Adoption of Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Public Housing in Singapore: Drivers, Challenges, and Strategies

Case Study
Adoption of Three-Dimensional Printing

Technology in Public Housing in Singapore:
Drivers, Challenges, and Strategies
Daeyoun Won 1; Bon-Gang Hwang, M.ASCE 2; Seokho Chi, M.ASCE 3; and Ju Lin Kor 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 05/11/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract: Although emphasis has been placed on three-dimensional (3D) printing technology that can alleviate increasing demand and low-
productivity issues in public housing developments, limited research has been conducted to examine perceptions surrounding this technology
in the context of public housing projects in the built environment industry. Hence, this study aims to investigate the perceptions of practi-
tioners working in the industry concerning the drivers, challenges, and strategies for 3D printing technology, together with the status quo of its
implementation. To achieve these goals, nine drivers, eight challenges, and seven strategies were identified through a comprehensive literature
review, followed by a structured questionnaire survey administered to industry practitioners. Based on the survey analyses, the top three
drivers, challenges, and strategies were identified, and the differences in perceptions according to respondents and their organizational char-
acteristics were explored. Moreover, postinterviews were carried out with several industry professionals to further substantiate the analyses
results. The results serve as a starting point for the industry to reap the benefits from additive manufacturing technology throughout the project
life cycle. This study contributes to the body of knowledge relating to the adoption of 3D printing technology in the industry, improving
productivity in public housing projects and moving toward more sustainable and cleaner delivery processes in the built environment industry.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001065. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Built environment industry; Public housing; Additive manufacturing; Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology;
Technology adoption.
Introduction housing owners, which requires these projects to be completed on

time (Hwang et al. 2013).
The government of Singapore is committed to a national housing However, the built environment industry currently faces the chal-
program with the universal provision of leasehold homeownership lenge of low productivity (Hasan et al. 2018). For example, the US
for all its citizens. From 1961 to 2013, the Housing and Develop- showed the worst performance on labor productivity compared with
ment Board (HDB), the public housing authority in Singapore, has 20 other countries (Nasir et al. 2014). Other developed regions also
built more than 1 million high-rise housing units, accommodating suffer from productivity issues, including Singapore (Lim and Alum
approximately 90% of the citizens and permanent residents, of 1995), the UK (Hazlehurst 2008), and Hong Kong (Lo et al. 2006).
which more than 85% of the resident households are homeowners Moreover, skill shortages and unprecedented pandemic outbreaks
(Wong 2011; Chua 2014). Public housing has been a rising issue in have accelerated the automation of the industry’s processes (Chia
Singapore in order to provide sufficient homes for all, and the de- 2011; Hossain et al. 2020; Majumder and Biswas 2020). At the
mand for public housing flats is also increasing (Hwang et al. 2013; same time, the government needs to upgrade its homogeneous
HDB 2017b). With the increasing demand for public housing, the public housing landscape to satisfy the needs of the people. For ex-
government decided to reduce the waiting time for future public ample, the Pinnacle@Duxton—the world’s tallest and most expen-
sive public housing project—represents the developmental state’s
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul attempt (Teo 2015).
National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 08826, South Korea. ORCID: https:// In this context, the building and construction sectors have at-
orcid.org/0000-0003-1843-4379. Email: wdh91@snu.ac.kr
2 tempted to adopt more productive building methods with less human
Professor, Dept. of Building, School of Design and Environment,
National Univ. of Singapore, 4 Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566 (corre-
intervention (Hwang et al. 2022). For example, many researchers em-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9034-2033. Email: pirically investigated the consequences of using new technology in
bdghbg@nus.edu.sg the construction industry and how the use the technology can
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environment Engineering, Seoul Na- ultimately affect construction productivity (Hasan et al. 2019). More-
tional Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-Ku, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea; over, some case studies were conducted for understanding the behav-
Adjunct Professor, Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineer- ioral logic of information technology (IT) adoption (Wang et al.
ing, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-Ku, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. ORCID: 2020; Won et al. 2022) and implementation process (Sepasgozar
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0409-5268. Email: shchi@snu.ac.kr et al. 2018). Especially, additive manufacturing, also known as
4
Researcher, Dept. of Building, School of Design and Environment, three-dimensional printing (3DP), is an emerging technology for fab-
National Univ. of Singapore, 4 Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566. Email:
ricating structures directly from a digital model in successive layers
julin.kor@u.nus.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 28, 2021; approved with less wastage in the construction industry (Berman 2012; Paolini
on March 25, 2022; published online on May 2, 2022. Discussion period et al. 2019).
open until October 2, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in- The 3DP technology has grown tremendously over the last few dec-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in En- ades and has been increasingly adopted in numerous areas, such as
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X. architectural modeling (Paolini et al. 2019; Sakin and Kiroglu 2017).
© ASCE 05022010-1 J. Manage. Eng.
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

For instance, 3DP has been utilized to develop prototypes to ease Although previous research has reviewed the literature on
the communication between architects and customers by printing 3DP applications in the construction industry (Paolini et al. 2019;
complex structures for better representation (Gibson et al. 2002). Buchanan and Gardner 2019), it has not fully investigated industry
The Singapore Government has stated several plans to provide res- practitioners’ perceptions, which is crucial for real-world applica-
idents with 3D-printed houses. For example, they established a tions of 3DP technology. In the current paper, the authors explore
center to test the technology and apply it to a real building construc- industry professionals’ perceptions concerning the drivers, chal-
tion project (HDB 2017a, 2018). Moreover, the government re- lenges, and strategies for 3D printing technology to address the lim-
cently embarked on a 3-year research project to explore the itations. Because this technology is relatively new in Singapore’s
potential adoption of 3D concrete printing, with the expectation construction industry, it is vital to uncover the potential of utilizing
of expanding the design and construction capabilities (HDB 2018). 3DP in building future public housing to increase the overall produc-
The construction industry is generally conservative in adopting tivity of the construction industry. Hence, this study aims to provide
technology compared with other sectors. However, some practitioners deeper insights into what 3DP technology offers and the perceptions
have acknowledged the importance of 3DP technology and have at- of this technology according to different groups of professionals.
tempted to adopt additive manufactuiring (AM) in the construction The objectives of this study include (1) exploring the potential
industry. For example, A Chinese company, WinSun, one of the drivers, critical challenges, and viable strategies for 3DP adop-
well-known pioneer in 3DP architectures, constructed a 5-story apart- tion; (2) assessing the current status quo of practitioners’ percep-
ment block using a 3D printer in 2015—claimed to be the “world’s tions of 3DP regarding the derived factors; and (3) proposing
tallest 3D-printed building”—which is currently on display at the feasible recommendations to enhance the adoption of 3DP in the
Suzhou Industrial Park in China (Ma and Che 2015). According construction industry. By achieving the aforementioned objec-
to the company, 3DP technology effectively reduced the overall en- tives, this study provides a guide for construction companies in
ergy consumption and volume of wastes. They claimed that 3D print- strategic adoption of 3DP technology, which has shown great
ing might reduce up to 60% of construction materials, 50%–70% of potential in improving the performance of the building and con-
construction time, and 50%–80% of labor cost (Souza et al. 2020). struction industries.
Many researchers have also paid considerable attention to
adopting 3DP technology in the construction industry. The first re-
search that emerged in the industry was the exploratory investiga- Literature Review
tion of solid freeform construction (Pegna 1997). After that, many
researchers suggested methods to create building components using
Drivers in 3DP Adoption
3DP technology. For example, research proposed 3D-printed walls
using cementitious materials extrusion, called “contour crafting” Based on the literature review, nine drivers of using 3DP tech-
(Khoshnevis 2004). Another study applied the 3DP technology for nologies in the building and construction industry were identified
building habitats on the Moon using lunar soil (Cesaretti et al. (Table 1). Many researchers have acknowledged that the construc-
2014). Also, a large-scale 3DP technology was suggested to extrude tion industry has been viewed as a leader in waste production
cementitious materials (Le et al. 2012a, b). Additionally, a paper (Ferguson 1995; Won et al. 2016). The amount of waste generated
presented a case study to investigate the drivers of 3DP adoption by construction was estimated to be 50% of the solid waste pro-
in the construction industry (Krimi et al. 2017). duced in South Korea in 2013 (Won et al. 2016). In Singapore,
Table 1. Three-dimensional printing drivers

Drivers Brief description References
Increased sustainability The use of construction 3DP could potentially reduce the industry’s Smith (2012), Perkins and Skitmore (2015), Mathur
detrimental impacts on the environment. This is due to the use of (2016), Camacho et al. (2018), and Buchanan and
recycled materials to construct buildings. The use of 3DP could also Gardner (2019)
reduce construction waste onsite because formworks are not required
for the construction of 3DP buildings.
Reduction in In the industry, where construction delays can be seen as injurious and Buswell et al. (2007), Perkins and Skitmore (2015),
construction time exorbitant, 3DP offers the possibility of ensuring efficient delivery and Buchanan and Gardner (2019), Khajavi et al. (2021),
reduced construction times. and Srivastava and Rathee (2022)
Cost savings The materials used in construction 3DP have a lower cost compared Chen et al. (2015), Petrovic et al. (2011), Hager et al.
with conventional construction methods. The total cost of construction (2016), and Allouzi et al. (2020)
could be reduced up to 60% according to the International Construction
Cost Survey.
Labor efficiency The number of construction workers onsite could be reduced because Perkins and Skitmore (2015), Camacho et al. (2018),
autonomous 3DP printers require fewer human interventions. and Srivastava and Rathee (2022)
Design and Designers and architects could have the freedom to design Paolini et al. (2019), Labonnote et al. (2016), Zhang
architectural flexibility nonconventional forms for buildings with the use of 3DP. et al. (2018), Tang and Zhao (2016), and Grassi et al.
The technology enables complex designs to be transformed into real (2019)
structures that are unable to be built by traditional methods.
Reduction in injuries Because fewer workers need to be onsite for the construction of 3DP Camacho et al. (2018)
buildings, the risk of accidents and injures of workers can be decreased.
Logistics There is a need to transport the 3D printer to the site; however, this Khajavi et al. (2021)
could decrease the usage of other construction machines.
Less tooling required 3DP has the ability to produce parts without much setup and tooling at Khajavi et al. (2021)
the construction site.
Material deposition 3DP provides designers and engineers with a huge potential to control Petrovic et al. (2011), Oxman (2011), and Loh et al.
the density and directionality of material deposition. (2018)
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

