we firstly designed an
inspection workflow to show how the bridge managers create and manage the inspection projects
on the website. As Figure 12 shows, the inspectors could log into the system through a mobile
application at the spots, collect all the structural defect information of the bridge, and then submit
to the system. Large bridges have high numbers of members; inspectors can localize the member
quickly by choosing it on the lightweight bridge model. In order to improve the accuracy of defect
information description, the system provides a standardized template according to the statistics and
the classification of common defects. After inspectors submit the defect information, managers can
check it in the system, as Figure 13 shows.

Figure 12. Inspection workflow.

Figure 13. Structural defect information in inspection module.

Based on the defect information collected by the mobile terminal, the evaluation system can
make automatic analysis and calculate the scores of the members according to the bridge maintenance
standard. Then, the bridge information model displays different colors on the members to intuitively
describe the technical condition of different levels of the whole bridge. Figure 14 shows the evaluation
results of the Grand Canal Bridge. The members in green color stayed in a safe state, and the members

643
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

in yellow suffered light damage. The red color means the members have been damaged severely, and
corresponding measurement should be considered.

Figure 14. Evaluation module.

Repair and reinforcement information of the bridge is stored in the system and can be searched by
users. The defects of the bridge, such as cracking, usually develop as the time grows. When the defect
develops to a certain extent and threatens the structure safety, the system automatically sends text
messages to bridge managers to remind them to create a repair and reinforcement project. Besides,
the system regularly generates statistics, graphs, and tables according to inspection and monitoring
information. Based on these functions, the BIM-based system helps to make auxiliary maintenance
decisions. As shown in Figure 15, users can view the relevant information on the repair plan in this
module. After this reinforcement and repair, one can determine whether the maintenance is qualified
or not according to the actual situation. The maintenance can be displayed through the model, and
the repair results can be check by the managers, as shown in Figure 16. Based on this, the detailed
information of the location and the effects of this reinforcement can be obtained.

Figure 15. The repair plan of bridge components.

644
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

7KHORFDWLRQRIPDLQWHQDQFH

Figure 16. The information of component maintenance in repair and reinforcement module.

5.3. Results and system benefits

After this maintenance system was built, it was applied to the company in charge of the
maintenance of the Grand Canal Bridge. Feedback was quite positive. Web-BIM oriented management
mode allows all users easy access to the system. Portable devices have also been applied in the
bridge inspection procedure. By scanning the tag at a component, the component can be identified,
and related structural defects can be directly reported by text description, picture, or report via the
portable device on site. The established BMS also provides a good platform upon which all users
can collaboratively work together. Owners, engineers, economists, managers, and other related staff
can share their data, release/receive tasks, track the progress, and even communicate with each other.
Multi-scale visualization of the bridge model helps to understand the structural condition easily.
Structural analysis and diagnosis algorithms can be embedded in the system and make the system
smart. All of these make the maintenance activity very convenient and efficient. It will be helpful for
the maintenance of many bridges in China, and its application is promising.

6. Conclusions
The number of bridges has increased significantly within the last three decades in China. The
large number of the bridges, however, brings great pressure to the owners, the industry, and even the
government for their maintenance. An effective and efficient bridge management system has become
indispensable to meet the massive demand of bridge maintenance.
In this paper, a bridge management system based on the BIM technology was proposed, developed,
and introduced. Necessary IFC and IFD standards were proposed as supplements according to the
actual needs of bridge maintenance, filling the blank in BIM standards of the bridge industry of
China. Web-BIM oriented management was proposed, and portable devices were introduced to the
system as well as the maintenance activity. The bridge modeling method was developed to build
the proper information model for bridges. Lightweight methods were also introduced to reduce the
volume of the model and make the system run smoothly. The system framework and functions were
designed. A BMS for a real long-span cable-stayed bridge was also built and established, which
incorporates the GIS and satisfies the main maintenance functions, such as information management,
bridge inspection, condition evaluation, repair and reinforcement, multi-scale visualization, and
collaborative management.
The proposed BIM-based bridge management system could improve management efficiency and
satisfy the need for maintenance of substantive bridges in China. The future of such a management

645
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

system is promising. However, at present, the BIM model cannot be connected to the finite element
model (FEM), which strongly limits the structural analysis ability. Also, data in the system are not
mined deep enough. Integration of the BIM model and the FEM model as well as the deep mining
of data using big data technology will make the system much more powerful and useful and could
provide a better platform for efficient bridge management.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.W. and Y.D.; methodology, C.W. and Y.D.; software, Z.X., Z.Y. and
Y.X.; formal analysis, Z.Z. and S.L.; investigation, Z.Z. and S.L.; data collection, Z.X. and F.Y.; writing—original
draft preparation, Z.Z. and S.L.; writing—review and editing, C.W. and Z.Z.; funding acquisition, C.W. and Y.D.;
supervision, C.W.
Funding: The research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China
(2017YFC0806001), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51578140), the Postgraduate Research
& Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (No. SJCX18_0027).
Conflicts of Interest: There is no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, L.; Zhou, G.; Han, Y.; Lin, H.; Wu, Y. Application of Internet of Things Technology and Convolutional
Neural Network Model in Bridge Crack Detection. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 39442–39451. [CrossRef]
2. Qi, J.; Issa, R.R.A.; Olbina, S.; Hinze, J. Use of Building Information Modeling in Design to Prevent
Construction Worker Falls. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2014, 28, A4014008. [CrossRef]
3. Gibb, A.; Haslam, R.; Gyi, D.; Hide, S.; Duff, R. What Causes Accidents? Institution of Civil Engineers: London,
UK, 2006; Volume 159, pp. 46–50.
4. Yin, Z.H.; Li, Y.F.; Guo, J.; Li, Y. Integration Research and Design of the Bridge Maintenance Management
System. Procedia Eng. 2011, 15, 5429–5434. [CrossRef]
5. Söderqvist, M.-K.; Veijola, M. The Finnish Bridge Management System. Struct. Eng. Int. 1998, 8, 315–319.
[CrossRef]
6. Lauridsen, J.; Bjerrum, J.; Andersen, N.H.; Lassen, B. Creating a Bridge Management System. Struct. Eng.
Int. 1998, 8, 216–220. [CrossRef]
7. Haardt, P. Development of a Bridge Management System for the German Highway Network. In Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management. IABMAS, Barcelona,
Spain, 14–17 July 2002.
8. Miyamoto, A.; Kawamura, K.; Nakamura, H. Bridge Management System and Maintenance Optimization
for Existing Bridges. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2000, 15, 45–55. [CrossRef]
9. Dai, K.; Smith, B.H.; Chen, S.E.; Sun, L. Comparative study of bridge management programmes and practices
in the USA and China. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2014, 10, 577–588. [CrossRef]
10. Costin, A.; Adibfar, A.; Hu, H.; Chen, S.S. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for transportation
Infrastructure—Literature review, applications, challenges, and recommendations. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94,
257–281. [CrossRef]
11. Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling For
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
12. Gao, J.; Fischer, M. Framework and Case Studies Comparing Implementations and Impacts of 3D/4D Modeling across
Projects; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2008.
13. Martínez-Aires, M.D.; López-Alonso, M.; Martínez-Rojas, M. Building information modeling and safety
management: A systematic review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 101, 11–18. [CrossRef]
14. Shin, H.; Lee, H.; Oh, S.; Chen, J. Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Column Based on BIM.
Procedia Eng. 2011, 14, 2160–2163. [CrossRef]
15. Liu, W.; Guo, H.; Li, H.; Li, Y. Retracted: Using BIM to Improve the Design and Construction of Bridge
Projects: A Case Study of a Long-Span Steel-Box Arch Bridge Project. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2014, 11, 125.
[CrossRef]
16. Lee, K.M.; Lee, Y.B.; Shim, C.S.; Park, K.L.; Shim, C. Bridge information models for construction of a concrete
box-girder bridge. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2012, 8, 687–703. [CrossRef]
17. Shim, C.; Yun, N.; Song, H.; Shim, C. Application of 3D Bridge Information Modeling to Design and
Construction of Bridges. Procedia Eng. 2011, 14, 95–99. [CrossRef]

