Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Alexandria Engineering Journal

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

Original Article

Classifying and evaluating enablers influencing modular construction

utilization in the construction sector: A fuzzy synthetic evaluation
Ali Hassan Ali a, *, Ahmed Farouk Kineber b, c, Thikryat Jibril Obied Qaralleh d,
Naif Sultan Alaboud e, Ahmed Osama Daoud a, *
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The British University in Egypt (BUE), El Sherouk City, Cairo 11837, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Canadian Higher Engineering Institute, Canadian International College, 6th October City 12577, Egypt
d
College of Education, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia
e
Department of Islamic Architecture, College of Engineering and Islamic Architecture, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of modular construction (MC) is well-established in developed countries and is known to promote
Developing Countries sustainability. However, MC is not widely utilised in developing countries. To address this issue, a study was
Modular Construction conducted to identify enablers that can increase the adoption of MC in developing countries, specifically for
Enablers
residential projects. A survey was conducted to determine the relative value of 21 enablers that boost the
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation
adoption of MC. The data collected was analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), which classified the
enablers into four main components: Optimization, Planning and Management, Preparation, and Promotion and
Improvement. Then, Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE) was employed to rank these four components, where it
was found that “Optimization” is the top performing component while “ Promotion and Improvement ” is the
least performing component. The study’s results provide a roadmap for the Egyptian construction industry to
adopt MC, which can improve the construction sector, particularly in residential construction. Additionally, the
findings of this research help fill a gap in knowledge about the enablers that can enhance the use of MC in
developing countries.

1. Introduction
The advancement of construction sector is a crucial component of
national development and has the potential to drive economic growth.
The success of this growth is a key factor in enhancing the economy and
improving the well-being of the community, thus contributing to sus­
tainable development [52,67]. It is estimated that the construction in­
dustry sector contributes approximately 13% to the global Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). However, the building industry also have a
significant impact on the environment as it accounts for 36% of global
energy consumption and generates 39% of energy-related carbon diox­
ide (CO2) emissions [9,20,51]. It is not surprising that sustainability in
the construction industry is a priority for governments, professionals,
and academia. Sustainability in construction involves more than just
addressing environmental concerns, it also requires addressing eco­
nomic factors as well as social factors [35,33,41].
The rapid growth of the real estate industry has resulted in a notable
surge in housing prices, creating a substantial demand for housing and
posing a growing affordability challenge for low-income groups in
various developing countries. This situation is a direct consequence of
progressive economic growth and urbanization [44]. Consequently,
developing countries, notably Egypt, are perceived as high-risk markets
for real estate investments due to salaries, high unemployment rates,
and environmental sustainability challenges [63].
In response to the challenges faced by the Egyptian real estate in­
dustry, the government has taken a number of measures to address the
issue of affordable housing. These include the implementation of strin­
gent policies and the creation of political documents aimed at promoting
the availability of affordable and comfortable housing for the popula­
tion. This is in recognition of the high housing needs in the country
[21,37]. Despite the government’s efforts to address this issue, the
question of whether these initiatives are truly accessible to those who
need them remains a topic of debate [23]. The issue of inadequate
affordable housing for low-income earners can be addressed by