approximately 825,000 t of construction waste was generated in that it would only require a trained worker to operate the machine
2013 (NEA 2015). However, 3DP technology reduces material (Mathur 2016; Keating et al. 2017). Furthermore, 3DP could re-
waste onsite (Buchanan and Gardner 2019; Petrovic et al. 2011; solve the labor shortage because fewer workers need to be onsite
Mathur 2016). For example, concrete pouring and formworks are for the construction (Perkins and Skitmore 2015). Because fewer
not required to construct 3DP buildings (Perkins and Skitmore workers are required to be onsite to construct 3DP buildings, work-
2015). With the reduction in wet construction works, fewer material ers’ risk of accidents and injuries can also be decreased (Mathur
wastes and dust will be produced during the building erection pro- 2016; Keating et al. 2017).
cess (Hager et al. 2016). Apart from the automation aspect, 3DP provides architects and
Construction 3DP enables the printer to make just the right designers with great design flexibility (Paolini et al. 2019). For in-
amount required for the final structure, hence providing designers stance, functionally graded materials can be produced by varying
with the freedom to create what they want without economies of raw materials to improve building components’ strength (Labonnote
scale to reduce cost (Lim et al. 2012). In addition, the China-based et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2018). Moreover, 3DP achieves various and
company WinSun, which appeared in the headlines for constructing complex geometries to enhance the building components’ appear-
10 single-story houses in 1 day, uses sustainable materials that uti- ance or functionality (Paolini et al. 2019; Tang and Zhao 2016).
lize construction waste to build 3DP buildings (Hager et al. 2016). Additionally, 3DP technologies such as functionally graded AM
Furthermore, intricate shapes in 3DP, such as overhangs and folds provide designers and engineers with a tremendous potential to uti-
for shading and insulation, enable contractors to use fewer mate- lize the variable properties of materials (Loh et al. 2018). The tech-
rials (Mani et al. 2014). Also, there is a tendency to save a large nologies strategically control a material composition’s density and
amount of fuel because fewer people are required onsite, leading to porosity within a complex 3D distribution or combine distinct ma-
a reduction in the number of vehicles being driven to and from the terials to create a seamless monolithic structure (Oxman 2011; Loh
construction site (Smith 2012). et al. 2018).
In the construction industry, where delays can be seen as disrup-
tive and expensive, 3DP offers new possibilities to hasten project
delivery and cut down construction time (Buchanan and Gardner Challenges in 3DP Adoption
2019). For example, the contour crafting method in 3DP will com- Despite the various benefits that 3DP could bring to the construction
plete the construction of a building in hours instead of months, industry, given the current state of the technology, there are various
which is significantly time-efficient compared with conventional limiting factors that could impair this context. Table 2 and the fol-
methods (Khoshnevis 2004; Buswell et al. 2007). Also, the steady lowing sections elaborate on some of the challenges in detail.
and unrelenting pace of construction 3DP practices could contribute Unpredictable weather conditions have made it difficult to con-
to the rise in construction speed because it would skip the process of trol the cooling and setting of materials on a typical construction
concrete curing and work at a steady rate compared with conven- site to assure structure stability. For example, ambient conditions
tional methods (Perkins and Skitmore 2015; Buswell et al. 2007). interfere with onsite applications of 3DP due to the sensitivity of
Additionally, 3DP can potentially cut down total construction processes and materials (Lim et al. 2012). In particular, places such
costs. For example, a study investigated the 3DP application to the as Singapore face difficulties in construction progress due to un-
construction industry for material cost savings, which revealed that expected heavy rain.
3DP helped reduce 65% of the material costs compared with conven- Materials have also been proven to be a limiting factor be-
tional methods (Allouzi et al. 2020). Individual building components cause construction 3DP technology is only compatible with certain
are built onsite to minimize transportation costs when applying the materials—only certain materials can pass through the 3DP machine
polymer printing method (Hager et al. 2016). Also, 3DP reduces without deforming the printed structure (Khoshnevis 2004). The end
inventorying, leading to energy and material savings for storage product of 3DP often has an unfinished look due to the materials
(Chen et al. 2015). Another benefit of using 3DP is its low labor being stacked on top of each other, affecting surface quality and
costs because 3DP usually requires little human intervention given roughness (Huang et al. 2013). The 3DP technique requires placing
Table 2. Challenges in using 3DP

Challenges Brief description References
Susceptible to 3DP materials are vulnerable to ambient weather Lim et al. (2012), Berman (2012), and Camacho et al. (2018)
weather conditions conditions, making it difficult to control the materials.
Surface finishing The end product of 3DP often has an unfinished look due to Petrovic et al. (2011), Berman (2012), Petrick and Simpson
the materials being stacked on top of each other, affecting (2013), Huang et al. (2013), and Tay et al. (2017)
surface quality and roughness.
Low precision The process of extruding materials in a layered manner Berman (2012), Dimitrov et al. (2006), Huang et al. (2013),
affects the level of precision and the accuracy of each layer. and Lee et al. (2014)
High upfront cost 3D printers result in the high upfront costs of purchasing, Smith (2012), Rehman and Kim (2021), and Begić and
logistics, maintenance costs, and others. Galić (2021)
Reluctance to The conservative nature of the construction industry causes Smith (2012) and Begić and Galić (2021)
invest in 3DP the adoption of 3DP to be a slow-moving process.
Lack of expertise The lack of expertise prevents 3DP from substituting the Tay et al. (2017), Chaudhuri et al. (2019), Al Rashid et al.
existing construction methods. (2020), and Begić and Galić (2021)
Lack of The lack of a legal framework and regulations on 3DP Petrovic et al. (2011), Chekurov et al. (2018), and Begić
standardization causes a setback for prospective contractors to utilize 3DP and Galić (2021)
for their buildings.
Limited production The limited material strength used, such as liquid polymer, Huang et al. (2013), Camacho et al. (2018), Al Rashid et al.
size in 3DP restricts the ability to produce large-sized structures. (2020), and Srivastava and Rathee (2022)
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

one layer on top of another, which gives rise to the stair-stepping ef- education and training on 3DP technology to designers and workers
fect, affecting surface quality and roughness (Berman 2012; Petrick to successfully adopt and implement 3DP technologies (Chaudhuri
and Simpson 2013). Accordingly, 3DP technology lacks the control et al. 2019; Holzmann et al. 2020; Choudhary et al. 2021). Accord-
needed to attain intricate details compared with other technologies ing to a survey, only half of the 3DP companies offer training to
(Berman 2012; Dimitrov et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2014); this results in enhance their customers’ 3DP capabilities (Holzmann et al. 2020).
a lack of choice for the surface finishes for the end products because Another challenge for the implementation of construction 3DP is the
3DP is still relatively new to the industry (Petrovic et al. 2011). lack of standardization. The lack of legal framework and regulations
Furthermore, extruding materials in a layered manner affects the on 3DP has also made it difficult for prospective contractors to adopt
level of precision and accuracy of each layer (Dimitrov et al. 2006; the technology, due to, for example, the unavailability of spare parts
Lee et al. 2014). For example, material extrusion–based methods for 3D models, file version management, piracy resulting from data
have low printing accuracy, which requires inevitable postprocess- leaks in the supplier network, and variable raw materials quality
ing, causing severe shrinkage of the final component (Li et al. (Ballardini et al. 2018; Chekurov et al. 2018). Thus, it is unlikely
2020). Research has also found that unsafe levels of toxicities exist that 3DP will make much of a mark on the construction industry
in some 3DP materials (Oskui et al. 2016). Other than materials without clearly defined building codes and regulations in place
currently being utilized in 3DP, such as stainless steel and polymers, (Despeisse et al. 2017; Yampolskiy et al. 2018).
further groundwork has to be conducted for different materials such
as biodegradable polymers. Additionally, another technological is- Strategies in 3DP Adoption
sue in 3DP is the limited size of production. For example, the limited
Because the majority of Singaporeans reside in public housing
strength of the material, such as a liquid polymer, restricts building
from the HDB it is vital for the government to push for 3DP in
large-scale structures (Huang et al. 2013).
order to address the labor shortage issue as well as the low produc-
Additionally, 3DP technology has some challenges in terms of
tivity in the local construction industry. Table 3 summarizes the
cost. Despite the potential savings in material and labor costs, as
feasible strategies to promote the adoption of construction 3DP.
elaborated in the previous section, the utilization of construction
The living environment of Singaporeans could be further im-
3DP may result in a high upfront cost of purchasing or renting
proved and transformed by tapping into new technologies (MND
3D printers (Smith 2012). Besides the expensive equipment, other 2018). It is encouraged that the construction industry collaborate
fees, such as logistics involved in transporting the printers to the with various industry partners to help promote the adoption of 3DP.
site, could also prohibit the 3DP technology from becoming main- For example, HDB is planning to collaborate with multiple partners
stream (Smith 2012). Additionally, automated technology such as to develop a more sustainable and livable environment. A 3-year
3DP requires exorbitant maintenance and training costs (Perkins research project will be conducted along with Robin Village Devel-
and Skitmore 2015). Above all, contractors are generally reluctant opment, Witteveen+Bos South East Asia, and Nanyang Technologi-
to adopt new technology due to the high upfront cost corresponding cal University (NTU) to study the potential of adopting 3DP (Wong
to buying the equipment (Smith 2012). Because 3DP is still rea- et al. 2014; HDB 2018).
sonably fresh in the construction industry, contractors would also The key is qualified human resource availability to unlock the
have to consider the high initial costs in upgrading existing systems vast potential offered by 3DP. Because 3DP poses a paradigm shift
and introducing employees to the new skills necessary (Hall and in the construction industry, it is of utmost importance to have well-
Khan 2003). Resistance to change would be defined as a reluctant trained and skilled engineers and technicians to maximize the full
or defensive attitude adopted by an individual to maintain the status potential of the technology (Vazquez et al. 2016). Especially, the
quo (Fiedler 2010). The conservative nature of the construction in- introduction of additive manufacturing education represents im-
dustry causes the adoption of 3DP to be a slow-moving process portant leverage preparing young engineers, who could be a prop-
(Smith 2012). Therefore, it is unlikely that 3DP will replace con- erly trained teaching staff (Motyl and Filippi 2021). Because 3DP
ventional building methods for now; instead, it should be viewed as is relatively new, it requires comprehensive research to uncover
a complement to the existing measures adopted in the construction the potential benefits that it could bring to the industry (Wohlers
industry. et al. 2020). Hence, the Singapore Government has since invested
Besides the technological and economic hurdles, organizational SGD500 million under a future manufacturing scheme, the most
and managerial challenges hinder the adoption of 3DP. Many re- notable being the establishment of the National Additive Manu-
searchers have acknowledged that it is necessary to offer proper facturing Innovation Cluster (NAMIC) (EDB 2017). They set up to
Table 3. Strategies for using 3DP