646
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4583

18. Fanning, B.; Clevenger, C.M.; Ozbek, M.E.; Mahmoud, H. Implementing BIM on infrastructure: Comparison
of two bridge construction projects. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 20, 04014044. [CrossRef]
19. McGuire, B.; Atadero, R.; Clevenger, C.; Ozbek, M. Bridge Information Modeling for Inspection and
Evaluation. J. Bridg. Eng. 2016, 21, 04015076. [CrossRef]
20. Abudayyeh, O.; Al-Battaineh, H.T. As-Built Information Model for Bridge Maintenance. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
2003, 17, 105–112. [CrossRef]
21. Marzouk, M.M.; Hisham, M. Bridge Information Modeling in Sustainable bridge Management. In Proceedings
of the Integrating Sustainability Practices in the Construction Industry, Kansas City, MI, USA, 23–25 March
2011; pp. 457–466.
22. Okasha, N.M.; Frangopol, D.M. Computational platform for the integrated life-cycle management of highway
bridges. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 2145–2153. [CrossRef]
23. Shim, C.S.; Kang, H.R.; Dang, N.S.; Lee, D.K. Development of BIM-based bridge maintenance system for
cable-stayed bridges. Smart Struct. Syst. 2017, 20, 697–708.
24. She, T.H.; Sarshar, M. A Geographic Information System (GIS)-Based Bridge Management System. Comput. Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 1999, 14, 417–427. [CrossRef]
25. Estes, A.C.; Frangopol, D.M. Updating Bridge Reliability Based on Bridge Management Systems Visual
Inspection Results. J. Bridg. Eng. 2003, 8, 374–382. [CrossRef]
26. Roelfstra, G.; Hajdin, R.; Adey, B.; Brühwiler, E. Condition Evolution in Bridge Management Systems and
Corrosion-Induced Deterioration. J. Bridg. Eng. 2004, 9, 268–277. [CrossRef]
27. NIBS. United States National Building Information Modeling Standard Version 1—Part 1: Overview, Principles, and
Methodologies, Final Report; National Institutes of Building Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
28. Ma, Z.L.; Wei, Z.H.; Wu, S.; Zhe, L. Application and extension of the IFC standard in construction cost
estimating for tendering in China. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 196–204.
29. Laakso, M.; Kiviniemi, A.O. The IFC standard: A review of history, development, and standardization,
information technology. ITcon 2012, 17, 134–161.
30. Li, Z.; Man, Q. Research Front and Review of BIM Based on China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Kunming,
China, 27–28 September 2014; pp. 911–921.
31. ISO 120096-2. Building Construction-Organization of Information about Construction Works-Part2:
Framework for Classification of Information. 2015. Available online: https://www.sis.se/api/document/
preview/899471/ (accessed on 17 August 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

647
sustainability

Article
Promoting Owners’ BIM Adoption Behaviors to
Achieve Sustainable Project Management
Hongping Yuan 1 , Yu Yang 2, * and Xiaolong Xue 1
1 School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2 School of Economics and Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 20 June 2019; Accepted: 12 July 2019; Published: 18 July 2019

Abstract: Although building information modeling (BIM) has a promising future in the architecture,
engineering and construction industry, its wider adoption and implementation is desired. Grounded
with a technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework and the theory of technology
acceptance model (TAM), this study extracted “social influence”, “organizational support”, “BIM
technical features”, and “government BIM policies” as four key external antecedents—in reference
to the particular BIM practices in China—and proposed a model to predict project owners’ BIM
adoption behaviors. To test the proposed model, structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was
applied for configuration analyses on a sample of 188 project owners from the Chinese construction
industry. Results show that BIM technical features, and government BIM policies have positive effects
on perceived usefulness, but social influence and organizational support have no significant influence
on perceived usefulness. Furthermore, both social influence and BIM technical features have positive
effects on perceived ease of use, while organizational support and government BIM policies have
no significant influence on perceived ease of use. Attitude plays a significant intermediary role
among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavior intention. Additionally, attitude
significantly affects behavior intention, and behavior intention can also affect BIM adoption behavior.
This study is the first attempt to investigate project owners’ behaviors toward BIM adoption and the
findings are expected to provide a better understanding of the essential elements of project owners’
BIM adoption behaviors and guide industry practitioners in developing proper strategies to achieve
more effective BIM implementation.

Keywords: building information modeling; project owner; attitude; behavior; technology

acceptance model

1. Introduction
In the last decade, with the rise of information technologies (ITs), a paradigm shift of industrial
informatization has translated into a critical national strategy [1–3]. As a pillar of the domestic
economy, the architecture, construction and engineering (AEC) industry in China is on the cusp of
transition from an extensive and high-consumption pattern to a new one driven by high efficiency,
sustainability and informatization. According to Eastman et al. [4], BIM is “a new approach to design,
construction, and facilities management, in which a digital representation of the building process
(is used) to facilitate the exchange and interoperability of information in digital format”. Therefore,
BIM is an innovative paradigm of building information digitalization resorting on certain specific
technologies or software which integrates cash flows, information flows, logistics throughout the
project lifecycle and reduces the information asymmetry, unforeseen changes and re-doings effectively,
turning the utopia of construction visualization to reality. In the meantime, existing literature suggests
the integration of environment and economic assessment for the promotion of sustainable construction

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905; doi:10.3390/su11143905 649 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

is considerably important [5,6], and it happens that BIM is an ideal tool which can integrate the
assessment of sustainable construction as well as resource management efficiently, such as benefit-cost
analysis of economically sustainable design, energy-consumption analysis for a sustainable built
environment assessment, architectural information sharing for sustainable facilities management and
stakeholder relationship management. Therefore, a wide adoption and application of BIM is bound to
strike and even overturn the traditional development patterns of the Chinese AEC industry, embedding
these sustainable assessments throughout project lifecycle and thus contributing to sustainable project
management.
As such, BIM adoption has become one of the central topics among AEC studies over the past
decade. Previous studies have attempted to determine the major factors motivating BIM adoption
among project stakeholders, with the aid of various means including questionnaire surveys, interviews,
and case studies. For instance, Cao et al. [7] found that the motivation of design units and general
contractors in BIM adoption is closely linked to the characteristics of organizational nature and project
scale. Meanwhile, evidence from the comparative case study in China and Australia indicated that BIM
adoption strategies vary in building construction and infrastructure engineering industries [8]. There
are also studies that have compiled and sorted a collection of factors that influence BIM adoption, such as
effective leadership and organizational support [9–12], sufficient BIM human resources [13,14], and the
availability of information and technology [11,15]. Similarly, the large amount of capital required for BIM
adoption and application is also a Gordian knot to be unhitched by potential BIM participants [13,16,17].
Moreover, the lack of universal standards of BIM implementation [18] and the indistinct legal bounds
of a series of work outcomes related to BIM (such as the BIM model) make the environment of BIM
implementation immature, and this restricts the adoption and application of BIM [14].
The above studies are significant in promoting a wider adoption and application of BIM through
addressing major barriers. However, unfortunately, the majority of current literature has ignored
a vital stakeholder in AEC projects—the project owner, (e.g., government, real estate developers),
who takes overall responsibility for project investment, initiation, construction or even the operation
and management of facilities. Holding preponderant advantages in project planning and controlling
the entire project lifecycle, the project owner could enhance project performance by requiring and
driving other stakeholders (such as architects, general contractors and so on) to get involved in BIM
adoption and implementation. Some implications from prior literature have proven the important
role of the project owner in driving BIM adoption. For example, Ling et al. [19] pointed out that the
superiority of project owners can effectively promote the application of innovative technologies. In a
recent study, Cao et al. [7] also found that project owners’ support for BIM application can facilitate
better stakeholder cooperation and get more stakeholders engaged in BIM implementation. However,
these studies are mainly conducted based on qualitative analysis or mostly focus on identifying factors
hindering BIM acceptance and adoption and, thus, fail to reveal the mechanism that drives BIM
adoption behavior. In addition, very limited studies have attempted to investigate project owners’ BIM
adoption behaviors, though some of them have suggested that project owners are critical in promoting
BIM acceptance and adoption.
Given the research gap, we believe that understanding why the project owner adopts BIM is an
important step in increasing the use of BIM within projects and potentially improving BIM adoption
efficiency. The research questions we are attempting to answer are “What factors influence project
owners’ acceptance of BIM? And how do these factors result in project owners’ final BIM adoption
behaviors?” To address these research questions, we have developed and tested a model integrating
the TOE framework and the theory of the technology acceptance model (TAM) to explain project
owners’ BIM adoption behaviors.
We also believe that the lack of a theoretical foundation for this stream of research has limited the
contributions of previous research and prevented project stakeholders from understanding what makes
effective BIM adoption and implementation. It is necessary to understand the effects of these factors
hindering BIM adoption and determine the critical path impact on this behavior to develop effective