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: ali.hassan@bue.edu.eg (A. Hassan Ali), ahmed.daoud@bue.edu.eg (A. Osama Daoud).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.07.026
Received 12 March 2023; Received in revised form 17 May 2023; Accepted 11 July 2023
Available online 21 July 2023
1110-0168/© 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Hassan Ali et al.
implementing innovative building techniques, such as MC. It has been
proposed as a solution for the challenges that obstruct sustainable
development in many countries [7].
The adoption of MC, also known as offsite construction, can have a
positive impact on the sustainability of the construction sector. This
method of construction involves building different modules in a
manufacturing centre, which completes 85–90% of the project work,
before transporting the modules to the final project location [28]. The
construction sector has the potential to enhance its sustainability
through the collaborative efforts of the government, a significant player
in the building industry. By endorsing initiatives that promote the uti­
lization of MC to enhance material quality, labour efficiency, cost-
effectiveness, reduced construction time, and minimized waste pro­
duction, notable advancements can be achieved [31].
It’s noted that the adoption of MC is limited in developing countries,
including Egypt, which continue to rely on traditional construction
methods to provide employment for unskilled labour [4,5]. The con­
struction industry is often considered the primary source of employment
for uneducated citizens in these countries [43]. According to the studies
of Akinradewo et al. [1] and Mostafa et al. [44], the implementation of
MC in residential projects within developing countries is limited. Spe­
cifically, countries like Egypt, Tanzania, and Nigeria, which are classi­
fied as developing nations, exhibit minimal utilization of MC,
particularly in the context of residential building projects.
The disparity in the use of MC is evident in the building sector in
Egypt, where it is only utilised in temporary offices (i.e., caravans) or for
precast concrete elements in infrastructure projects. This could be
attributed to the apprehensions raised by the prevalence of MC
regarding its potential adverse effects on architectural creativity.
Furthermore, there are claims suggesting that modular homes have
limited market value [6,7]. The objective of this research is to address
the low utilisation of MC in residential projects in the developing
countries’ construction industry. The study aims to accomplish this by:
1. Examining the current practices, understanding, and attitudes to­
wards MC in building projects.
2. Determining the key enablers that boost the adoption of MC through
extensive literature review.
3. Grouping the collected enablers through using Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA)
4. Ranking and evaluating the identified group of enablers by the
application of Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE).
This study can benefit construction organizations by offering guid­
ance to enhance their MC practices in terms of cost, time, productivity,
and quality. The research results will also be valuable for managers,
engineers, researchers, and top management in identifying areas that
need attention for effective MC implementation.
2. Modular construction enablers (MCEs)
The integration of MC into the construction sector in developing
countries calls for significant modifications to established procedures.
Due to the construction industry’s resistance to embracing new
methods, the implementation of MC may encounter opposition and
multiple obstacles [69]. Consequently, to promote the utilisation of MC,
it is crucial to identify and utilise enablers. These enablers, which are
key areas of activity that are critical for a manager to achieve their
objectives, can serve as a powerful project management tool for
reducing project failures. As such, they have garnered significant
attention from researchers in the field of construction management [8].
Successful implementation of modularisation involves various enablers.
It has been established that the adoption of MC can lead to numerous
changes in projects and add new requirements or complexities to project