Strategies Brief description References
Collaboration Firms are encouraged to collaborate with various industry partners to help MND (2018) and HDB (2018)
promote the adoption of 3DP.
Training of skilled professionals To maximize the full potential of 3DP in the construction industry, it is vital Motyl and Filippi (2021)
to have well-trained and skilled professionals in the field.
Government incentives Incentives and grants allow firms to conduct research and development to EDB (2017) and MND (2018)
uncover the potential of 3DP in the construction industry.
Promoting knowledge of 3DP It is crucial to promote the knowledge of 3DP among professionals to enable Wong et al. (2014) and
the successful integration of 3DP into the construction industry. NAMIC (2018)
Promoting successful case studies Successful case studies will help boost the confidence of local organizations HDB (2018)
in adopting construction 3DP.
Pilot project to kick-start full-scale Pilot projects are essential for the smooth integration of 3DP into the Tosello et al. (2019)
implementation construction industry.
Managing expectations It is essential to keep realistic expectations for users and to list what changes Weiss (1994)
to expect when adopting construction 3DP.
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

help accelerate and expand the 3DP industry ecosystem in Singapore Research Methods and Data Presentation
toward value creation in the digital economy (EDB 2017). Apart from
setting up NAMIC, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Survey Questionnaire Development
has also introduced a Construction Productivity and Capability Fund
to aid the construction industry in technology adoption, workforce A survey questionnaire was developed to identify construction pro-
development, and capability development in Singapore’s built envi- fessionals’ perceptions regarding the utilization of 3DP for future
ronment (BCA 2019). Another grant called the Cities of Tomorrow public housing. Based on the literature review, there were nine driv-
(COT) Research and Development (R&D) Programme led by the ers, eight challenges, and seven strategies identified in relation to
Ministry of National Development (MND) aims to leverage research adopting construction 3DP. The survey questionnaire was created
and development to address the industry’s challenges (MND 2018). using the Qualtrics survey-creation tool. The survey consists of six
Because construction 3DP is still in its infancy, it is essential to sections (Sections A–F), and the objectives of each section are sum-
promote 3DP knowledge to professionals to enable its successful marized in Table 4.
integration into the construction industry. To do this, the Singapore Sections A and B mainly focused on collecting the organiza-
Government and Economic Development Board have announced tional profile for each respondent and their respective roles in the
the Industry 4.0 Strategy, which includes identifying technologies organization. Next, Section C determined respondents’ perceptions
such as 3DP to help manufacturers transition from a value-add model of utilizing 3DP for public housing. Section D allowed respondents
to a value-creation model. For example, seminars and workshops to rate the level of significance of the nine drivers of construction
supported by SkillsFuture have been organized to equip professio- 3DP identified in the literature review using a five-point Likert
nals with skills and to understand and familiarize themselves with scale. Similarly, in Section E, respondents were asked to rate the
various 3DP techniques (NAMIC 2018). Exhibitions are also being level of significance of the eight challenges identified through the
held to showcase the latest 3DP technologies worldwide, helping to literature review using a five-point Likert scale. In addition, respond-
introduce the basic knowledge of 3DP to the construction industry ents were also required to rate the likelihood of the challenges listed
(Wong et al. 2014). occurring. Finally, respondents were required to rank the level of
It is necessary to share and promote successful case studies of significance of the seven strategies identified using the five-point
3DP to boost confidence among local organizations to adopt the Likert scale. This survey questionnaire was then validated through
technology. However, research is still underway in Singapore be- pilot interviews with four industry professionals (Table 5). The sur-
cause HDB has just embarked on research projects with several vey was then edited and changed according to the professional
partners (HDB 2018). Hence, overseas case studies can motivate comments and feedback received.
and boost local firms’ confidence in embracing 3DP in construc-
tion. In addition, to allow for a smooth and successful integration of
Data Collection
3DP into the construction industry, it is essential to begin with pilot
projects before moving toward a full-scale transformation. Before The targeted respondents for the survey questionnaire consisted
diving into investing in 3DP, a pilot project could help organizations mainly of construction professionals such as project managers, en-
to test the response and whether they could achieve the predeter- gineers, architects, and consultants. The survey was disseminated to
mined success factors. For example, a pilot project investigated 3DP the companies listed in the BCA’s Contractor Registration System.
technology in the injection molding process chain regarding produc- The enterprises satisfying the Specific Registration Requirements for
tion cost and time, resulting in the 3DP adoption being economi- Construction Workhead from the BCA in Singapore were selected
cally advantageous, allowing a significant reduction in production as our sample pool. The survey was also distributed to government
cost and time (Camacho et al. 2018). These lessons learned can agencies such as HDB and Jurong Town Corporation. A total of
ultimately be applied to subsequent projects to enhance the perfor- 450 emails were sent out to invite the targeted respondents to par-
mance of 3DP in construction. ticipate in the survey. At least 30 sample cases are required to en-
The adoption of new technologies in the construction industry is sure the generalization of the survey results (van Rijnsoever 2017).
of paramount importance because it is known that the industry is Seventy-five responses were collected over the period from July to
resistant to change. One of the principal considerations to address September of 2019 for data analysis.
this resistance is the expectation that concerns the future path of The respondents were required to indicate their familiarity with
technological innovation (Rosenberg 1976). Because communicat- 3DP. Most of them were “Slightly Familiar” or higher (80%). In ad-
ing with users or stakeholders could lower the defiance to adopting dition, for those respondents unfamiliar with 3DP technology, the
3DP (Marangunić and Granić 2015), 3DP users need to be aware of definition of 3DP and related explanations were sufficiently pro-
how this technology could potentially affect the life cycle of the vided before the questionnaire. Most respondents came from the
construction industry. Thus, it is necessary to manage users’ expect- government sector (33.33%), followed by consultant firms (32%),
ations of the technology to enable its successful implementation contractor firms (17.33%), developers (9.33%), quantity surveyor
(Thong et al. 2002). firms (5.33%), and others (2.67%) (comprising suppliers and real
Table 4. Framework of the survey questionnaire

Section Objective
A. Profile of organization To better understand the background information of respondents’ organizations
B. Profile of respondent To gather demographic information on the respondents
C. Perceptions of 3D Printing To determine the receptiveness of respondents in utilizing 3DP for future public housing and their
perceptions of utilizing 3DP in Singapore’s construction industry
D. Advantages of adopting 3DP To determine the importance of each advantage in adopting 3DP identified through literature review
E. Challenges in adopting 3DP To determine the level of significance and likelihood of each challenge identified in the literature
review occurring
F. Strategies to promote the adoption of 3DP To determine the level of importance of each strategy identified through literature review
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 5. Profile of interviewees experience working in the construction industry. With their years of
Types of Years of experience, they further validated the survey analysis findings and
Interviewees Roles organization experience substantiated the research topic to a greater extent. The interview was
separated into four sections: perceptions of the adoption of 3DP, driv-
A Project manager Government sector 15
B Facilities manager Government sector 5
ers, challenges, and strategies in adopting construction 3DP. The re-
C Project manager Contractor 20 sults of the interview analyses are covered in the following section.
D Architect Government sector 18
Data Analysis and Discussion

Table 6. Number of construction projects taken by each respondent This section reviews and analyzes the survey data collected. The
Number of results provided a deeper understanding of the current implemen-

Types of projects projects tation status of 3DP for Singapore’s contractors, both for SMEs and
Residential buildings (e.g., condominiums and HDB) 331 large companies. First, to test the normality of the data, the Shapiro-
Commercial buildings (e.g., schools, shopping malls, 191 Wilk test was conducted to determine the survey data’s distribution.
and offices) The later sections include the analysis of the drivers, challenges,
Industrial buildings (e.g., factories) 168 and strategies for 3DP adoption to establish the differences among
Infrastructure (e.g., tunnels, roads, and bridges) 79 the respondents’ characteristics and their organizations’ character-
Others 19 istics through the Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and
Total 788 Spearman’s rank correlation and coefficient (SRCC) test.
Drivers in 3DP Adoption

estate firms). Because this study focused mainly on utilizing 3DP
for the construction of public housing, it might explain why most of
Normality Test
the respondents were from the government sector because they are To select the appropriate statistical method for the analysis, a nor-
more concerned with the research topic. mality test was conducted for the data collected. The Shapiro-Wilk
The respondents were also required to indicate the years of their test was chosen to test for the normality of the data. A significance
respective organization’s experience in the construction industry. level of 0.05 was set to test the hypothesis. The null and alternative
Most of them (69.33%) had more than 10 years of experience in hypotheses are as follows:
the construction industry, and the remaining firms (30.67%) had H0 : The data are normally distributed.
fewer than 10 years. It was also observed that most of the respond- H1 : The data are not normally distributed.
ents had more than 10 years of experience in the construction indus- The result of the test signified that all p-values obtained were
try (62.67%), thus making the responses more valid and legitimate. under the significance level of 0.05, as indicated in Table 7; hence,
The respondents had all participated in construction projects over the the null hypothesis was rejected against the alternative hypothesis.
last 5 years. The number of construction projects undertaken by each This result indicates that the data were not normally distributed.
respondent is summed up as indicated in Table 6. Therefore, nonparametric methods were undertaken for the data
Most of the respondents came from small–medium enterprises analysis.
(SMEs) (44%), followed by the government sector (33.33%) and
multinational corporations (MNCs) (22.67%). Also, the project Top Three Drivers for 3DP Adoption
manager role has the highest percentage (24%), followed by archi- Respondents were asked in the survey questionnaire to rate the level
tects (17.33%), and others (16%) such as BIM manager and direc- of significance for each driver on a five-point Likert scale based on
tor. More than half of the respondents (52%) resided in HDB flats, their own perceptions. As indicated in Table 7, most of the drivers
followed by condominiums (28%), others (10.67%) which included had a mean value greater than 3, which symbolizes that each driver
private apartments, and landed housing (9.33%). Furthermore, post- has a moderate to high level of significance. The top three drivers
interviews were conducted with four industry professionals to fur- were reduction in construction time, labor efficiency, and reduction
ther substantiate the survey analysis and obtain more comprehensive in injuries. Construction time is generally perceived as a benchmark
feedback after analyzing the main survey data. Table 5 provides a to gauge the performance and efficiency of a project (Kumaraswamy
profile of the interviewees. All of them have 5 or more years of and Chan 1995). The success of a project often depends on whether
Table 7. Analyses results on 3DP drivers

p-value
Kruskal-Wallis test Mann-Whitney U-test
Shapiro-Wilk Respondent’s Housing Organization Organization Respondents’ Organizations’
Drivers Mean Rank test role type type size experience experience
Increased sustainability 3.61 4 0.000 0.443 0.224 0.457 0.359 0.005 0.120
Reduction in construction time 3.89 1 0.000 0.081 0.491 0.295 0.968 0.254 0.213
Cost savings 3.48 5 0.000 0.831 0.058 0.859 0.649 0.541 0.735
Labor efficiency 3.84 2 0.000 0.326 0.214 0.252 0.047 0.473 0.929
Design and architectural flexibility 3.44 6 0.000 0.563 0.143 0.861 0.615 1.000 0.686
Reduction in injuries 3.79 3 0.000 0.273 0.050 0.219 0.044 0.293 0.590
Logistics 3.39 7 0.000 0.445 0.437 0.793 0.512 0.289 0.555
Less tooling required 3.29 8 0.000 0.370 0.668 0.896 0.501 0.821 0.841
Material deposition 3.23 9 0.000 0.513 0.670 0.130 0.603 0.375 0.594
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