650
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

BIM adoption measures and design practical strategies that can lead to wider BIM application. The
present study helps BIM researchers describe how project owners’ adoption behavior can be driven
and pilot project owners make informed decisions as to what strategies they can use to promote BIM
application in their projects and organizations.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly reviews research on BIM
adoption factors, the theory of the TAM and the technology–organization–environment framework.
Then, we present research hypotheses and the research model, followed by an introduction of the
research method including the instrument development and validation process. After that, we present
data analyses and results, and suggest the implications for research and practice as well as limitations
of the current research. Finally, we conclude this paper with a brief summary in the conclusions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Influencing Factors of BIM Adoption

BIM has been recognized as a pivotal information technology in the AEC sectors due to its
strength of integrating the continuous flows of funds, information and logistics throughout the project
lifecycle [4]. Admittedly, the adoption and application of BIM would inevitably make a profound
impact on driving the development of informatization in the AEC industry. Thus, BIM has attracted a lot
more attention from AEC researchers in recent years. For instance, Gu et al. [20] posited that although
BIM develops with promising prospects, both technical and non-technical factors hamper its diffusion.
Based on BIM implementation practices in China, Cao et al. [7] found that the BIM competitiveness
of construction firms is closely related to the social network structure in which they are located.
An empirical study by Son et al. [21] showed that top management support, subjective norms, and
technical compatibility are most important in affecting designers’ BIM adoption. In addition, qualified
employees, efficient leadership, the availability of information, and the complexity of the project itself
are also fundamental factors for successful BIM implementation [11,13]. Based on investigations on
potential BIM adopters in the UK, Howard et al. [22] suggested that performance expectations do not
directly affect the adoption bias of BIM potential adopters, but improving the strategic policy and
the incentive mechanism would be a great help for accelerating BIM diffusion. Liu et al. [23] pay
more attention to factors of BIM cooperation from the individual, technological and organizational
dimensions among design and construction firms. For BIM users, more emphasis was placed on the
information quality needed when implementing BIM and related exoteric services, because these
factors will directly affect their satisfaction with BIM [24]. Additionally, based on institutional theory,
Cao et al. [25] found that the homomorphism from both mandatory and imitation systems would
significantly affect the application of BIM at the project level, and the support from project owners
would be conducive to the acceptance of BIM in certain circumstances. By conducting a case study
based on the theory of innovation diffusion, Gledson et al. [26] identified the inter-organizational
factors driving BIM diffusion at the project level and provided exhaustive schemes to address the
individual, managerial, environmental, and technological challenges experienced by construction
firms in the process of BIM diffusion.

2.2. Technology Acceptance Model

Currently, the technology acceptance model proposed by Davis [27] (see Figure 1) has become a
classical and parsimonious model, which has been widely used to explain the behavior of information
technology adoption or acceptance. In line with the TAM, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use are regarded as two essentials to explain the use of a technology [27]. According to the theoretical
framework of the TAM, an individual’s information technology adoption behavior is determined by
his/her behavioral intention. Moreover, attitude and perceived usefulness influence his/her behavioral
intention of using a technology, which would necessarily in turn affect the actual system usage. As a
key construct, attitude is influenced by both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Davis [28]

651
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

also found that, to some extent, an individual’s perceived ease of use of a particular technology will
affect his/her perceived usefulness of this technology. In addition, external variables (such as technical
features, user intervention, etc.) can indirectly affect user behavior through perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use [28]. Because there is no specific and strict constraint to external variables,
the TAM is powerful in explaining user behavior of an information system with high parsimony
and conciseness. As such, the TAM has been widely applied to predict various types of technology
acceptance behaviors, including Smart Grid [29], virtual reality [30], LNG [31], and transportation [32].
In the context of BIM adoption, the research of Lee et al. [10] was one of the few existing studies that
applied the TAM to investigate the BIM adoption of designers, contractors and engineers. However, it
still did not approach the crucial role that project owners play in BIM adoption processes.

3HUFHLYHG
8VHIXOQHVV

([WHUQDO %HKDYLRUDO
$WWLWXGH %HKDYLRU
9DULDEOHV ,QWHQWLRQ

3HUFHLYHG
(DVHRI8VH

Figure 1. Classical technology acceptance model.

2.3. Technology–Organization–Environment Framework (TOE)

The TAM, however, has some limitations when extended beyond the workplace because its
fundamental constructs do not fully reflect a variety of the user task environments and constraints.
Furthermore, Legris et al. [33] also suggested that the TAM is a useful model but needs to be
integrated into a broader model that includes variables related to both human and social factors. To
take these limitations of the TAM theory into account, in this present study, we incorporated the
technology–organization–environment framework (TOE) (see Figure 2) as the theoretical foundation
to clustering various impacts on project owners’ BIM adoption. This framework describes factors
that influence technology adoption and its likelihood, and the process by which a firm adopts and
implements technological innovations is jointly influenced by the technological, organizational, and
environmental contexts.

7HFKQRORJ\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ (QYLURQPHQW

7HFKQRORJLFDOLQQRYDWLRQ
GHFLVLRQPDNLQJV

Figure 2. Technology–organization–environment framework.

Since its origination, the TOE framework has aroused increasing attention and been applied in
the elements and factors studies of technology innovation among research fields such as tourism,
manufacturing (3D printing, RFID, etc.), business (electronic data interchange, customer relationship
management, etc.), and project management [34–39]. As indicated by previous studies, the TOE
framework is supported by an abundance of empirical results, so it offers a solid foundation to unravel
the conundrum behind project owners’ BIM adoption decisions.

652
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

3. Theory and Hypotheses

In this study, we extend the classical TAM by identifying “social influence”, “organizational
support”, “BIM features”, and “government BIM policies” based on the TOE framework as external
variables and propose a conceptual model to predict project owners’ BIM adoption behavior
(see Figure 3). The model is explained with detailed research hypotheses in the following section.

%,07HFKQLFDO
)HDWXUHV
7)
3HUFHLYHG
8VHIXOQHVV
˄38˅ +
2UJDQL]DWLRQ
+
6XSSRUWV
26 $WWLWXGHWRZDUG + %,0%HKDYLRUDO + %,0$GRSWLRQ
+ %,0$GRSWLRQ ,QWHQWLRQ %HKDYLRU
˄$7˅ ˄%,˅ ˄%˅
6RFLDO,QIOXHQFH +
6, 3HUFHLYHG(DVH
RI8VH
˄3(8˅
*RYHUQPHQW
%,03ROLFLHV
*3 72( 7$0
Figure 3. A technology–organization–environment (TOE)- and technology acceptance model
(TAM)-based model of project owners’ building information modeling (BIM) adoption behavior.

3.1. BIM Behavioral Intention and BIM Adoption Behavior

Behavioral intention is defined as “an indication of an individual’s readiness to perform a given
behavior”. Therefore, behavioral intention is assumed to be an immediate antecedent of behavior [40].
Based on findings from case studies, Arayici et al. [41] found that the rapid promotion of BIM in
the UK is benefitted precisely from the user’s adoption decision, which leads to wide BIM adoption.
Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Behavioral intention will have a positive influence on BIM adoption behavior.

3.2. Attitude toward BIM and BIM Behavioral Intention

Attitude refers to one’s subjective positive or negative judgment of a technology. Previous studies
have shown that attitude has a certain influence on behavioral intention. Through investigating
American consumers’ behavior of car buying, Etter [42] found that attitudes can significantly affect
purchase intentions. In addition, in a Taiwanese study focusing on online shopping, Wu [43] also found
that attitudes directly influence purchasing decisions. Hereby, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. Attitude toward BIM adoption will positively affect the BIM behavioral intention.

3.3. Perceived Usefulness and BIM Behavioral Intention

Perceived usefulness refers to the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
technology would enhance his/her job performance [27]. Previous studies have proved that perceived
usefulness has a direct effect on users’ behavioral intention to use a technology [44,45]. Studies on
BIM adoption in South Korea indicate that the perceived usefulness of BIM will significantly affect
the behavioral intention of all parties involved in the construction industry [21,46]. Based on the
comparative study of the acceptance of BIM in South Korea and the United States, Lee et al. [47] found
that perceived usefulness had a significant impact on BIM behavioral intention at both the individual
level and organizational level. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3. Perceived usefulness will positively affect BIM behavioral intention.