organization, transportation, communication, coordination, moni­
toring, planning, procurement, and engineering [47]. From the
46
Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55
perspective of the owner, there are several success factors and enablers
for the implementation of preassembly in the building modular industry.
These include early design freeze, reasonable lead times, ample time for
pre-site prototyping, early vendor participation, and the owner’s
comprehension of the benefits and limitations of preassembly [24].
As an example, the effective execution of MC necessitates coopera­
tive effort and contribution from all parties in the supply chain. This is
because each link in the chain plays a role in determining the con­
sumption of resources, environmental impact, and cost of building
construction [46]. Additionally, a cohesive procurement system and
contracting strategy are crucial in fostering collaboration in the design
and construction of MC. These integrated approaches support the
involvement of all stakeholders throughout the entire MC delivery
process [71]. Furthermore, there are various enablers that play a role in
the success of modular construction, including standardization, plan­
ning and decision-making systems for the owner’s resources, the ability
and experience of module manufacturers, access to local transportation,
the early engagement of high management, and the presence of a trained
workers and competent supervision team [70]. In addition, the key
enablers that help the success of residential modular construction pro­
jects encompass site management, supply chain management, cost
management, information technology, contractor leadership, and
training. Researchers have identified the essential enablers for modular
construction projects in both developing and developed countries for a
range of project stages and types [30]. In conclusion, MCEs could be
used to address the low utilization of MC in residential projects in the
developing countries’ construction industry. As shown in Table 1, the
study has identified 21 enablers that promote the implementation of
modular construction.
3. Research methodology
The purpose of this study is to identify the key enablers for the
adoption of modular construction in residential projects. To achieve this
goal, a thorough literature review was performed to gather information
on enablers to adopting modular construction, which led to the identi­
fication of 21 MCEs. A questionnaire was then distributed to Egyptian
residential building professionals with relevant industrial experience to
assess the significance of these enablers. An EFA was conducted to
categorize the enablers and a FSE was performed to evaluate the cate­
gorized enablers. Fig. 1 provides an illustration of the research meth­
odology used.
3.1. Questionnaire survey development
This study was conducted in Cairo, Egypt, with the aim of analysing
and ranking various enablers that influence the implementation of MC in
residential projects. A questionnaire was used to collect data and had
three main sections. The first section gathered general information
about the respondents and their level of awareness of MC. The second
section had closed-ended questions that evaluated the respondents’
opinions on the enablers for MC adoption. The final section had open-
ended questions that allowed respondents to provide additional en­
ablers based on their perspectives. The survey participants evaluated the
enablers of MC based on their knowledge, experience, and background
using a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 to 5, where 5 meant
extremely high, 4 meant high, 3 meant medium, 2 meant small, and 1
meant no or very small. This scale had been used in previous research
studies [2,18,34,52].
The objective of the questionnaire survey was to disseminate it
among construction practitioners through various means, including
distribution via the professional networking platform, LinkedIn and
email lists like the cooperative network of building researchers (CNBR).
The survey was directed towards industry practitioners located in Cairo,
Egypt, who specialized mainly in construction management or civil
engineering. These selected participants were the primary focus of the
A. Hassan Ali et al. Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55