it will be completed on time. In the event that a project is delayed, the of more than 0.05 accepts the null hypothesis and reveals no stat-
duration of construction will be extended with the consequence of istical difference among the multiple roles concerning 3DP drivers.
extra costs incurred (Aibinu and Jagboro 2002). Therefore, the con- According to Table 7, all of the p-values were greater than the sig-
struction professionals completing the survey came to the consensus nificance level, indicating no statistical difference among the vari-
that construction time is a crucial factor in the industry and has a ous roles regarding their perceptions of 3DP drivers.
high level of significance in driving the utilization of 3DP. To determine whether there was a statistical difference among
The second-highest driver of 3DP was labor efficiency. With respondents’ housing types and the significance of drivers, the
the use of 3D printers onsite for construction, fewer workers are Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare the differences be-
needed. Moreover, the construction industry is perceived to have tween both variables. As reported in Table 7, all p-values generated
the highest rate of work-related injuries because of the complexity from the test were above the significance level of 0.05, which in-
of work on construction sites (MOM 2018). Thus, the use of tech- dicated that there was no statistical difference among the respond-
nologies could potentially address the abovementioned issues by ents’ housing types and the significance of drivers. Furthermore,
having fewer workers onsite, and, therefore, the rate of injuries could the SRCC test was conducted to determine whether there was a
be vastly reduced. Moreover, all of the postinterviewees agreed with statistical difference among different types of respondents’ housing
the top three drivers obtained from a mean-ranking analysis, which on the significance of drivers. The null hypothesis and alternative
are reduction in construction time, labor efficiency, and reduction in hypothesis were as follows:
injuries. Interviewee C stated that H0 : There is no statistical dependence between the rankings of
two variables.
Reduction in construction time is of utmost importance in H1 : There is statistical dependence between the ranking of two
construction projects, and it would avoid payment issues and variables.
help to maintain positive cash flow for the project. This is be- The strength of the correlation is expressed as a value from −1
cause cash flow is the lifeline of all construction projects, and to þ1. A value closer to 1 indicates a strong association between the
it is crucial in every business aspect. two variables, whereas a value of zero reveals no association be-
It was clear to the interviewees that with the aid of 3D printers, tween the two variables. Most of the p-values obtained were above
fewer workers will be needed onsite for construction. This could the significance level of 0.05 except for public housing and con-
help to reduce workers’ injuries onsite because only a few workers dominium (0.003), public housing and landed housing (0.041),
are needed to operate the 3DP machine. Interviewee D stated that and landed housing and others (0.039), as indicated in Table 8.
the government is also looking for ways to cut down on foreign The results indicate that there was a moderate correlation among the
workers in the industry. This includes reshaping the construction respondents living in public housings, condominiums, and landed
sector, and new technologies will be adopted to push for higher housing; therefore, they have similar views on the drivers of con-
construction productivity. Therefore, implementing 3DP would po- struction 3DP.
tentially help achieve the goals set by the government to improve The Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to compare the differ-
construction productivity. ences in perceptions between respondents’ experience in the con-
struction industry and the drivers of 3DP. The null hypothesis and
Significance of 3DP Drivers by Respondents’ Characteristics alternative hypothesis were established as follows:
In the significance of 3DP drivers, it was found that the respondents H0 : There is no difference between groups.
had statistically equivalent views on the drivers regardless of the H1 : There is a difference between groups.
respondent’s characteristics (i.e., role, experience, and housing According to the results in Table 7, all of the p-values were
type). The detailed analysis results for each respondent character- above the significance level of 0.05; hence, the null hypothesis is
istic are as follows. not rejected against the alternative hypothesis. This result indicates
First, the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine the that all of the drivers had no significant differences between the
statistical differences among numerous roles, defined as project more experienced respondents (>10 years’ experience) and the less
manager, quantity surveyor, facilities manager, architect, contractor, experienced (0–10 years’ experience). The SRCC test was also
engineer, designer, and others. The null and alternative hypotheses conducted to ascertain whether there was any statistical dependence
were as follows: between the ranking of respondents’ experience in the construc-
H0 : There are no differences in the median between groups. tion industry and the significance of drivers. The Spearman’s cor-
H1 : There are differences in the median between groups. relation coefficient was 0.506 with a p-value of 0.019 below the
A p-value of less than the significance level of 0.05 rejects significance level. The result indicated that there was statistical
the null hypothesis, concluding that a statistical difference exists dependence between the ranking of respondents’ experience in the
among various roles on the perceptions of 3DP drivers. A p-value construction industry and the significance of drivers; there was a
Table 8. SRCC between types of housing and advantages of 3DP

Types of housing SRCC Public housing Condominium Landed housing Others
Public housing Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.608 0.449 0.181
Significance (2-tailed) — 0.003 0.041 0.431
Condominium Correlation coefficient 0.608 1.000 0.320 0.207
Significance (2-tailed) 0.003 — 0.158 0.368
Landed housing Correlation coefficient 0.449 0.320 1.000 0.453
Significance (2-tailed) 0.041 0.158 — 0.039
Others Correlation coefficient 0.181 0.207 0.453 1.000
Significance (2-tailed) 0.431 0.368 0.039 —
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 9. SRCC between type of organization and advantages of 3DP
Types of organization SRCC Government sector Developer Contractor Consultant Quantity surveyor Others
Government sector Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.303 0.175 0.529 0.403 0.185
Significance (2-tailed) — 0.182 0.448 0.014 0.070 0.423
Developer Correlation coefficient 0.303 1.000 0.529 0.678 0.543 0.524
Significance (2-tailed) 0.182 — 0.014 0.001 0.011 0.011
Contractor Correlation coefficient 0.175 0.529 1.000 0.317 −0.105 0.412
Significance (2-tailed) 0.448 0.014 — 0.162 0.652 0.064
Consultant Correlation coefficient 0.529 0.678 0.317 1.000 0.402 0.243
Significance (2-tailed) 0.014 0.001 0.162 — 0.071 0.288

Quantity surveyor Correlation coefficient 0.403 0.543 −0.105 0.402 1.000 0.433
Significance (2-tailed) 0.070 0.011 0.652 0.071 — 0.050
Others Correlation coefficient 0.185 0.542 0.412 0.243 0.433 1.000
Significance (2-tailed) 0.423 0.011 0.064 0.288 0.050 —
moderate positive correlation between respondents’ experience in Table 10. SRCC between organization size and advantages of 3DP
the construction industry and the significance of drivers. Therefore, Size of Government
the ranking of the significance of drivers perceived by respondents organization SRCC sector SME MNC
with less and more experience was similar.
Government Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.470 0.335
Significance of 3DP Drivers by Organizations’ sector Significance (2-tailed) — 0.032 0.138
Characteristics SME Correlation coefficient 0.470 1.000 0.699
In the significance of 3DP drivers, it was found that the respondents Significance (2-tailed) 0.032 — 0.000
had statistically nonequivalent views on the drivers regarding their
MNC Correlation coefficient 0.335 0.699 1.000
organization characteristics (i.e., type, size, and experience) except Significance (2-tailed) 0.138 0.000 —
for several cases. The detailed analysis results for each characteristic
are as follows. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare the
statistical difference among various organization type on the signifi-
cance of drivers. As presented in Table 7, all p-values obtained from MNCs had a strong positive correlation of 0.699. This could be
the test were above the 0.05; therefore, there was no significant dif- attributed to the same views perceived by both SMEs and MNCs
ference in the perceptions of the significance of drivers among dif- toward the implementation of construction 3DP in constructing
ferent organization type. public housing.
In addition, the SRCC test was conducted to determine whether The Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to compare the differ-
there was a statistical dependence among different organization ences in perceptions between organizations’ experience in the con-
type and the significance of drivers. As indicated in Table 9, most struction industry and the 3DP drivers. According to the results in
of the p-values obtained from the SRCC test were greater than the Table 7, most of the p-values generated were above the significance
significance level of 0.05, except for government and consultant level of 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected against
(0.014), developer and contractor (0.014), developer and consultant the alternative hypothesis. This result implied that there was no
(0.001), developer and quantity surveyor (0.011), and developer significant difference in the drivers of 3DP between the less expe-
and others (0.011). As a result, there were statistical dependences be- rienced organizations (0–10 years) and the more experienced or-
tween the organization types on the significance of drivers, which ganizations (>10 years). This finding implies that respondents had
indicates that different types of respondents had different percep- similar opinions about 3DP drivers, regardless of their experience.
tions of the importance of the drivers. In particular, developers had Additionally, the SRCC test was conducted to determine any stat-
similar views with the other organization types because developers istical dependence between the rankings of the organizations’ ex-
can be both the owner and contractor of a project. perience. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient was 0.608 with a
Furthermore, the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine p-value of 0.003, indicates a moderate positive correlation between
whether there was a statistical difference among different sizes of the organizations’ experience and the significance of drivers. It can
organizations. As presented in Table 7, most of the p-values were be concluded that the perceptions between the less and more ex-
above the significance level of 0.05, except for labor efficiency perienced organizations were similar.
(0.047) and reduction in injuries (0.044). The results indicated that
there were significant differences among different sizes of organ-
izations on these two drivers. The SRCC test was also conducted Challenges in 3DP Adoption
to ascertain whether there was any statistical dependence between Respondents were asked to rate the level of significance and like-
organization size and the significance of drivers. As presented in lihood of occurrence for each challenge on a five-point Likert scale
Table 10, the p-values obtained for the government sector and based on their own perceptions. Based on these two factors rated
SMEs and for SMEs and MNCs were 0.032 and 0.000, respec- by respondents for each challenge, the criticality of challenges was
tively, which are less than the significance level of 0.05; hence, computed using the following equation:
the null hypothesis is rejected against the alternative hypothesis.
It can be concluded that there was a significant statistical correla-
tion between the rankings of different sizes of organizations and Criticality of challenges
the significance of 3DP drivers. The SRCC test between SMEs and ¼ Level of significance × Likelihood of occurrences
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Normality Test compared with conventional construction to create a digital model,
To select the appropriate statistical method for the analysis, a nor- which will give rise to cost-effective and safe products (Sakin and
mality test was conducted for the data collected. A significance level Kiroglu 2017).
of 0.05 was set to test the hypotheses: Moreover, Postinterviewees A and D both agreed that high up-
H0 : The data are normally distributed. front cost and reluctance to invest in 3DP are the major barriers to
H1 : The data are not normally distributed. overcome when adopting 3DP:
Based on Table 11, the results of the tests signified that all
p-values obtained were under the significance level of 0.05; hence, It is a top-down approach when it comes to adopting new
the null hypothesis was rejected against the alternative hypoth- technologies. The decision-making always comes down to cli-
esis. This result indicated that the data were not normally distrib- ents’ requirements and that some of the big companies are still
uted. Therefore, nonparametric methods were undertaken for data used to implementing traditional building methods and are re-
analysis. luctant to adopt new technologies. (Interviewee A)
Top Three Challenges in 3DP Adoption It is evident that the cost of adopting new technologies is too
According to Table 11, all challenges listed had a mean value greater exorbitant—especially for small firms. Interviewee D stated
than nine, which symbolized that each challenge had a moderate to
Not all projects require 3DP as their construction methods,
high criticality when adopting construction 3DP. The top three criti-
hence the 3D printer may not be applicable to other projects
cal challenges were limited production size, reluctance to invest in
due to different requirements. As a result, extra cost will be
3DP, and high upfront cost. Limited production size emerged as the
incurred to store the 3D printer while it is not in use.
top challenge that had the highest level of significance perceived by
industry professionals. Although it is possible to 3D-print individual In contrast, Interviewee C stated that the lack of expertise in
construction elements, such as window frame fixtures and sanitary 3DP is the most significant barrier when adopting construction 3DP.
fittings, the size of the printed products is restricted when using con- This is because the technology is still in its infancy, and it will take
struction 3DP (Lim et al. 2012). This is mainly due to the limited years to conduct more studies and research on 3DP to fully under-
material strength used in 3DP, such as liquid polymer, which restricts stand its potential in improving productivity:
the ability to produce large-sized structures (Huang et al. 2013).
Because the technology is still in infancy, it is highly improbable There is no structural guarantee that 3DP products will be ro-
that the demand for 3DP will increase due to the poor industry re- bust during its lifetime, as more research will have to be done
sponses. For example, the construction industry is known to be re- to ensure its structural durability. There is also limited demand
luctant when adopting new technologies (Smith 2012). According in the market and that’s what has deterred companies from
to a survey about the behavior of the construction industry concern- adopting new technologies such as 3DP.
ing new technology, construction firms generally wait for their
competitors to initiate the first move toward using new technologies Interviewee B took a slightly different approach and viewed a
(Xia et al. 2019). Likewise, the high initial cost of the 3D printer lack of standardization as highly significant in adopting construction
often leads to many considerations taken by companies when de- 3DP. As mentioned, the technology is still in infancy, and there is a
ciding whether to adopt construction 3DP, despite the advantages lack of information and studies on the potential of 3DP. Therefore,
that 3DP could potentially bring the firm, such as cost and time the novelty of 3D printed elements remains unclear to the regulators:
savings. For example, the procurement of 3DP machinery consti- “Without a proper and legal intervention, issues concerning quality
tutes a challenge to companies due to the high initial capital re- control, workers’ well-being, health and safety, and liability will
quired (Smith 2012). Generally, 3DP incurs more up-front costs certainly arise in the long run” (Interviewee C).
Table 11. Analysis results on the criticality of 3DP challenges