653
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

3.4. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and Attitude toward BIM Adoption
In line with the TAM, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are essential variables
framing an individual’s technology acceptance behavior. Studies on the adoption of information
technology have shown that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can have a significant
impact on users’ attitudes toward BIM Adoption [27,48]. In addition, in the context of BIM adoption,
perceived ease of use also shows a positive effect on perceived usefulness [24]. We, thus, propose the
following hypotheses:
H4. Perceived usefulness of BIM will positively affect attitude toward BIM adoption.
H5. Perceived ease of use will positively affect attitude toward BIM adoption.
H6. Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on perceived usefulness of BIM.

3.5. Social Influence, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use

Social influence refers to the degree of an individual’s perception that most people who are
important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question [49]. The rationale for
a direct effect of social influence on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use is that people may
choose to accept the same perspective, even if they are not so favorable toward the opinions. If they
believe one or more important referents (such as superiors, peers, partners, etc.), they are sufficiently
motivated to comply with the referents (especially superiors) based on affiliation and/or respect [50].
In an early study on bandwagon innovation diffusion, Rosenkopf and Abrahamson [51] pointed out
that bandwagons have a positive feedback loop in which information generated by more adoptions
creates a stronger bandwagon pressure, and a stronger bandwagon pressure prompts more adoptions.
Therefore, a successful BIM application by competitors and partners will, to some extent, affect project
owners’ perception of the usefulness and usability of this innovative technology, which, in turn, affects
BIM adoption as a whole [11,25]. Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H7a. Social influence has a positive influence on project owners’ perceived usefulness of BIM.
H7b. Social influence has a positive influence on project owners’ perceived ease of use of BIM.

3.6. Organizational Support, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use

Organizational support refers to an individual’s perception on the degree of policy, resources and
other kinds of support provided by the organization for the use of technology. Herein, it refers to
the support provided by the project organization to the project owner to adopt BIM. Organizational
support carries great weight in motivating employees’ potential, allocating resources and enhancing
work performance [52–54]. It is easily understandable that sufficient organizational support will
exert an incentive effect on employees and improve their sense of organizational backup. Gaining
strong support from their organizations, employees will have a sense of being trusted which fulfills
their expectation, making them more dedicated to their job, and more likely to demonstrate that they
can achieve the organizational goals. However, if employees lose the necessary support (such as
information, resources, equipment or training, etc.), their work procedures and work quality will be
adversely affected, leading to employees’ becoming upset and eventually frustrated [55,56].
In the information technology field, Lin et al. [57] found that organizational high-level support
can improve employees’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of information technology.
Recently, Song et al. [12] implied that, as a new project management technology, successful BIM
adoption cannot be realized without the superincumbent financial and policy support in the early
stage of software and hardware procurement and personnel training. Furthermore, there is some
evidence showing that due to the fact that BIM is often not launched or advocated by the leader or

654
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

decision-makers in organizations, it often fails to allocate sufficient human, material and financial
resources to support BIM adoption [58]. Based on the above, we propose two hypotheses:
H8a. Organizational support to adopt BIM will positively impact project owners’ perceived usefulness of BIM.
H8b. Organizational support to adopt BIM will positively impact project owners’ perceived ease of use of BIM.

3.7. BIM Technical Features, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use
BIM technical features normally reflect the fitness, ease, compatibility and interoperability of BIM
application. In line with a theory of innovation diffusion, Rogers [59] pointed out that the application
of an innovation technology needs to be consistent with the existing value, demand and the experience
of potential adopters. In particular, when it comes to introducing or adopting a new technology, firms
will compare it with the existing technology, and consider the relevant advantages and characteristics
of the two technologies in various aspects. Despite the huge potential value, if BIM is ineffective at
interoperating or fitting current work procedures, it will not likely be accepted and adopted by project
owners within a short period, as these project owners would be greatly concerned about the risk of
abundant inputs (such as financial investments, human resources, etc.). Kim et al. [46] identified
major obstacles to BIM adoption, including the actual software operation, the complexity of BIM
workflows and the gap between the actual expectations of organizations. Evidence from previous
studies clearly indicates that the lack of compatibility between different BIM software hinders the
successful application of BIM in the construction industry [13,60]. For example, the compatibility of
BIM will significantly affect users’ perceived ease of use [21]. Accordingly, this study proposes the
following hypotheses:
H9a. BIM technical features will have a positive effect on project owners’ perceived usefulness of BIM.
H9b. BIM technical features will have a positive effect on project owners’ perceived ease of use of BIM.

3.8. Government BIM Policies, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use
Government BIM policies generally refer to related policies issued by the government to promote
BIM adoption. As shown in the Report of Business Value of BIM in China [58], the respondents
who are project owners asserted that lacking first-hand experience deters them from joining BIM
adoption and application practices. Even after the project owners adopted BIM, they usually need to
emulate the existing projects which successfully applied BIM to guide their actual BIM applications
and implementation. Thus, if the government could launch BIM pilot projects in batches and develop
guidance for BIM application, this would significantly reduce the difficulty of BIM application, which
would be likely to attract more project owners to adopt BIM in the first place. Some countries’ experience
has proven that appropriate financial subsidies would merit BIM adoption and application (such as
in Singapore). For example, Succar [61] and Eadie et al. [62] indicated that government policies are
among the primary factors influencing BIM adoption. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H10a. Government BIM policies will have a positive effect on project owners’ perceived usefulness of BIM.
H10b. Government BIM policies will have a positive effect on project owners’ perceived ease of use of BIM.

4. Research Method

4.1. Measurements and Pilot Survey

A structured questionnaire with two sections was designed and used for data collection. The first
section covered demographic information of respondents including gender, age, education background,
position, work experience and BIM experience. The second section included 24 measurement items
(see Table 1 for details) which were designed to elicit project owners’ assessments of BIM adoption

655
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

on a five-point Likert-type scale, with 1–5 indicating “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “generally”,
“agree” and “strongly agree”, respectively. All of these measurements were adopted from existing
studies and reworded to render the items relevant to BIM adoption for project owners in China.
Specifically, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), attitude (AT), and behavioral
intention (BI) were developed based on the measures previously validated by Davis [27,28,46,63,64]
and Xu et al. [18], and were reworded in accordance with the context of BIM adoption among Chinese
project owners. Social influence (SI) was adopted from Kim et al. [46], Venkatesh and Davis [63], and
contains the two dimensions of authoritative influences by intra-firm and inter-firm individuals and
associations. Organizational support (OS) was operationalized to reflect the different impacts that
the organization’s resources exert on BIM adoption. Similar items had previously been validated by
Xu et al. [18] and Cao et al. [25]. The construct of BIM technical features (TF) is derived from the
research of Xu et al. [18], Kim et al. [46] and Song et al. [12] on the basis of BIM adoption practice
in mainland China, with three items indicating the degree of interoperability and compatibility and
fitness of BIM in project owners’ daily tasks. Referring to the study of Song et al. [12], we replenished
and extended the connotations of the vital construct, “Government BIM Policies”(GP), with distinctive
Chinese characteristics. Therewith, three BIM experts who have eminent experience in BIM research
and application were invited to participate in the pilot survey. Shortly after the pilot survey was
conducted, the experts were asked to provide advice regarding the refinement of items and their
personal understanding of BIM adoption. According to the experts’ advice, items with ambiguity were
refined, and the items with tautology were eliminated. After that, we sent the modified measurement
items to these experts again and asked them to review whether the amendments strictly complied with
their intentions to ensure the applicability of measurement items. The ultimate measurement items of
these constructs are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Measurement items.