Table 1 response rate of 65% is deemed adequate [48,57].

List of enablers.
Enablers Code References 3.2. Pilot testing
• The introduction of a prefabricated housing MCE1 [4,15,38,47,66]
system that can be modified Before administering the survey questionnaire, a preliminary pilot
• Taking advantage of past modular projects as a MCE2 study was conducted to assess the feasibility, clarity, and comprehen­
reference point for achieving cost savings siveness of the survey questionnaire, following the recommendation of
• Finalising design documents, BOQ, and MCE3 [6,19,47,66,71–72]
necessary equipment and materials at an early
Kineber et al. [35] and Daoud et al. [17]. The minimum sample size of
stage. 10, as suggested by Saunders et al. [60], was met for the pilot study. The
• Swift approvals of design drawings and Bill of MCE4 comprehensiveness, clarity, and feasibility of the survey questionnaire
Quantities (BOQ). were evaluated through a pilot study, which was sent to 20 experts and
• Early engagement of stakeholders during the MCE5
professionals, including 15 industry professionals with more than ten
design phase.
• Timely access to reliable and certified drawings MCE6 [5,15,38,46,47,70] years of experience in construction and five academics with over a
of Owned, Furnished, and Installed (OFI) decade of experience.
equipment.
• Seeking expert guidance on sequencing, MCE7
scheduling, specifications, and equipment.
3.3. Checking responses consistency and reliability
• Preventing the use of modular equipment with MCE8
unsuitable sizes that could limit transportation Equation (1) shows Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which is a measure
choices. of consistency used to verify the reliability of the measurement tools (i.
• Improving the manufacturing processes and MCE9 [46,66,71]
e., Likert scales) and ensure that the participant’s responses evaluating
capacity of the producers.
• Conducting preliminary screening tests when MCE10 the various components of the MCEs in residential projects are consis­
choosing fabricators and factories. tent [51]. This coefficient is statistically derived and calculated using the
• Conducting a comprehensive assessment of MCE11 below formula.
fabricators’ experience and competency in ∑ 2]
[ ] [
modular construction. K Si
• Engaging in MC marketing initiatives, seminars, MCE12 [19,47,66,70–71] α= × 1− 2 (1)
K− 1 S sum
and exhibits is necessary to draw in
stakeholders. (K) is the enablers total number.
• Augmenting effective communication among MCE13
(S2 i) refers to the variance of responses.
stakeholders from the initial design phase to the
final construction phase (S2 sum) represents the summation of variances for the respondents.
• Ensuring consistent owner engagement with MCE14 The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is a measure of consistency that
stakeholders across all project phases. ranges from 0 to 1, with a threshold value of 0.7 [3,42]. A higher
• Facilitating the enhancement of MC MCE15
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicates greater internal consistency of
practitioners’ skills through workshops and
training programs. the data collected from participants regarding the various evaluated
• Improving modularisation planning through the MCE16 [5,15,38,47,70–71] enablers. In the pilot test, the total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the
comprehensive analysis of prior MC projects’ sample was found to be 0.96, indicating excellent internal consistency
planning processes. and reliability of the scales [18].
• Showcasing the advantages of modularisation MCE17
through preliminary assessments of the scope of
modular work. 3.4. Respondents’ profile
• Providing support for initial cash flow planning MCE18
and financing studies by the owner.
An analysis of the respondents’ demographics was conducted to gain
• Engaging the heavy lift team in research at an MCE19 [6,15,19,38,70]
early stage. insights into their backgrounds. Of the respondents, 53.3% were engi­
• Computing how much it will cost to move, lift, MCE20 neers, 19.2% were contractors, 12.5% were consultants, 12.5% were
and store various sized modules. project managers, 0.8% were developers, and 1.7% held other positions.
• Using optimum design to determine the right MCE21 In terms of experience, 50% of the respondents had less than ten years of
weights and dimensions of modules.
experience, 31.7% had 10–20 years of experience, and 18.3% had more
than 20 years of experience. In terms of project types, 67.2% worked on
main questionnaire survey. The selection of participants for the study residential projects, 21.8% on infrastructure projects, 10.1% on com­
was guided by the recommendations of Ali et al. [5]. The criteria for mercial projects, and 5.9% on industrial projects.
selecting suitable participants involved two key factors. Firstly, eligible
participants must have at least a bachelor’s degree or a relevant certi­ 3.5. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
fication in civil engineering or construction management. Secondly,
participants were required to have a minimum of five years of experi­ The EFA is a statistical technique used to identify underlying struc­
ence working in the field of civil engineering or construction manage­ tures by reducing multiple variables into a smaller set of factors [34].
ment. These criteria were employed to identify the appropriate EFA is typically used when the researcher is unsure of how variables will
participants for the study. To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the relate to one another and aims to identify the underlying constructs or
responses, a random probability sampling approach was used to select structures that explain the observed relationships among variables [50].
participants for the study. This method allowed any construction expert The purpose of EFA is to identify the key factors that underlie the
in Cairo, Egypt, to have an equal chance of being selected, as MC is still observed data and to ensure that the included variables accurately
relatively new in Egypt. reflect the constructs of interest, thus avoiding the possibility of
The selection of participants was guided by the criteria specified including variables that do not reflect what is intended to be measured
earlier, and 185 Egyptian practitioners meeting these criteria were in the final model. EFA is commonly performed using statistical software
invited to participate via email. Out of these, 120 construction experts such as SPSS [22,40]. The researcher utilised EFA to identify the main
responded to the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 67%. The clusters (i.e., structure of constructs) among the associated items in
utilisation of this sampling technique was recommended by Kineber order to establish a measurement criteria. This approach was utilised to
et al. [36] to ensure the collection of reliable and accurate data. The assess the validity of the constructs by evaluating the adequacy of

47
A. Hassan Ali et al. Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55

Fig. 1. Research framework.

Fig. 2. EFA Procedures.