p-value
Shapiro-Wilk test Kruskal-Wallis test Mann-Whitney U-test
Likelihood
Level of of Respondent’s Housing Organization Organization Respondents’ Organizations’
Challenges Mean Rank significance occurrences Criticality role type type size experience experience
Susceptible 14.293 6 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.457 0.912 0.703 0.682 0.790 0.679
to weather
condition
Surface 13.560 7 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.025 0.452 0.905 0.600 0.564 0.474
finishing
Low precision 12.453 8 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.216 0.915 0.186 0.065 0.384 0.766
High upfront 18.787 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.932 0.955 0.525 0.709 0.772 0.296
cost
Reluctance to 18.907 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.484 0.322 0.525 0.661 0.102 0.049
invest in 3DP
Lack of 18.680 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.666 0.253 0.907 0.311 0.535 0.910
expertise
Lack of 17.947 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.271 0.505 0.232 0.183 0.306 0.962
standardization
Limited 19.400 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.830 0.097 0.632 0.360 0.803 0.458
production size
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Significance of 3DP Challenges by Respondents’ perceived by respondents with different years of experiences ap-
Characteristics pears to be comparable.
In the significance of 3DP challenges, it was found that the respond- In addition, the postinterviewees were asked whether the pro-
ents had statistically nonequivalent views on the drivers regardless files of respondents would have an influence on the ranking of chal-
of the respondent’s characteristics (i.e., role, experience, or housing lenges. Interviewee A responded that regardless of the roles and
type) except for the several cases. The detailed analysis results for experiences of respondents in the industry, challenges such as high
each respondent characteristic are as follows. The Kruskal-Wallis upfront cost and reluctance to invest in 3DP persist in the industry.
test was conducted to determine whether there was a significant dif- However, Interviewee C stated that
ference among the roles of respondents concerning the criticality of
challenges in adopting construction 3DP. As presented in Table 11, Even though there will be high costs incurred to acquire new
most of the p-values were above the significance level of 0.05, ex- technologies, companies would have to take a leap to invest in
cept for surface finishing, which indicated that certain roles might new technologies to be the first movers in the industry. This
have nonequivalent views on the criticality of the factor. For in- would provide great opportunities for the firms to participate
stance, architects who are responsible for designing the building and bid for projects in and out of Singapore.
may perceive the choice of materials to be used in 3DP as highly Interviewee D mentioned that there would be significant dif-
critical, as opposed to an engineer, who prioritizes the safety and ferences in perceptions between profiles of respondents on chal-
functionality of the building. lenges such as limited materials and choices for surface finishes.
The Kruskal-Wallis test was also conducted to determine For instance, architects who are responsible for designing the
whether there were significant differences among respondents’ building would consider the choices of materials as highly signifi-
housing types concerning the criticality of challenges in adopting cant because the aesthetics of the final building are dependent on
construction 3DP. As presented in Table 11, all of the p-values the choice of materials. Therefore, with limited choices for ma-
were greater than the significance level of 0.05, thereby supporting terials for surface finishes, it would impose restrictions on the
the null hypothesis. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was possibilities for building designs. Conversely, other roles such
no significant difference in perceptions between the respondents’ as engineers and facilities managers might not perceive the lim-
housing types and the criticality of challenges in adopting 3DP. ited materials as highly significant because they might prioritize
Furthermore, the SRCC test was conducted to ascertain whether the functionality of the building rather than focus on the aesthetic
there was a statistical dependence between the rankings of housing aspects of it.
types on challenge criticality. As presented in Table 12, the p-val-
ues generated for public housing and condominium, public housing Significance of 3DP Challenges by Organizations’
and landed housing, and condominium and landed housing were Characteristics
below the significance level of 0.05 with strong positive relation- In the significance of 3DP challenges, it was found that the respond-
ships. This signifies that the perceptions of respondents living in ents had statistically equivalent views on the drivers regarding their
different housing types concerning the criticality of challenges organization characteristics (i.e., type, size, and experience) except
were comparable. for several cases. The detailed analysis results for each characteristic
The Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to determine whether are as follows. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine
there was any difference in the perceptions of challenge criticality whether there was a significant difference among various organiza-
between respondents’ experience in the construction industry. As tion type regarding the criticality of challenges in adopting 3DP.
presented in Table 11, all of the p-values generated from the test Based on the results in Table 11, all of the p-values were more than
were above the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, it can be con- the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was
cluded that there was no statistical difference in the criticality of accepted, showing that there was no significant difference among
challenges between the less experienced (0–10 years’ experience) organization types.
and the more experienced (>10 years’ experience) respondents. The SRCC test was also conducted to determine whether there
Furthermore, the SRCC test was conducted to verify whether there was a statistical dependence among various organization type con-
was any statistical dependence between the ranking of respond- cerning the criticality of challenges. According to the results of the
ents’ experience in the construction industry and the criticality of SRCC test, most of the p-values for challenges were below the sig-
challenges. The p-value obtained for challenges was 0.000, with nificance level of 0.05, except for government sector and quantity
a Spearman’s correlation coefficient of 0.815, indicating a strong surveyor (0.184) and contractor and others (0.190), as indicated in
positive correlation between both variables. This result showed that Table 13. Therefore, the perceptions of the criticality of challenges
the ranking of the criticality of challenges across the categories differed between the organization types.
Table 12. SRCC between the respondents’ type of housing and criticality of challenges
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 13. SRCC between respondents’ types of organization and criticality of challenges
Government sector Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.483 0.604 0.620 0.310 0.461
Developer Correlation coefficient 0.483 1.000 0.680 0.676 0.748 0.590
Contractor Correlation coefficient 0.604 0.680 1.000 0.647 0.678 0.306