Variables Items Sources

SI1 My colleague suggests that I should use BIM at work.
Social Influence (SI) SI2 Top management thinks that I should use BIM at work. [44,63]
SI3 Cooperative partners think that I should use BIM at work.
OS1 My organization provides good BIM training for BIM use.
Organization Support (OS) OS2 My organization allocates sufficient funds for BIM facilities. [16,23]
There are enough professionals in my organization to support
OS3
BIM use.
TF1 BIM fits my daily tasks.
BIM Technical Features (TF) TF2 BIM is equal to my work demand. [16,44,56]
TF3 BIM is of interoperability with other technology platforms.
It is in favor of reducing the cost of BIM use if government
GP1
exerts the subsidy policy for our BIM implementation.
Government BIM Policies (GP) [56]
It will provide useful guidance for BIM use if government can
GP2
launch a BIM pilot program.
It will promote BIM use if government streamlines the
GP3
approval procedures of BIM projects.
PU1 Using BIM will reduce the time of finishing tasks.
Perceived Usefulness (PU) PU2 Using BIM will enhance my job performance. [25,26]
It would provide more chance to get promoted or raises if I
PU3
can use BIM.
PEU1 It is easy to learn and on top of BIM.
Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) PEU2 I can easily and skillfully use BIM to handle work tasks [25,26]
PEU3 Overall, I think BIM is easy to use.
AT1 I do not resist using BIM in my work.
Attitude toward BIM (AT) [26,65]
AT2 I like using BIM in my work.
BI1 I would like to use BIM in my work.
Behavioral Intention (BI) [44,63]
BI2 I expect that my frequency of BIM will increase in the future.
B1 I will use BIM at work.
BIM Behavior (B) [65]
B2 I will recommend BIM to others (colleagues, friends, etc.)

656
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

4.2. Sampling and Data Collection

In this study, we targeted project owners in mainland China involved in BIM adoption as qualified
respondents for data collection. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed by means of face-to-face
interviews (number: 200) and an online survey platform (number: 100). In the face-to-face part,
before the formal survey, we conducted an interview with each interviewee to ensure that he/she had
first-hand experience of BIM practice. As for the online channel, targeted delivery was the only step
taken to send the questionnaire to the preselected project owners involved in BIM adoption. In addition,
to obtain sufficient samples, a snowball sampling method was utilized to increase the sample size as
we invited the surveyed respondents to share more information regarding knowledgeable participants
in other BIM projects or organizations. Any questionnaire with incomplete information or missing
values was excluded. Finally, 188 valid questionnaires were received (156 (83%) from the face-to-face
interviews and 32 (17%) from the online platform). The valid response rate of face-to-face interviews
was 78%, and that of the online survey was 32%. Among these respondents, 64.9% were male, and the
remaining respondents were female. All of them were practitioners undertaking tasks directly related
to BIM practice in the client departments. The demographics of the respondents under investigation
are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Demographics of the respondents (N = 188).

Variables Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 122 64.9
Gender
Female 66 35.1
22~25 117 62.2
26~35 63 33.5
Age
36~45 5 2.7
Above 45 3 1.6
Associate Degree and below 26 13.9
Education Bachelor’s Degree 124 66.0
Master’s Degree and above 38 20.1
BIM operation specialist 133 70.7
BIM engineer 40 21.3
Position
BIM program manager 9 4.8
Executive BIM manager 6 3.2
0~3 years 133 70.7
3~5 years 22 11.7
Work experience
5~10 years 19 10.1
Above 10 years 14 7.4
0~3 years 174 92.6
3~5 years 9 4.8
BIM experience
5~10 years 3 1.6
Above 10 years 2 1.1

5. Data Analyses and Results

In this study, confirmatory and discriminant factor analyses of the measurement model were first
conducted in order to assess the reliability and validity of the proposed constructs. Afterwards, the
maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) method of the structural equation model (SEM) was employed to
validate the hypotheses and the fitness of the proposed model.

5.1. Measurement Validation

In general, reliability and validity were the two most common indicators used to evaluate the
measurement model. The reliability of the measurement for each construct can be assessed on the basis
of Cronbach’s α coefficient. Previous studies suggested that a Cronbach’s α greater than 0.7 indicates

657
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

acceptable reliability [66,67]. All of the Cronbach’s α coefficient values in the present study are more
than the threshold of 0.7 (see Table 3 for detailed values), which indicates good reliability.
With regard to validity, convergent and discriminant validity should both be taken into account.
On one hand, convergent validity is usually assessed by three indices: composite reliability (CR),
average variance extracted (AVE), and standardized factor loadings. For the composite reliability
(CR), values of 0.7 or higher are recommended, according to Nunnally et al. [66] and Nunnally and
Bemstein [68]. The CR values in this study range from 0.811 to 0.933, which satisfy the recommended
value of 0.7 (see Table 3). In addition, as one of the indices to access the convergent validity, the AVE is
often used by examining the construct relative to the amount of variance attributed to the measurement
error [69]. With regard to Segars [70], the AVE value for each construct which exceeds the threshold of
0.5 is acceptable. In our study, the AVE values all meet the acceptable requirement (which all range
from 0.633 to 0.846). Moreover, values of all standardized factor loadings in this study are above
the threshold of 0.7. Therefore, all of the indices are satisfied at acceptable levels, demonstrating the
convergent validity of the measure model.

Table 3. Convergent validity of the measurement model.

Standardized Composite Average Variance

Variables Item p Cronbach’s α KMO
Factor Loadings Reliability Extracted
SI1 0.843 ***
Social Influence
SI2 0.898 *** 0.855 0.701 0.862 0.677
(SI)
SI3 0.716 ***
OS1 0.870 ***
Organization
OS2 0.903 *** 0.903 0.744 0.905 0.761
Support (OS)
OS3 0.843 ***
TF1 0.828 ***
BIM Technical
TF2 0.827 *** 0.850 0.725 0.851 0.655
Features (TF)
TF3 0.772 ***
GP1 0.843 ***
Government BIM
GP2 0.938 *** 0.930 0.747 0.933 0.822
Policies (GP)
GP3 0.936 ***
PU1 0.797 ***
Perceived
PU2 0.903 *** 0.825 0.680 0.836 0.633
Usefulness (PU)
PU3 0.670 ***
PEU1 0.737 ***
Perceived Ease of
PEU2 0.887 *** 0.879 0.712 0.881 0.714
Use (PEU)
PEU3 0.901 ***
AT1 0.827 ***
Attitude (AT) 0.850 0.500 0.851 0.741
AT2 0.893 ***
BIM-Behavioral BI1 0.912 ***
0.920 0.500 0.916 0.846
Intention (BI) BI2 0.927 ***
B1 0.820 ***
BIM Behavior (B) 0.811 0.500 0.811 0.682
B2 0.832 ***
Note: *** p < 0.001.

On the other hand, discriminant validity is mainly used to demonstrate the non-correlation
between one given construct and the others which ought not be correlated with the given one [69].
Normally, the discriminant validity of one item is judged based on whether it can be easily determined
as good or bad by comparing the square root of the AVE for the given construct with the correlations
between that construct and all others. If the square roots of the AVE of one given construct are greater
than all correlation coefficients of other constructs, it implies that the given construct is more likely to
be strongly correlated with its own indicators than the other constructs in the model. In this study, the
square roots of all the average variances extracted (the diagonal elements) are greater than the values
of the off-diagonal correlation coefficients in the corresponding columns in Table 4, which confirms
good discriminant validity as a whole.

658
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

Table 4. Correlation matrix and the square of average variance extracted.

GP TC OS SI PEU PU AT BI B
GP 0.907
TC 0.573 0.809
OS 0.581 0.570 0.872
SI 0.626 0.465 0.659 0.823
PEU 0.375 0.377 0.462 0.452 0.845
PU 0.726 0.608 0.524 0.594 0.486 0.796
AT 0.547 0.480 0.461 0.497 0.507 0.675 0.861
BI 0.486 0.423 0.401 0.435 0.433 0.598 0.729 0.920
B 0.344 0.300 0.284 0.308 0.307 0.424 0.516 0.680 0.826
Note: The diagonal numbers underlined represent the square of average variance extracted.

5.2. Hypotheses Testing

With the aid of AMOS 21.0, the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) method in the structural
equation model (SEM) was employed to validate the hypotheses and the fitness between the proposed
model and the collected data.
The fitness of the proposed model is revealed by the indices of the ratio of the Chi-square model
and degrees of freedom (χ2 /df), goodness-of-fit (GIF), root mean square error approximation (RMSEA),
normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and Tacker–Lewis index
(TLI). The recommend criteria of a goodness-of-fit and the values of these indices derived from this
study are shown in Table 5. Despite the GFI and NFI being slightly lower than the recommended
acceptable value of 0.90, they are close enough to suggest that the model fits the data reasonably well.