48
A. Hassan Ali et al.
individual structures’ measurement components (i.e., measurement
models) with regards to their reliability, multidimensionality, and val­
idity, as depicted in Fig. 2. Several EFA guidelines were proposed by the
researcher.
• A sample size of at least 100 is recommended by Hair et al. [25].
• The ideal range for the correlation coefficient between variables is
between 0.3 and 0.9[22,25,68].
• A minimum Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling ade­
quacy of 0.6 is required[22,62,68].
• Bartlett’s test of sphericity must yield a significant result at a p-value
of<0.05 [22,32].
• Each factor structure should have eigenvalues of at least 1[27].
• Factor loadings should be equal to or greater than 0.45, with 0.70
considered excellent, 0.65 very good, and 0.55 good [16,49,64].
The EFA protocol used in this study is explained in Fig. 2, which
details the selection of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) over other
methods such as Principal Axis Factoring (PAF), image factoring,
maximum probability, and alpha factoring. This choice was made due to
the greater accuracy and simpler conceptual nature of PCA [22]. PCA is
typically suggested in cases where no prior theory or model exists, and
when preliminary solutions have been identified through EFA [68].
According to Thompson, [65], PCA is the most commonly utilised form
in EFA, likely due to being set as the default method in many statistical
software programs. The choice of varimax rotation method over direct
oblimin or promax was based on the fact that varimax attempts to
optimize load dispersion between variables, thus making it a more
suitable option.
Varimax is known for its capability to simplify factor interpretation,
making it an excellent general approach that is particularly useful for
simple factor analyses. With the help of varimax, variables that share a
high degree of variance can be grouped together under a single factor,
thus making it easier to identify the underlying patterns of the data.
Varimax also minimizes the number of variables with high loadings on
any one factor, further simplifying the interpretation of the factor
analysis results. Therefore, in the current study, varimax was preferred
over the other methods due to its efficacy in load dispersion optimiza­
tion and its ability to simplify factor interpretation [22,54].
3.6. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE)
FSE is a method that uses fuzzy logic to evaluate decision-making
processes that involve multiple criteria [55]. Additionally, FSE is
considered to be an artificial intelligence technique that leverages fuzzy
logic to convert subjective human judgments into a quantitative form,
taking into consideration the inherent uncertainty and vagueness pre­
sent in the evaluation process. This helps to overcome subjectivity and
provide a more objective evaluation [11]. The FSE method is based on
fuzzy logic, and it uses mathematical computations to convert linguistic
criteria or variables into quantifiable form during the decision-making
process. This helps to provide a more accurate and precise analysis of
the information being considered [12]. The application of fuzzy logic in
FSE overcomes the limitations of binary Boolean logic (i.e., Yes/No or
True/False) in evaluating events. This is due to the inherent imprecision
and uncertainty in assigning significance levels to various enablers. The
ability to handle such imprecision and uncertainty makes FSE a suitable
choice for evaluating complex situations [71].
The use of FSE in this study was deemed appropriate due to its ability
to effectively handle the inherent subjectiveness and uncertainty in
evaluating the significance of the identified MC adoption enablers. FSE’s
application of fuzzy logic and membership functions helps to objectively
assess and quantify the subjective judgments made by experts in the
field, making it a suitable method for this research [58]. The reason for
using the FSE method in this study is due to its popularity and effec­
tiveness in addressing complex issues in the construction industry. The
49
Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55
method involves ranking the MC enablers using Likert scales, which
were then grouped using the EFA techniques. The use of fuzzy logic in
the FSE method helps to objectively evaluate the subjectiveness and
uncertainty that often exists in decision-making. This makes FSE a
suitable choice for assessing the importance of MC enablers in residen­
tial projects [59]. The statistical methods used in this study are a blend
of traditional mean calculation and fuzzy logic. The FSE method consists
of the following four steps in its process:
1. The mean values for all MCEs and their components
The first step in the statistical analysis is to determine the average,
also known as the Mean (µ), of the enablers using Equation (2). Then, the
total average for each component of enablers is calculated using Equa­
tion (3). Finally, the overall average for all the components is calculated
using Equation (4).
5Z5 + ZX4 + 3Z3 + 2Z2 + 1Z1
μi = (2)
N
Total μi =
∑
μiallthebarriersinthesamecategory (3)
∑
Overall μ = Total μforeachcategory (4)
The formula calculates the average response given by participants in
a survey. The mean value for each enabler, represented by the symbol
(μi ), is determined using the scale provided by the respondents (Z5 , Z4 ,
Z3 , Z2 &Z1 ) and the total number of responses gathered from the survey
is represented by (N). The “Total μi ” is the sum of all the mean values for
the enablers in the same component, while the “Overall μ ” is the sum of
all the “Total μi ” values for all components.
2. The weightings for all MCEs and their components
The next step in the process is to determine the weighting for each
enabler and component. This weighting is represented by the variable
(Wi ) which must satisfy the constraint that 0 ≤ Wi ≤ 1 and the sum of all
Wi must equal 1. Equations (5) and (6) are used to calculate the
weighting for each enabler and component, respectively.
μi
Wi = (5)
Totalμi
Totalμi
WGi = (6)
Overall μ
The formula calculates the weighting for the enablers that improve
the implementation of MC. The weight for each enabler is represented
by (Wi ). The weighting for each component is represented by (WCi ). The
set of weighting for the MCEs is expressed in Eq. (7).
Wi = (W1 , W2 , W3 , W4 ……………, Wn ) (7)
3. The membership function levels for all MCEs
The third step entails calculating and determining the membership
function (MF) levels for each enabler and component, which is
comprised of three levels. The MF, which can vary from 0 to 1, dem­
onstrates the extent to which a specific element is part of a fuzzy set.
Prior to conducting an examination of the components, it is crucial to
first compute the MFs of the major enablers at level 3. The MFs will be
established using the ratings and assessments provided by the specialists
on the Likert scale, which are based on grades [53]. Equation (8) serves
as the formula for calculating the MFs.
P1in P2in P3in P4in P5in
MFPin = + + + + (8)
LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5
In this formula, the membership function level for each enabler is
A. Hassan Ali et al. Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55