Quantity surveyor Correlation coefficient 0.310 0.748 0.678 0.496 1.000 0.560
Others Correlation coefficient 0.461 0.590 0.306 0.508 0.560 1.000
The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine whether organization and issues such as transportation and storage would
there was a statistical difference between the sizes of organizations occur regardless of the types of organization.”
and the criticality of challenges. As presented in Table 11, all of the
p-values were more than the 0.05 significance level, indicating that
the perceptions of the criticality of these challenges were statisti- Strategies in 3DP Adoption
cally in consensus between the various sizes of organizations. The
SRCC test was also conducted to determine whether there was stat- Normality Test
istical dependence between the organization size and criticality of To select the appropriate statistical method for the analysis, a nor-
challenges in adopting 3DP. All p-values obtained from the test mality test was conducted for the data collected. The Shapiro-Wilk
were less than the significance level of 0.05; therefore, the null test was chosen to test for the normality of the data. A significance
hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, as level of 0.05 was set to test the hypothesis. The result of the test
indicated in Table 14. Therefore, there was a moderate positive cor- signifies that all p-values were under the significance level of 0.05,
relation between the size of organizations and the criticality of all as indicated in Table 15. Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected
challenges. It can be concluded that the criticality of challenges by against the alternative hypothesis, indicating that the data were
different sizes of organizations were statistically similar. not normally distributed. Therefore, nonparametric methods were
The Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to determine the sig- undertaken for the analysis.
nificant differences between organizations’ experience in the con-
struction industry and criticality for challenges. As presented in Top Three Strategies for 3DP Adoption
Table 11, all of the p-values were more than the significance level Respondents were asked in the survey questionnaire to rate the
of 0.05, indicating that there was no significant difference between level of significance for each strategy on a five-point Likert scale
the less experienced (0–10 years) and more experienced (>10 years) based on their own perceptions. Most strategies had a mean value
organizations. Furthermore, the SRCC test was conducted to de- greater than 3, symbolizing that each strategy has a moderate to
termine any statistical dependence between the ranking of organ- high level of significance. The top three strategies were government
izations’ experience and criticality of challenges. The Spearman’s
incentives, managing expectations, and promoting knowledge of
correlation coefficient was 0.839, with a p-value of 0.000. There-
3DP. One of the top barriers that deterred companies from adopting
fore, there was a strong positive correlation between the organiza-
construction 3DP was the high initial costs of the machines. Com-
tions’ experience and the criticality of challenges.
panies were also unwilling to invest in the technology due to its high
All interviewees agreed that there is no significant difference
in perceptions of the ranking of challenges based on respondents’ capital investments. Therefore, relevant subsidies provided by the
housing types and organization type. As stated by Interviewee B, government could help encourage firms to adopt new technologies
“the challenges in adopting 3DP would apply for every type of to increase overall construction productivity.
Next, managing users’ expectations is also of paramount impor-
tance, and it is vital that they are well-informed of the changes that
will occur when adopting 3DP technology. Because the technology
Table 14. SRCC between the size of organization and criticality of is still comparatively young to the industry, its potential in increas-
challenges
ing construction productivity is not well-known by users. More-
Size of Government over, to further encourage the industry to adopt construction 3DP,
organization SRCC sector SME MNC it is necessary to promote knowledge of 3DP through training
Government Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.641 0.533 workshops for the purpose of training skilled professionals. Prop-
sector Significance (2-tailed) — 0.002 0.016 erly trained professionals could aid the construction industry in fa-
SME Correlation coefficient 0.641 1.000 0.646 miliarizing and understanding the potential of construction 3DP
Significance (2-tailed) 0.002 — 0.002 and how it could benefit the industry in the long run.
Moreover, Postinterviewees B, C, and D agreed that the top strat-
MNC Correlation coefficient 0.533 0.646 1.000 egy in encouraging firms to adopt new technologies is government
Significance (2-tailed) 0.016 0.002 —
incentives:
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 15. Analyses results on 3DP strategies
p-value
Kruskal-Wallis test Mann-Whitney U-test
Shapiro-Wilk Respondent’s Housing Organization Organization’s Respondent’s Organization’s
Strategies Mean Rank test role types types size experience experience
Collaboration 4.000 7 0.000 0.970 0.101 0.793 0.725 0.281 0.931
Training of skilled professionals 4.093 5 0.000 0.616 0.601 0.981 0.405 0.712 0.961
Government incentives 4.373 1 0.000 0.891 0.862 0.251 0.122 0.827 0.436
Promoting knowledge of 3DP 4.120 3 0.000 0.551 0.293 0.414 0.461 0.437 0.886
Promoting successful case studies 4.080 6 0.000 0.908 0.564 0.644 0.551 0.779 0.883
Pilot project to kick-start full-scale 4.107 4 0.000 0.849 0.914 0.643 0.945 0.607 0.806
implementation
Managing expectations 4.133 2 0.000 0.505 0.581 0.472 0.217 0.654 0.674
The adoption of new technologies involves purchasing and housing types concerning the significance of strategies. All p-values
maintaining the equipment, research, and development, etc. generated from the test were above the significance level of 0.05, as
All these require a large amount of resources; therefore, the indicated in Table 15. It can be deduced that there was no statistical
support from government is crucial, especially for small and difference among the respondents’ housing types on the significance
medium enterprises. (Interviewee B) of strategies.
Furthermore, the SRCC test was also conducted to determine
To assist the construction industry in improving productivity, whether there was a statistical difference among different types
the BCA has launched a Construction Productivity and Capability of respondents’ housing concerning the significance of strategies.
Fund in the hope of encouraging technology adoption in construc- All the p-values obtained were above the significance level of 0.05,
tion firms: “Government incentives have been viewed as a major as presented in Table 16, thereby accepting the null hypothesis.
driver in adopting technologies, and firms would be more willing It can be concluded that there was no statistical dependence be-
to embrace new technologies with the right funding and support tween the rankings of respondents’ housing types on the strategies
from the government,” as mentioned by Interviewee D. On the con- in adopting 3DP.
trary, Interviewee A suggested that it is crucial to promote knowl- To compare the differences in perceptions between respondents’
edge of 3DP to encourage the adoption of construction 3DP. One of experience in the construction industry and the 3DP strategies, the
the challenges that is most likely to occur is the lack of expertise in Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to determine whether there
3DP. Therefore, to tackle this issue, seminars and workshops can be was a statistical difference among two variables. According to the
conducted to allow the industry to understand the mechanics and results in Table 15, all p-values were above the significance level of
concepts that 3DP brings with it. 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis was not rejected against the alter-
native hypothesis, indicating that the strategies had no significant
Significance of 3DP Strategies by Respondents’ differences between the more experienced (> 10 years’ experience)
Characteristics and less experienced (0–10 years’ experience) respondents.
In the significance of 3DP strategies, it was found that the respond- Furthermore, the SRCC test was conducted to ascertain whether
ents had statistically equivalent views on the drivers regardless of there was any statistical dependence between the ranking of respond-
the respondent’s characteristics (i.e., role, experience, and housing ents’ experience in the construction industry and the significance of
type). The detailed analysis results for each respondent character- strategies. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient was 0.000, with a
istic are as follows. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to com- p-value of 1.000, which is above the 0.005 significance level. This
pare the differences among the respondents’ roles regarding the result indicates that there was no statistical dependence between
significance of strategies. According to Table 15, all p-values were the ranking of respondents’ experience in the construction industry
more than the significance level of 0.05, thus indicating that there and the significance of strategies. It can be concluded that there was
were no statistical differences among the various roles concerning no association between respondents’ experience in the construc-
the strategies. Another Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to deter- tion industry and the significance of strategies in adopting construc-
mine whether there was a statistical difference among respondents’ tion 3DP.
Table 16. SRCC between types of housing and strategies

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 17. SRCC between types of organization and strategies in adopting 3DP
Government sector Correlation coefficient 1.000 −0.356 −0.605 0.540 −0.363 −0.170
Developer Correlation coefficient −0.356 1.000 0.720 0.315 0.389 0.357
Contractor Correlation coefficient −0.605 0.720 1.000 0.084 0.683 0.456

Quantity surveyor Correlation coefficient −0.363 0.389 0.683 0.206 1.000 0.252
Others Correlation coefficient −0.170 0.357 0.456 0.536 0.252 1.000
Significance of 3DP Strategies by Organizations’ −0.060, −0.317, and 0.337, respectively. This result indicates that
Characteristics there was a weak difference in the ranking of strategies in adopting
In the significance of 3DP strategies, it was found that the respond- construction 3DP by different sizes of organizations. This disparity
ents had statistically nonequivalent views on the drivers regarding in the ranking could be attributed to the degree of experience varies
their organization characteristics (i.e., type, size, and experience) depending on the size of the company. For example, SMEs would
except for several cases. The detailed analysis results for each char- prioritize obtaining government incentives and funding before
acteristic are as follows. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to adopting 3DP technology in construction due to the extravagant
compare the statistical difference among various organization type upfront costs.
and the significance of strategies. As presented in Table 15, all The Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to compare the differ-
p-values obtained from the test were above the significance level ences in perceptions between organizations’ experience in the con-
of 0.05; therefore, it can be concluded that there was no significant struction industry and the strategies in adopting 3DP. According
difference in perceptions of the significance of strategies among to the results in Table 15, all of the p-values were above the 0.05
different organization type. significance level. Therefore, there was no significant difference in
Additionally, the SRCC test was conducted to determine whether the strategies in adopting 3DP between the less experienced organ-
there was statistical dependence among different organization type izations (0–10 years) and the more experienced organizations
on the significance of strategies. Most of the p-values obtained were (>10 years). The SRCC test was also conducted to determine any
greater than the significance level of 0.05, except for developer and statistical dependence between the rankings of the organizations’
contractor, as provided in Table 17. Therefore, it can be concluded experience. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient was 0.379 with
that the perceptions of the significance of strategies in adopting 3DP a p-value of 0.355, indicating there was a weak positive correlation
were similar between developers and contractors. between the rankings of the organizations’ experience. It can be
The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine whether concluded that there were differing views among different organ-
there was a statistical difference among different sizes of organizations’ experience on the significance of strategies in adopting
izations. As presented in Table 15, all the p-values were above the 3DP. The more experienced organizations had a better understand-
significance level of 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis was not ing of the potential of 3DP and how it would help to increase pro-
rejected against the alternative hypothesis. This indicates that there ductivity in the construction industry. Hence, this may help explain
was no difference among organization sizes concerning the signifi- why the more experienced organizations placed greater emphasis
cance of strategies. on promoting knowledge of 3DP to increase the adoption of such
In addition, the SRCC test was also conducted to ascertain technology.
whether there was any statistical dependence between the size of
the organization and the significance of strategies. As indicated in
Table 18, the correlation coefficients of the government sector and Conclusions and Recommendations
SMEs, government sector and MNCs, and SMEs and MNCs were
Three-dimensional printing has been a growing phenomenon across
the world due to its significant benefits in increasing site productiv-
Table 18. SRCC between the size of organization and strategies
ity. In Singapore, the HDB is currently working with several indus-
try experts to explore the potential of such technology and how it
Size of Government would contribute to the local construction industry. Therefore, to
organization SRCC sector SME MNC enable the smooth implementation of 3DP technology, it is crucial
Government Correlation coefficient 1.000 −0.060 −0.317 to understand the local construction industry’s receptiveness to 3DP
sector Significance (2-tailed) — 0.887 0.444 technology. In addition, it is vital to ascertain the drivers, potential
SME Correlation coefficient −0.060 1.000 0.337 challenges, and feasible strategies in adopting construction 3DP.
Significance (2-tailed) 0.887 — 0.414 In this study, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to
provide a broad overview of 3DP technology and its respective cat-
MNC Correlation coefficient −0.317 0.337 1.000 egories. The adoption of 3DP in the global and local construction
Significance (2-tailed) 0.444 0.414 —
industry was also identified through a literature review to provide a
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

more in-depth understanding of the status quo of such technology sectors and consultant firms, which means the respondents tended
in the industry. Furthermore, drivers, challenges, and strategies in to focus more on policies and social welfare. Additional surveys
adopting construction 3DP were also identified through a literature will be needed to match the proportion of respondents in the future
review. The factors were then validated through survey question- research. To enable the smooth implementation of 3DP into the
naires and interviews with construction industry professionals. construction industry, a comparative study with overseas case stud-
For the drivers in adopting construction 3DP, it can be concluded ies is also recommended to obtain a more comprehensive under-
that there was no significant difference in perceptions between roles standing of the technology.
of respondents, housing types, and the types of organization based
on the data analysis. However, the views of postinterviewees dif-
fered from the survey data analysis because the interviewees iden- Data Availability Statement
tified that different roles would have different perceptions of the