Table 5. Evaluation of overall fitness of the conceptual model.

Fitness Index Recommended Value Value

χ2 /df <3 2.167
GIF ≥0.9 0.826
RMSEA <0.08 0.079
CFI ≥0.9 0.925
NFI ≥0.9 0.871
IFI ≥0.9 0.926
TLI ≥0.9 0.911

Then, a path analysis is carried out to test the hypotheses. As the results in Table 6 show, nine
of fourteen hypotheses are supported. Similar to findings in some previous studies [22,40,63,71],
behavioral intention (BI) has a significant positive impact on behavior (β = 0.698, t = 10.581, p < 0.001),
supporting H1. Furthermore, attitude has a significant positive impact on behavioral intention
(β = 0.886, t = 5.854, p < 0.001), which means that H2 is supported. However, an unexpected outcome
is that PU has no significant impact on BI; thus, H3 is not supported. Furthermore, both PU and PEOU
have significantly positive impacts on attitude (β = 0.476, t = 6.060, p < 0.001; β = 0.404, t = 4.391,
p < 0.001), and therefore H4 and H5 are supported. Meanwhile, H6 is also supported given that PEOU
has a significantly positive influence on PU (β = 0.282, t = 3.388, p < 0.001). Social influence (SI), on the
one hand, is found to have a significantly positive impact on PEOU (β = 0.134, t = 2.901, p < 0.01),
supporting H7b, but on the other hand, SI has no significant influence on PU (β = 0.134, t = 1.735).
OS has no significant impact on either PU or PEOU (β = −0.123, t = −1.779; β = 0.134, t = 1.765). In
addition, the results show that TF has significant impacts on both PU and PEOU (β = 0.489, t = 4.586,
p < 0.001; β = 0.286, t = 2.565, p < 0.01). Therefore, both H9a and H9b are supported by the empirical
results. GP has a significant impact on PU (β = 0.291, t = 4.309, p < 0.001), while it has no significant
impact on PEOU (β = −0.012, t = −0.155). Thus, H10a is supported but H10b is not.

659
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

Table 6. Results of the tested hypotheses.

Standardized Critical Ratio

Hypothesis Relationship β p Results
Error (t-Value)
H1 B←BI 0.698 0.066 10.581 *** Supported
H2 BI←AT 0.886 0.151 5.854 *** Supported
Not
H3 BI←PU 0.054 0.122 0.439 0.661
supported
H4 AT←PU 0.476 0.079 6.060 *** Supported
H5 AT←PEOU 0.404 0.092 4.391 *** Supported
H6 PU←PEOU 0.282 0.083 3.388 *** Supported
Not
H7a PU←SI 0.130 0.075 1.735 0.083
supported
H7b PEOU←SI 0.240 0.083 2.901 ** Supported
Not
H8a PU←OS −0.123 0.069 −1.779 0.075
supported
Not
H8b PEOU←OS 0.134 0.076 1.765 0.078
supported
H9a PU←TF 0.489 0.107 4.586 *** Supported
H9b PEOU←TF 0.286 0.111 2.565 ** Supported
H10a PU←GP 0.291 0.067 4.309 *** Supported
Not
H10b PEOU←GP −0.012 0.075 −0.155 0.877
supported
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

6. Discussion and Implications

6.1. Discussion
The above results reveal that most of the proposed research hypotheses are well supported. As
revealed by the results, project owners’ behavior intention has a significantly positive impact on their
BIM adoption behaviors, and their attitude will also positively influence their behavioral intention
toward BIM adoption, which is consistent with the findings of Davis et al. [27], Ajzen [40], Yuan et al. [72]
and Liu et al. [73]. However, we also found that the impact of perceived usefulness (PU) on behavioral
intention is insignificant, which is contrary to the prediction of the classical TAM. Differing from
previous TAM-based studies confirming that perceived usefulness (PU) has a significantly positive
influence on attitude (AT), this study shows that attitude mediates between perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use. In BIM adoption cases for project owners, the impact of perceived usefulness
(PU) on behavioral intention (BI) can be formed only across the “bridge” of attitude (AT). In addition,
attitude is composed of three elements: inner feelings, emotions, and intentions, and these three
elements are intersected with each other [74]. Therefore, perceived usefulness alone, without strong
subjective inner feelings or desires, cannot transfer this perceived usefulness into a powerful driven
force influencing behavioral intention, which echoes the dilemma that project owners are unwilling
to step into actual BIM adoption although they have perceived the usefulness and great potential of
BIM [58,75]. Both perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) positively influence the
attitude. Specifically, the stronger the project owners’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use
of BIM, the more positive their attitude toward BIM adoption will be.
Additionally, social influence has no significant effect on perceived usefulness, while its impact on
the perceived ease of use is significant. The explanation lies in that the impact of social influence on
perceived usefulness will diminish as users’ personal experience and cognition deepen over time [63].
Therefore, before the actual adoption, project owners’ knowledge and beliefs about BIM are “vague and
bandwagen”, and they must therefore rely more on the opinions of others (such as top management
and partners) as a basis for their intentions [76]. After implementation, when more information and
details about BIM’s strengths and weaknesses become clearer through direct experience, the social
influence weakens [77]. On the other hand, social influence has a significant impact on perceived ease
of use, indicating that when users’ perceived ease of use of information technology is consistent with

660
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

the external world, unlike perceived usefulness, their belief that the information technology (i.e., BIM)
is easy to use will be further strengthened.
This study also presents an unexpected but interesting finding that organizational support has no
significant influence on either perceived usefulness or perceived ease of use, which is in contrast to
many previous research findings claiming that organizational support is a critical successful factor
for BIM adoption and implementation [11,13,18]. These results could largely be explained by the
differences in the demand of resources input and the actual effort exerted by top management to
promote BIM adoption and implementation. Furthermore, the statements of the majority of survey
respondents provide easily understandable reasons for why, in their organizations, management’s
support for BIM is inadequate to support comprehensive BIM application, which leads to a lack of
necessity and incentive to use BIM. This parallels previous findings that employees’ perception of
organizational support influences whether employees will improve their organizational commitment
and support organizational goals [55,78]. In turn, this finding indicates that organizational support
will directly influence staff’s perception and feelings regarding whether BIM is useful and easy to use,
which consequently affects their ultimate adoption behavior.
Furthermore, it can be seen from Table 4 that BIM technical features (such as interoperability,
compatibility, etc.) are the most important factors for determining project owners’ decision on whether
to adopt BIM. The result is consistent with the findings of previous studies [13], which state that
the fitness and interoperability of BIM to the current tasks are critical factors influencing the owners’
perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of BIM and will ultimately constitute a BIM adoption
behavior. Therefore, the matching degree of BIM’s own task technology and how to improve users’
perceived usefulness must be considered.
Besides, government BIM policies have a significantly positive effect on perceived usefulness. This
is consistent with previous studies which revealed that the existence of government-led initiatives to
promote BIM implementation within the industry is one of the critical success factors for extensive BIM
adoption and diffusion [62,79]. On the one hand, government policies, such as subsidies, can directly
reduce the BIM application costs, which in turn improve project benefits and attract more project
owners to get involved in BIM adoption. On the other hand, a universal BIM standard supported
by government will reduce the difficulty to interoperate among different special platforms [11,18,58].
Meanwhile, almost all project owners in our survey believe that government support for policies is
very helpful for their BIM adoption.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

This study enriches the theoretical literature in three main areas.
Firstly, based on the theory of the TAM, this study categorizes different dimensions of factors and
elements—which impact individuals’ perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of BIM—affecting
project owners’ BIM adoption behavior in the Chinese AEC sector, with an ultimate aim to explain
why project owners might adopt BIM. The factors capable of explaining project owners’ BIM adoption
behaviors are tested and validated by using a structural equation model, and the intrinsic motivation
and action mechanism of project owners’ BIM adoption behavior are revealed. The findings provide a
deeper understanding for explaining the causal factors leading to BIM adoption behaviors.
Secondly, this study’s findings also provide valuable insights into the TOE framework and the
theory of the TAM in a specific context. The results show that organizational support has no significant
impact on either perceived usefulness or perceived ease of use, which can be explained by Eisenberger’s
findings “perceived organizational support is the premise of behavior, organizational support without
perception cannot work even if the support is already provided [52]”, indicating that there seems to
be a certain precondition that organizational support could positively affect the behavior. Beyond
this, another attracting result is that attitude mediates between perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use, which contracts with the findings of Venkatesh et al. [64], but agrees with the findings of
Howard et al. [22].