represented by (MFPi ). The percentage of survey participants who gave a Table 3

rating of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for the importance of a particular enabler is Factor loadings of the MCEs.
represented by (P1in , P2in , P3in , P4in & P5in ). The five Likert scales are rep­ Enablers Component
resented by (LS1 , LS2 , LS3 , LS4 & LS5 ). Table 4 presents the MFs levels for
1 2 3 4
all level 3 enablers. These MFs at level 3 form the foundation for
MCE1 0.729
determining the MFs at level 2 for each component. The level 2 mem­
MCE2 0.745
bership functions of each component (Di ) were determined using Eq. (9). MCE3 0.768
MCE4 0.769
Di = Wi ⊗ Ri (9)
MCE5 0.74
The calculation of the level 2 membership functions of each category MCE6 0.611
MCE7 0.81
(Di ) was based on the result of multiplying the weighting function (Wi ) MCE8 0.772
previously determined using Equation (7) and the fuzzy matrix of its MCE9 0.581
enablers (Ri ) computed in Eq. (10), using the fuzzy composition operator MCE10 0.744
(“ ⊗ ”). The degree of membership, (din ), is determined by the calcula­ MCE11 0.742
MCE12 0.838
tion of (Di ) in Eq. (11). The membership function levels for components
MCE13 0.903
can also be calculated at level 1 using the same method. The MFs at MCE14 0.607
levels 2 and 1 for each component are displayed in Table 5. MCE15 0.724
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ MCE16 0.814
⃒ MFEi1 ⃒ ⃒ E1i1 E2i1 E3i1 E4i1 E5i1 ⃒ MCE17 0.779
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ MFE ⃒ ⃒ E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 ⃒ MCE18 0.697
Ri = ⃒⃒ i2 ⃒
⃒ = ⃒⃒ i2 i2 i2 i2 i2 ⃒⃒ (10)
⃒ ⋯ ⃒ ⃒ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⃒ MCE19 0.69
⃒ MFE ⃒ ⃒ E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 ⃒
in in in in in in
MCE20 0.719
MCE21 0.756

Di = Wi ⊗ Ri = (W1 , W2 , W3 , W4 …, Wn )⊗
⃒ ⃒
⃒ E1i1
⃒ E2i1 E3i1 E4i1 E5i1 ⃒
⃒ Table 4
⃒ E1 E2i2 E3i2 E4i2 E5i2 ⃒ MCEs Grouping.
⃒ i2
⃒…
⃒ = (di1 , di2 , …, din )
⃒ (11)
… … … …
⃒ ⃒ Enablers ID Group
⃒ E1 E2in E3in E4in E5in ⃒
in
MCE4 Optimization
MCE5
3.7. The total level for each component MCE8
MCE10
The final step in the process is to calculate the total level for each MCE11
MCE15
category by combining the results of the weightings and the three levels
MCE19
of membership MFs. This can be accomplished using Eq. (12), which MCE20
provides a method for determining the total level (TL). The DCi , stated in MCE21
Equation (12), is second-level membership function fuzzy matrix. MCE6 Planning and Management
MCE14
∑
n
MCE16
TL = DCi × LSi (12) MCE17
MCE18
i=1