drivers in adopting 3DP due to contradictory perspectives. The top Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
three drivers that were perceived as significant were reduction in con- study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
struction time, labor efficiency, and reduction in injuries. These driv- request.
ers were further validated through postinterviews, giving credence to
the results obtained.
For the top three challenges—limited production size, reluc- Acknowledgments
tance to invest in 3DP, and high upfront cost—it was evident that
industry professionals were still unfamiliar with construction 3DP, This research was conducted with the support of the National R&D
and work would have to be conducted to shift the traditional stigma Project for Smart Construction Technology (No. 22SMIP-A158708-
that 3DP is only for prototype fabrication. Therefore, the technical 03) funded by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Ad-
aspects of 3DP are still one of the most crucial factors to overcome, vancement under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport,
which requires a large amount of fine-tuning to be technically ready and managed by the Korea Expressway Corporation. This research
for proper utilization in the local construction industry. The analysis was supported by the IPUR Grant Award (REF: IPUR_FY2019_
showed no significant differences in the ranking of challenges re- RES_02_HWANG), Lloyd’s Register Foundation Institute for the
gardless of housing types or organization type. Public Understanding of Risk, Singapore.
For strategies in promoting the adoption of 3DP, the top three
strategies perceived as highly significant were government incen-
tives, managing expectations, and promoting knowledge of 3DP. References
The analysis also showed that there was no significant difference
Aibinu, A. A., and G. O. Jagboro. 2002. “The effects of construction delays
between the respondents’ profiles and their organizations on the
on project delivery in Nigerian construction industry.” Int. J. Project
ranking of strategies. This indicates that the significance of each Manage. 20 (8): 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)
strategy was comparable regardless of roles and organizations. 00028-5.
This study has identified several components that are beneficial Allouzi, R., W. Al-Azhari, and R. Allouzi. 2020. “Conventional construc-
to the construction industry, especially to the HDB, because re- tion and 3D printing: A comparison study on material cost in Jordan.”
search is being conducted to test the feasibility of 3DP in construc- J. Eng. 2020: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1424682.
tion. The contributions include the top drivers in adopting 3DP, Al Rashid, A., S. A. Khan, S. G. Al-Ghamdi, and M. Koç. 2020. “Additive
variations in responses to drivers based on the profile of respond- manufacturing: Technology, applications, markets, and opportunities
ents and organizations, the top challenges in adopting construction for the built environment.” Autom. Constr. 118: 103268.
Ballardini, R. M., I. F. Ituarte, and E. Pei. 2018. “Printing spare parts
3DP, and the top strategies that could be adopted to tackle the po-
through additive manufacturing: Legal and digital business challenges.”
tential barriers. It can be concluded that all strategies are significant J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 29 (6): 958–982. https://doi.org/10.1108
in conquering the potential barriers. For instance, organizations are /JMTM-12-2017-0270.
typically resistant to change because ample worker numbers and BCA (Building and Construction Authority). 2019. “Prefabricated pre-
resources are mandatory in adopting construction 3DP. Therefore, finished volumetric construction (PPVC).” Accessed April 26, 2021.
more funds and incentives could be rolled out to support and encour- https://tinyurl.com/4u5psuxe.
age local firms to adopt new technologies to improve construction Begić, H., and M. Galić. 2021. “A systematic review of construction 4.0 in
productivity. the context of the BIM 4.0 premise.” Buildings 11 (8): 337. https://doi
Although the objectives of this study were achieved, there are .org/10.3390/buildings11080337.
a few limitations to the study that need to be acknowledged. The Berman, B. 2012. “3-D printing: The new industrial revolution.” Bus. Horiz.
55 (2): 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003.
survey garnered a total of 75 responses out of 450 emails, which
Buchanan, C., and L. Gardner. 2019. “Metal 3D printing in construction:
constitutes a response rate of 16.67%. Although it is statistically A review of methods, research, applications, opportunities and chal-
significant, a higher response rate could potentially attain more lenges.” Eng. Struct. 180: 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
accurate and substantial results. The current survey questionnaire .2018.11.045.
contained construction professionals with diverse backgrounds. Buswell, R. A., R. C. Soar, A. G. Gibb, and A. Thorpe. 2007. “Freeform
The findings from this study were well interpreted and exclusively construction: Mega-scale rapid manufacturing for construction.” Autom.
applied to the context of Singapore, which may be different from Constr. 16 (2): 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.05.002.
the context of other countries. Camacho, D. D., P. Clayton, W. J. O’Brien, C. Seepersad, M. Juenger,
Further research can focus on the construction methods of com- R. Ferron, and S. Salamone. 2018. “Applications of additive manufac-
turing in the construction industry–A forward-looking review.” Autom.
bining 3DP elements with prefabrication in constructing buildings
Constr. 89 (May): 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12
other than public housing. For a more extensive understanding of .031.
this subject matter, a more detailed design of the survey question- Cesaretti, G., E. Dini, X. De Kestelier, V. Colla, and L. Pambaguian. 2014.
naire can be employed to better understand the perception of industry “Building components for an outpost on the lunar soil by means of
professionals regarding the utilization of construction 3DP. For ex- a novel 3D printing technology.” Acta Astronaut. 93 (Jan): 430–450.
ample, the main respondents in the current survey were government https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.07.034.
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Chaudhuri, A., H. Rogers, P. Soberg, and K. S. Pawar. 2019. “The role of Hossain, M., A. Zhumabekova, S. C. Paul, and J. R. Kim. 2020. “A review
service providers in 3D printing adoption.” Ind. Manage. Data Syst. of 3D printing in construction and its impact on the labor market.”
119 (6): 1189–1205. Sustainability 12 (20): 8492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208492.
Chekurov, S., S. Metsä-Kortelainen, M. Salmi, I. Roda, and A. Jussila. Huang, S. H., P. Liu, A. Mokasdar, and L. Hou. 2013. “Additive manufac-
2018. “The perceived value of additively manufactured digital spare turing and its societal impact: A literature review.” Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
parts in industry: An empirical investigation.” Int. J. Prod. Econ. Technol. 67 (5): 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4558-5.
205 (Nov): 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.09.008. Hwang, B. G., J. Ngo, and J. Z. K. Teo. 2022. “Challenges and strategies
Chen, D., S. Heyer, S. Ibbotson, K. Salonitis, J. G. Steingrímsson, and for the adoption of smart technologies in the construction industry: The
S. Thiede. 2015. “Direct digital manufacturing: Definition, evolution, case of Singapore.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (1): 05021014. https://doi.org
and sustainability implications.” J. Cleaner Prod. 107 (Nov): 615–625. /10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000986.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.009. Hwang, B. G., X. Zhao, and S. Y. Ng. 2013. “Identifying the critical factors
Chia, S. Y. 2011. “Foreign labor in Singapore: Rationale, policies, impacts, affecting schedule performance of public housing projects.” Habitat Int.
and issues.” Philipp. J. Dev. 38 (1): 105–133. 38 (Apr): 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.008.
Choudhary, N., A. Kumar, V. Sharma, and P. Kumar. 2021. “Barriers in Keating, S. J., J. C. Leland, L. Cai, and N. Oxman. 2017. “Toward site-
adoption of additive manufacturing in medical sector supply chain.” specific and self-sufficient robotic fabrication on architectural scales.”
J. Adv. Manage. Res. 18 (5): 637–660. Sci. Rob. 2 (5): eaam8986. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aam8986.
Chua, B. H. 2014. “Navigating between limits: The future of public hous- Khajavi, S. H., M. Tetik, A. Mohite, A. Peltokorpi, M. Li, Y. Weng, and J.
ing in Singapore.” Hous. Stud. 29 (4): 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1080 Holmström. 2021. “Additive manufacturing in the construction indus-
/02673037.2013.874548. try: The comparative competitiveness of 3D concrete printing.” Appl.
Despeisse, M., M. Yang, S. Evans, S. Ford, and T. Minshall. 2017. “Sus- Sci. 11 (9): 3865. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865.
tainable value roadmapping framework for additive manufacturing.” Khoshnevis, B. 2004. “Automated construction by contour crafting—
Procedia CIRP 61 (Jan): 594–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016 Related robotics and information technologies.” Autom. Constr. 13 (1):
.11.186. 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.08.012.
Dimitrov, D., W. Van Wijck, K. Schreve, and N. De Beer. 2006. “Inves- Krimi, I., Z. Lafhaj, and L. Ducoulombier. 2017. “Prospective study on the
tigating the achievable accuracy of three dimensional printing.” Rapid integration of additive manufacturing to building industry—Case of a
Prototyping J. 12 (1): 42–52. French construction company.” Addit. Manuf. 16 (Aug): 107–114.
EDB (Economic Development Board). 2017. “Unleash the power of 3D https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.04.002.
printing.” Accessed April 26, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/238rexre.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., and D. W. Chan. 1995. “Determinants of construc-
Ferguson, J. 1995. Managing and minimizing construction waste: A prac- tion duration.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 13 (3): 209–217. https://doi
tical guide. London: Thomas Telford.
.org/10.1080/01446199500000025.
Fiedler, S. 2010. “Managing resistance in an organizational transformation:
Labonnote, N., A. Rønnquist, B. Manum, and P. Rüther. 2016. “Additive
A case study from a mobile operator company.” Int. J. Project Manage.
construction: State-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities.” Autom.
28 (4): 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.004.
Constr. 72 (Dec): 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.026.
Gibson, I., T. Kvan, and M. L. Wai. 2002. “Rapid prototyping for archi-
Le, T. T., S. A. Austin, S. Lim, R. A. Buswell, A. G. Gibb, and T. Thorpe.
tectural models.” Rapid Prototyping J. 8 (2): 91–95. https://doi.org/10
2012a. “Mix design and fresh properties for high-performance printing
.1108/13552540210420961.
concrete.” Mater. Struct. 45 (8): 1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1617
Grassi, G., S. L. Spagnolo, and I. Paoletti. 2019. “Fabrication and durability
/s11527-012-9828-z.
testing of a 3D printed façade for desert climates.” Addit. Manuf.
Le, T. T., S. A. Austin, S. Lim, R. A. Buswell, R. Law, A. G. Gibb, and T.
28 (Aug): 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.05.023.
Thorpe. 2012b. “Hardened properties of high-performance printing
Hager, I., A. Golonka, and R. Putanowicz. 2016. “3D printing of buildings
concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (3): 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
and building components as the future of sustainable construction?”
.cemconres.2011.12.003.
Procedia Eng. 151 (Jan): 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng
.2016.07.357. Lee, P. H., H. Chung, S. W. Lee, J. Yoo, and J. Ko. 2014. “Dimensional
Hall, B. H., and B. Khan. 2003. Adoption of new technology. Rep. No. accuracy in additive manufacturing processes.” In Proc., Int. Manufac-
w9730. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. turing Science and Engineering Conf. New York: ASME.
Hasan, A., S. Ahn, R. Rameezdeen, and B. Baroudi. 2019. “Empirical Li, Y., Z. Feng, L. Hao, L. Huang, C. Xin, Y. Wang, and T. Peijs. 2020. “a
study on implications of mobile ICT use for construction project man- review on functionally graded materials and structures via additive
agement.” J. Manage. Eng. 35 (6): 04019029. https://doi.org/10.1061 manufacturing: From multi-scale design to versatile functional proper-
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000721. ties.” Adv. Mater. Technol. 5 (6): 1900981. https://doi.org/10.1002/admt
Hasan, A., B. Baroudi, A. Elmualim, and R. Rameezdeen. 2018. “Factors .201900981.
affecting construction productivity: A 30 year systematic review.” Eng. Lim, E. C., and J. Alum. 1995. “Construction productivity: Issues encoun-
Constr. Archit. Manage. 25 (7): 916–937. https://doi.org/10.1108 tered by contractors in Singapore.” Int. J. Project Manage. 13 (1):
/ECAM-02-2017-0035. 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)95704-H.
Hazlehurst, M. W. 2008. “Trends of skills and productivity in UK construc- Lim, S., R. A. Buswell, T. T. Le, S. A. Austin, A. G. Gibb, and T. Thorpe.
tion Industry.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 15 (4): 372–382. https:// 2012. “Developments in construction-scale additive manufacturing proc-
doi.org/10.1108/09699980810886865. esses.” Autom. Constr. 21 (Jan): 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
HDB (Housing and Development Board). 2017a. “Building future-ready .autcon.2011.06.010.
homes.” Accessed December 27, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/mn2m5rrb. Lo, T. Y., I. W. Fung, and K. C. Tung. 2006. “Construction delays in
HDB (Housing and Development Board). 2017b. “Estimated Singapore Hong Kong civil engineering projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (6):
resident population in HDB flats.” Accessed April 26, 2021. https:// 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(636).
tinyurl.com/ybggf2bh. Loh, G. H., E. Pei, D. Harrison, and M. D. Monzón. 2018. “An overview of
HDB (Housing and Development Board). 2018. “HDB inks three research functionally graded additive manufacturing.” Addit. Manuf. 23 (Oct):
agreements to advance smart and sustainable HDB homes.” Accessed 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.06.023.
December 27, 2020. https://tinyurl.com/499et4dp. Ma, Y., and Y. Che. 2015. “A brief introduction to 3D printing technology.”
Holzmann, P., R. J. Breitenecker, E. J. Schwarz, and P. Gregori. 2020. In Proc., 17th Int. Congress of the GRCA. Northampton, UK:
“Business model design for novel technologies in nascent industries: International Glassfibre Reinforced Concrete Association.
An investigation of 3D printing service providers.” Technol. Forecast. Majumder, S., and D. Biswas. 2020. “COVID-19 impacts construction
Soc. Change 159 (Oct): 120193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020 industry: Now, then and future.” In COVID-19: Prediction, decision-
.120193. making, and its impacts, 115–125. Singapore: Springer.
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Mani, M., K. W. Lyons, and S. K. Gupta. 2014. “Sustainability characteri- Souza, M. T., I. M. Ferreira, E. G. de Moraes, L. Senff, and A. P. N.
zation for additive manufacturing.” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. de Oliveira. 2020. “3D printed concrete for large-scale buildings: An
119: 419–428. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.119.016. overview of rheology, printing parameters, chemical admixtures, rein-
Marangunić, N., and A. Granić. 2015. “Technology acceptance model: A forcements, and economic and environmental prospects.” J. Build. Eng.
literature review from 1986 to 2013.” Universal Access Inf. Soc. 14 (1): 32 (Nov): 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101833.
81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1. Srivastava, M., and S. Rathee. 2022. “Additive manufacturing: Recent
Mathur, R. 2016. “3D printing in architecture.” Int. J. Innovative Sci. Eng. trends, applications and future outlooks.” Prog. Addit. Manuf.
Technol. 3 (7): 583–591. 7: 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00229-8.
MND (Ministry of National Development). 2018. “Cities of tomorrow Tang, Y., and Y. F. Zhao. 2016. “A survey of the design methods for
(COT) R&D programme first grant call.” Accessed December 27, additive manufacturing to improve functional performance.” Rapid
2020. https://tinyurl.com/tj3k4ubu. Prototyping J. 22 (3): 569. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2015-0011.
MOM (Ministry of Manpower). 2018. “Workplace safety and health report Tay, Y. W. D., B. Panda, S. C. Paul, N. A. Noor Mohamed, M. J. Tan, and
2018.” Accessed April 26, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/h935jyw3. K. F. Leong. 2017. “3D printing trends in building and construction
Motyl, B., and S. Filippi. 2021. “Trends in engineering education for industry: A review.” Virtual Phys. Prototyping 12 (3): 261–276. https://
additive manufacturing in the industry 4.0 era: A systematic literature doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1326724.
review.” Int. J. Interactive Des. Manuf. 15 (1): 103–106. https://doi.org Teo, S. S. 2015. “Rethinking graduated citizenship: Contemporary public
/10.1007/s12008-020-00733-1. housing in Singapore.” Geoforum 65: 222–231.
NAMIC (National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Cluster). 2018. “AM Thong, J. Y., W. Hong, and K. Y. Tam. 2002. “Understanding user accep-
distributed manufacturing & its implication.” Accessed April 26, 2021. tance of digital libraries: What are the roles of interface characteristics,
https://tinyurl.com/294mpza3. organizational context, and individual differences?” Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Nasir, H., H. Ahmed, C. Haas, and P. M. Goodrum. 2014. “An analysis of Stud. 57 (3): 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(02)91024-4.
construction productivity differences between Canada and the United Tosello, G., A. Charalambis, L. Kerbache, M. Mischkot, D. B. Pedersen,
States.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 32 (6): 595–607. https://doi.org/10 M. Calaon, and H. N. Hansen. 2019. “Value chain and production cost
.1080/01446193.2013.848995. optimization by integrating additive manufacturing in injection molding
NEA (National Environment Agency). 2015. “Waste statistics and overall process chain.” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 100 (1–4): 783–795. https://
recycling.” Accessed December 13, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/3ptzrsnk. doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2762-7.
van Rijnsoever, F. J. 2017. “(I can’t get no) saturation: A simulation and
Oskui, S. M., G. Diamante, C. Liao, W. Shi, J. Gan, D. Schlenk, and
guidelines for sample sizes in qualitative research.” PLoS One 12 (7):
W. H. Grover. 2016. “Assessing and reducing the toxicity of 3D-printed
e0181689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181689.
parts.” Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 3 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1021
Vazquez, E., M. Passaretti, and P. Valenzuela. 2016. “3D opportunity for
/acs.estlett.5b00249.
the talent gap: Additive manufacturing and the workforce of the future.”
Oxman, N. 2011. “Variable property rapid prototyping: Inspired by nature,
Accessed December 13, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/wkh2yjbj.
where form is characterized by heterogeneous compositions, the paper
Wang, G., H. Lu, W. Hu, X. Gao, and P. Pishdad-Bozorgi. 2020. “Under-
presents a novel approach to layered manufacturing entitled variable
standing behavioral logic of information and communication technology
property rapid prototyping.” Virtual Phys. Prototyping 6 (1): 3–31.
adoption in small-and medium-sized construction enterprises: Empirical
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2011.558588.
study from China.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (6): 05020013. https://doi.org/10
Paolini, A., S. Kollmannsberger, and E. Rank. 2019. “Additive manufac-
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000843.
turing in construction: A review on processes, applications, and digital
Weiss, A. M. 1994. “The effects of expectations on technology adoption:
planning methods.” Addit. Manuf. 30 (Dec): 100894. https://doi.org/10
Some empirical evidence.” J. Ind. Econ. 42 (4): 341–360. https://doi.org
.1016/j.addma.2019.100894.
/10.2307/2950442.
Pegna, J. 1997. “Exploratory investigation of solid freeform construction.” Wohlers, T. T., I. Campbell, O. Diegel, R. Huff, and J. Kowen. 2020.
Autom. Constr. 5 (5): 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(96) Wohlers report 2020: 3D printing and additive manufacturing global
00166-5. state of the industry. Fort Collins, CO: Wohlers Associates.
Perkins, I., and M. Skitmore. 2015. “Three-dimensional printing in the con- Won, D., B. G. Hwang, and N. K. Binte Mohd Samion. 2022. “Cloud com-
struction industry: A review.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 15 (1): 1–9. puting adoption in the construction industry of Singapore: Drivers, chal-
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012136. lenges, and strategies.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (2): 05021017. https://doi
Petrick, I. J., and T. W. Simpson. 2013. “3D printing disrupts manufacturing: .org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001001.
How economies of one create new rules of competition.” Res. Technol. Won, J., J. C. Cheng, and G. Lee. 2016. “Quantification of construction
Manage. 56 (6): 12–16. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5606193. waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Petrovic, V., J. Vicente Haro Gonzalez, O. Jordá Ferrando, J. Delgado Korea.” Waste Manage. 49 (Mar): 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Gordillo, J. Ramón Blasco Puchades, and L. Portolés Griñan. 2011. “Ad- .wasman.2015.12.026.
ditive layered manufacturing: Sectors of industrial application shown Wong, D. S., H. M. Zaw, and Z. J. Tao. 2014. “Additive manufacturing
through case studies.” Int. J. Prod. Res. 49 (4): 1061–1079. https://doi teaching factory: Driving applied learning to industry solutions: This
.org/10.1080/00207540903479786. paper reviews the past and current status of AM technology at Nanyang
Rehman, A. U., and J. H. Kim. 2021. “3D concrete printing: A systematic Polytechnic in Singapore.” Virtual Phys. Prototyping 9 (4): 205–212.
review of rheology, mix designs, mechanical, microstructural, and du- https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2014.950487.
rability characteristics.” Materials 14 (14): 3800. https://doi.org/10.3390 Wong, J. L. H. 2011. “Creating a sustainable living environment for public
/ma14143800. housing in Singapore.” In Climate change and sustainable urban devel-
Rosenberg, N. 1976. “On technological expectations.” Econ. J. 86 (343): opment in Africa and Asia, 117–128. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
523–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230797. Xia, M., B. Nematollahi, and J. Sanjayan. 2019. “Printability, accuracy and
Sakin, M., and Y. S. Kiroglu. 2017. “3D printing of buildings: Construction strength of geopolymer made using powder-based 3D printing for con-
of the sustainable houses of the future by BIM.” Energy Procedia struction applications.” Autom. Constr. 101 (May): 179–189. https://doi
134 (Oct): 702–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.562. .org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.013.
Sepasgozar, S. M., S. R. Davis, H. Li, and X. Luo. 2018. “Modeling the Yampolskiy, M., W. E. King, J. Gatlin, S. Belikovetsky, A. Brown, A.
implementation process for new construction technologies: Thematic Skjellum, and Y. Elovici. 2018. “Security of additive manufacturing:
analysis based on Australian and US practices.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (3): Attack taxonomy and survey.” Addit. Manuf. 21 (May): 431–457. https://
05018005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000608. doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.03.015.
Smith, D. 2012. “Printed buildings: An international race for the ultimate Zhang, B., P. Jaiswal, R. Rai, and S. Nelaturi. 2018. “Additive manufactur-
in automation.” Constr. Res. Innovation 3 (2): 26–31. https://doi.org/10 ing of functionally graded material objects: A review.” J. Comput. Inf.
.1080/20450249.2012.11873838. Sci. Eng. 18 (4): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039683.
J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Adoption of Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Public Housing in Singapore: Drivers, Challenges, and Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adoption of Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Public Housing in Singapore: Drivers, Challenges, and Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Adoption of Three-Dimensional Printing