661
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

Thirdly, this study extends the theory of the TAM by integrating the TOE framework, revealing
that technical, organizational and environmental variables are significantly related to behavioral
intention. These variables are intermediated by two distinct constructs (PU and PEOU) and attitude
(AT) in a BIM adoption context. Furthermore, results also demonstrate that most of the proposed
hypotheses are well supported and the causal relationships among the postulated constructs in the
model are analyzed. As such, the model in our study provides an elaborated explanation of the key
factors forming the behavioral intentions of project owners toward BIM adoption. In other words,
the model offers important insights into the reasons behind project owners’ willingness to adopt
BIM. By investigating BIM adoption from project owners’ perspectives, this study also responds to
and reinforces the concern of Ling et al. [19], i.e., focusing on the adoption behavior of other project
participants would add more dimensions and shed more light on construction innovation.

6.3. Practical Implications

BIM is often recognized as a promising platform for project stakeholders (including the project
owner) to capture complete information throughout the project lifecycle, and to utilize the available
data for sustainable design, sustainability rating analysis and sustainable facilities management. The
findings of this study will help project owners to understand the impact and interaction of the external
constraints and their own subjective perceptions of BIM adoption, based on which successful BIM
adoptions and construction sustainability will be increased by some effective incentives and strategies.
Responding to many previous studies on technology acceptance, attitude, perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use are key determinants of behavioral intention [28,40,43,48], which will lead
to the ultimate BIM adoption behavior. Thus, project owners should break the traditional mindset,
production-organization mode and work procedures to form a positive attitude to embrace a brand-new
or even subversive paradigm based on BIM, leading to long-term sustainable growth not only for the
organizations but also for the construction industry.
Among these proposed external antecedents, the technical feature is found to be of the utmost
importance to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This finding provides insights
revealing that project owners must pay attention to the technical features (such as interoperability and
compatibility) of the introduced BIM platform or tools, which would greatly enhance the likelihood of
successful BIM adoption and sustainability rating analysis from the point of view of technical feasibility.
Furthermore, social influence has a significant impact on the perceived ease of use of project owners,
affecting project owners’ BIM adoption through attitudes and behavioral intentions. It is suggested that
intensifying the dissemination of BIM’s benefits and peer experience exchanges could enhance project
owners’ acknowledgement of BIM’s benefits, thus effectively helping project owners’ BIM adoption.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the effect of social influence diminishes as experience is gained.
As such, project owners should attach importance to establishing a good corporate environment to
embrace BIM adoption.
Lastly, government policies also have a positive impact on the perceived usefulness of BIM to
project owners, which in turn indirectly affects their BIM adoption. This finding indicates that external
incentives from government will help project owners’ BIM adoption. In this regard, launching BIM
pilot programs and tax exemption could be effective ways to create a favorable environment for
promoting project owners’ BIM adoption activities.

7. Conclusions
Based on the theory of the TAM, this study attempts to explain project owners’ BIM adoption
behaviors by investigating how different dimensions of factors and elements—which impact individuals’
perceptions of usefulness and ease of use of BIM—influence project owners’ BIM adoption behavior in
the Chinese construction sector. The factors affecting project owners’ BIM adoption are tested and
validated by using a structural equation model, and the intrinsic motivation and action mechanism of
project owners’ BIM adoption behavior are revealed.

662
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

The results indicated that most of the proposed hypotheses are well supported and the causal
relationships among the postulated constructs in the model are analyzed. The model in our study
provides an elaborated explanation of the key factors influencing the behavioral intentions of project
owners toward BIM adoption. Particularly, the results reveal that BIM technical features and government
BIM policies have positive effects on perceived usefulness, but social influence and organizational
support do not significantly influence perceived usefulness. Furthermore, both social influence and
BIM technical features have positive effects on perceived ease of use, while organizational support
and government BIM policies do not significantly influence perceived ease of use. Attitude plays a
significant intermediary role among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavior intention.
Additionally, attitude significantly affects behavior intention, and behavior intention can also affect
BIM adoption behavior. The findings of this study are expected to provide a better understanding of
the essential elements of project owners’ BIM adoption behaviors and guide industry practitioners in
developing proper strategies to achieve more effective BIM implementation.
There are also limitations. Although this study deepens the understanding of project owners’ BIM
adoption intentions and behavior, a wider range of variables can be considered to enhance the model’s
robustness to more accurately predict project owners’ BIM adoption behaviors. Also, despite some
previous studies indicated that project features (such as project size, nature, delivery types, etc.) need
to be taken into account when it comes to BIM adopting strategies, the limitation in sample data blocks
us to conduct further examinations. Hence, research focusing on the influence of project features (such
as project size, nature, delivery types, etc.) on BIM adoption behaviors should be further developed.
Besides, extensive studies should be conducted to examine the generality of the proposed model in
different countries’ practice and background to expand the situations to which it applies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.Y. and X.X.; methodology, H.Y. and Y.Y.; software, Y.Y.; validation,
Y.Y.; formal analysis, Y.Y.; investigation, Y.Y. and H.Y.; resources, H.Y. and X.X.; data collection, Y.Y.;
writing—original draft preparation, Y.Y.; writing—review and editing, H.Y.; funding acquisition, H.Y. and X.X.
Funding: This research was funded by the Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant
number: 18ZDA043), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number: 71573216; 71671053).
Conflicts of Interest: There is no conflict of interest.

References
1. HM Government. Government Construction Strategy; HMSO: London, UK. Available online: https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/government-construction-strategy/ (accessed on 25 September 2018).
2. MOHURD. The Outline of Construction Informatization Development (2011~2015). MOHURD, PRC.
Available online: http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2011-05/19/content_1866641.htm (accessed on 9 October 2018).
(In Chinese)
3. MOHURD. The Outline of Construction Informatization Development (2016~2020). MOHURD, PRC.
Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201609/t20160918_228929.html (accessed on 9 October
2018). (In Chinese)
4. Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors, 2nd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
5. Adrieli, D.C.; Ariovaldo, G.; Vanessa, D.S. A systematic literature review on integrative lean and sustainability
synergies over a building’s lifecycle. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1156.
6. Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
7. Cao, D.P.; Li, H.; Wang, G.B.; Huang, T. Identifying and contextualizing the motivations for BIM
implementation in construction projects: An empirical study in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35,
658–669. [CrossRef]
8. Chong, H.Y.; Lopez, R.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Z. Comparative analysis on the adoption and use of BIM in
road infrastructure projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 05016021. [CrossRef]
9. Succar, B.; Sher, W.; Williams, A. An integrated approach to BIM competency assessment, acquisition and
application. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 174–189. [CrossRef]