Introduction housing owners, which requires these projects to be completed on

© ASCE 05022010-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 1. Three-dimensional printing drivers

© ASCE 05022010-2 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 2. Challenges in using 3DP

© ASCE 05022010-3 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 3. Strategies for using 3DP

© ASCE 05022010-4 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 4. Framework of the survey questionnaire

© ASCE 05022010-5 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Data Analysis and Discussion

Number of results provided a deeper understanding of the current implemen-

Drivers in 3DP Adoption

Table 7. Analyses results on 3DP drivers

© ASCE 05022010-6 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 8. SRCC between types of housing and advantages of 3DP

© ASCE 05022010-7 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Significance (2-tailed) 0.014 0.001 0.162 — 0.071 0.288

© ASCE 05022010-8 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 11. Analysis results on the criticality of 3DP challenges

© ASCE 05022010-9 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

© ASCE 05022010-10 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Significance (2-tailed) 0.004 0.001 0.002 — 0.026 0.022

© ASCE 05022010-11 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Table 16. SRCC between types of housing and strategies

© ASCE 05022010-12 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

Significance (2-tailed) 0.167 0.447 0.844 — 0.624 0.171

© ASCE 05022010-13 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

tified that different roles would have different perceptions of the

© ASCE 05022010-14 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

© ASCE 05022010-15 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

© ASCE 05022010-16 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2022, 38(4): 05022010

You might also like