663
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

10. Lee, S.; Yu, J.; Jeong, D. BIM acceptance model in construction organizations. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31,
04014048. [CrossRef]
11. Ozorhon, B.; Karahan, U. Critical Success factors of building information modeling implementation.
J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016054. [CrossRef]
12. Song, J.; Migliaccio, G.; Wang, G.; Lu, H. Exploring the influence of system quality, information quality, and
external service on BIM user satisfaction. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017036. [CrossRef]
13. Won, J.; Lee, G.; Dossick, C.; Messner, J. Where to focus for successful adoption of building information
modeling within organization. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 04013014. [CrossRef]
14. Chien, K.F.; Wu, Z.H.; Huang, S.C. Identifying and assessing critical risk factors for BIM projects: Empirical
study. Autom. Constr. 2014, 45, 1–15. [CrossRef]
15. Boktor, J.; Hanna, A.; Menassa, C. The state of practice of building information modeling (BIM) in the
mechanical construction industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 140, 05014011.
16. Bryde, D.; Broquetas, M.; Volm, J.M. The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 971–980. [CrossRef]
17. Jin, R.; Hancock, C.; Tang, L.; Chen, C.; Wanatowski, D.; Yang, L. Empirical study of BIM
implementation–based perceptions among Chinese practitioners. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017025.
[CrossRef]
18. Xu, H.; Feng, J.; Li, S. Users-orientated evaluation of building information model in the Chinese construction
industry. Autom. Constr. 2014, 39, 32–46. [CrossRef]
19. Ling, F.; Hartmann, A.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Dulaimi, M. Influences on innovation benefits during
implementation: client’s perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 306–315. [CrossRef]
20. Gu, N.; London, K. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Autom. Constr. 2010,
19, 988–999. [CrossRef]
21. Son, H.; Lee, S.; Kim, C. What drives the adoption of building information modeling in design organizations?
An empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting architect’s behavioral intentions. Autom. Constr. 2015,
49, 92–99. [CrossRef]
22. Howard, R.; Restrepo, L.; Chang, C.Y. Addressing individual perceptions: An application of the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology to building information modelling. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35,
107–120. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, Y.; Nederveen, S.V.; Hertogh, M. Understanding effects of BIM on collaborative design and construction:
An empirical study in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 35, 686–698. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, G.; Song, J. The relation of perceived benefits and organizational supports to user satisfaction with
building information model (BIM). Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 493–500. [CrossRef]
25. Cao, D.P.; Li, H.; Wang, G.B. Impacts of isomorphic pressures on BIM adoption in construction projects.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014056. [CrossRef]
26. Gledson, B.J.; Greenwood, D. The adoption of 4D BIM in the UK construction industry: An innovation
diffusion approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 950–967. [CrossRef]
27. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
Mis Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [CrossRef]
28. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]
29. Broman, T.M.; Schuitema, G.; Thogersen, J. Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and
application to consumer acceptance of smart grid technology. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 392–400. [CrossRef]
30. Manis, K.T.; Choi, D. The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-ham): Extending and individuating
the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 503–513.
[CrossRef]
31. Sarah, P.; Oliver, S.; Yasel, C. Acceptance of LNG as an alternative fuel: Determinants and policy implications.
Energy Policy 2018, 120, 259–267.
32. Pratia, G.; Puchades, M.V.; Angelis, M.; Pietrantoni, L.; Fraboni, F.; Decarli, N.; Guerra, A.; Dardari, D.
Evaluation of user behavior and acceptance of an on-bike system. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2018, 58, 145–155. [CrossRef]
33. Legris, P.; Ingham, J.; Collerette, P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the
technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 191–204. [CrossRef]

664
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

34. Kuan, K.K.Y.; Chau, P.Y.K. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a
technology–organization–environment framework. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 507–521. [CrossRef]
35. Bosch-Rekveldt, M.; Jongkind, Y.; Mooi, H.; Bakker, H.; Verbraeck, A. Grasping project complexity in large
engineering projects: The toe (technical, organizational and environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2011, 29, 728–739. [CrossRef]
36. Wei, J.S.; Seedorf, S.; Lowry, P.B. The assimilation of RFID technology by Chinese companies: A technology
diffusion perspective. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 628–642. [CrossRef]
37. Wang, Y.S.; Li, H.T.; Li, C.R.; Zhang, D.Z. Factors affecting hotel’s adoption of mobile reservation systems:
A technology-organization-environment framework. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 163–172. [CrossRef]
38. Yeh, C.C.; Chen, Y.F.; Phillips, F. Critical success factors for adoption of 3d printing. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 209–216. [CrossRef]
39. Cruz-Jesus, F.; Pinheiro, A.; Oliveira, T. Understanding CRM adoption stages: Empirical analysis building
on the TOE framework. Comput. Ind. 2019, 109, 1–13. [CrossRef]
40. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
41. Arayici, Y.; Coates, P.; Koskela, L.; Kagioglou, M.; Usher, C.; O’Reilly, K. Technology adoption in the BIM
implementation for lean architectural practice. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 189–195. [CrossRef]
42. Etter, W. Attitude theory and decision theory: Where is the common ground? J. Mark. Res. 1975, 12, 481–483.
[CrossRef]
43. Wu, S. The relationship between consumer characteristics and attitude toward online shopping. Mark. Intell.
Plan. 2003, 21, 37–44. [CrossRef]
44. Carolina, L.N.; Molina-Castillo, F.J.; Bouwman, H. An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance:
Contributions from tam and diffusion theory models. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 359–364.
45. Wu, C.S.; Cheng, F.F.; Yen, D.C.; Huang, Y.W. User acceptance of wireless technology in organizations:
A comparison of alternative models. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2011, 33, 50–58. [CrossRef]
46. Kim, S.; Chin, S.; Han, J.; Choi, C. Measurement of construction BIM value based on a case study of a
large-scale building project. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 05017005. [CrossRef]
47. Lee, S.; Yu, J. Comparative study of BIM acceptance between Korea and the United States. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 05015016. [CrossRef]
48. Ronny, S.; Fazilat, S.; Jo, T. The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation
modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Comput. Educ. 2019,
128, 13–35.
49. Deutsch, M. A study of normative and informational social influence on individual judgment. J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psychol. 1955, 51, 629–636. [CrossRef]
50. Bagozzi, R.P.; Lee, K.H. Multiple routes for social influence: The role of compliance, internalization, and
social identity. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2002, 65, 226–247. [CrossRef]
51. Rosenkopf, L.; Abrahamson, E. Modeling reputational and informational influences in threshold models of
bandwagon innovation diffusion. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 1999, 5, 361–384. [CrossRef]
52. Eisenberger, R.; Fasolo, P.; Davis LaMastro, V. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment, and innovation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 51–59. [CrossRef]
53. Shore, L.M.; Wayne, S.J. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and
continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 774–780.
[CrossRef]
54. Pearce, C.L.; Herbik, P.A. Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership,
team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. J. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 144, 293–310. [CrossRef]
55. Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol.
1986, 71, 500–507. [CrossRef]
56. Mcmillan, R. Customer Satisfaction and Organizational Support for Service Providers. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 1997.
57. Lin, H.-F. An investigation into the effects of is quality and top management support on ERP system usage.
Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2010, 21, 335–349. [CrossRef]
58. Dodge Data & Analytics. Smart Market Report: The Business Value of BIM in China; Dodge Data & Analytics:
Bedford, MA, USA, 2015. (In Chinese)
59. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovation, 1st ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983.

665
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3905

60. Liu, R.; Issa, R.R.A. Factors influencing the adoption of building information modeling in the AEC Industry.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham,
UK, 30 June–2 July 2010.
61. Succar, B. Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry
stakeholders. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 357–375. [CrossRef]
62. Eadie, R.; Browne, M.; Odeyinka, H.; Mckeown, C.; Mcniff, S. BIM implementation throughout the UK
construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Autom. Constr. 2013, 36, 145–151. [CrossRef]
63. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal
field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [CrossRef]
64. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [CrossRef]
65. Lee, S.; Yu, J.H. Discriminant model of BIM acceptance readiness in a construction organization. KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 555–564. [CrossRef]
66. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
67. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings; Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998.
68. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
69. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
70. Segars, A.H. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the
context of information systems research. Omega 1997, 25, 107–121. [CrossRef]
71. Baptista, G.; Oliveira, T. Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology combined with cultural moderators. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 418–430. [CrossRef]
72. Yuan, H.P.; Wu, H.Y.; Zuo, J. Understanding factors influencing project managers’ behavioral intentions to
reduce waste in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018031. [CrossRef]
73. Liu, Y.; Hong, Z.; Zhu, J.; Yan, J.; Qi, J.; Liu, P. Promoting green residential buildings: residents’ environmental
attitude, subjective knowledge, and social trust matter. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 152–161. [CrossRef]
74. Myers, G.D. Social Psychology, 10th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Holland, MI, USA, 2010.
75. McGraw Hill Construction. The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Global Markets: How Construction
around the World Are Driving Innovation with Building Information Modeling; McGraw Hill Construction:
Bedford, MA, USA, 2014.
76. Hartwick, J.; Barki, H. Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Manag. Sci. 1994,
40, 440–465. [CrossRef]
77. Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance
of information technologies. Decis. Sci. 1997, 28, 557–582. [CrossRef]
78. Yu, C.; Frenkel, S.J. Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational support theory:
Which mechanisms are more important? J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 1165–1181. [CrossRef]
79. Arayici, Y.; Coates, P. A system engineering perspective to knowledge transfer: A case study approach of
BIM adoption. In Virtual Reality-Human Computer Interaction; Tan, X.-X., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012;
pp. 179–206.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

666
MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax +41 61 302 89 18
www.mdpi.com

Sustainability Editorial Office

E-mail: [email protected]
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel: +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-2629-4