MCE3 Preparation
MCE9
MCE13
MCE1 Promotion and Improvement
MCE2
MCE7
Table 2 MCE12
Communalities of 21 MC enablers.
Enablers Initial Extraction
4. Results
MCE1 1 0.714
MCE2 1 0.686
MCE3 1 0.764 4.1. Exploratory factor analysis for MCEs
MCE4 1 0.821
MCE5 1 0.678 The EFA was conducted to assess the structure of the factors across
MCE6 1 0.551 21 items related to MCEs. Several parameters for the factorability of a
MCE7 1 0.786
MCE8 1 0.761
connection were used, including the KMO measure, which assesses the
MCE9 1 0.736 homogeneity of the factors and is widely used to determine if the vari­
MCE10 1 0.732 ables have minimum partial correlations [61]. A KMO value of 0.6 is
MCE11 1 0.765 considered the minimum required for a successful factor analysis [64].
MCE12 1 0.738
The Bartlett test of sphericity was also conducted to assess if the corre­
MCE13 1 0.864
MCE14 1 0.749 lation matrix was an identity matrix. Pallant, [56], recommended that
MCE15 1 0.751 the Bartlett sphericity test should be significant (p < 0.05) for the factor
MCE16 1 0.817 analysis to be considered appropriate. The results showed that the KMO
MCE17 1 0.707 measure for the 21 items related to MCEs was 0.843, exceeding the
MCE18 1 0.863
MCE19 1 0.807
recommended value of 0.6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was signifi­
MCE20 1 0.781 cant (χ2 (2 1 0) = 2407.026, p < 0.05). The anti-image correlation matrix
MCE21 1 0.774 had all diagonal values above 0.5, indicating that each item could be
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
included in the factor analysis. The initial communalities measure the

50
A. Hassan Ali et al. Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55

Table 5 of the plot is analysed for a shift, or “elbow,” and only the sections above
MCEs and Components Mean Values. this level are retained. Fig. 3 shows that the four enablers have been
Component Code Mean Rank Total mean Overall refined.
value value mean value

Optimization MCE4 4.467 6 40.333 90.275 4.2. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation for MCEs
MCE5 4.308 12
MCE8 4.508 5
MCE10 4.575 3 1. Calculating the mean values for all MCEs and their groups
MCE11 4.433 8 Table 5 displays the calculation of the mean value, rank, total mean
MCE15 4.542 4 value, and overall mean value for each enabler and category by utilising
MCE19 4.675 1 Equations (2), (3), and (4).
MCE20 4.183 15
MCE21 4.642 2 20.133
2. Calculating the weightings for all MCEs and their components
Planning and MCE6 4.100 18 The weighting for each enabler is calculated using Equation (5). The
Management MCE14 4.367 11 enablers weightings are listed in Table 6. Additionally, the weighting for
MCE16 4.125 16 each component is calculated using Equation (6) and also displayed in
MCE17 3.425 21 12.950
Table 6.
MCE18 4.117 17
Preparation MCE3 4.450 7
MCE9 4.275 13 3. Calculating the membership function levels for all MCEs
MCE13 4.225 14
Promotion and MCE1 4.375 10 16.858
Table 6
Improvement MCE2 4.033 20
MCE7 4.383 9 Weighting Results for MCEs and Components.
MCE12 4.067 19 Component Code MCEs Components
Weighting Weighting

Optimization MCE4 0.111 0.447

variance in each variable accounted for by all enablers, with low values
MCE5 0.107
(<0.3) indicating variables that do not fit well with the factor solution. MCE8 0.112
In this study, all the initial communalities were above the threshold. MCE10 0.113
Finally, all the loading factors were greater than 0.5, as shown in MCE11 0.110
Table 2. MCE15 0.113
MCE19 0.116
The results of the EFA for all 21 MCEs showed that there were four
MCE20 0.104
variables with values greater than 1, due to the impact of the five en­ MCE21 0.115
ablers and their cumulative variances. As per Table 3, four components Planning and Management MCE6 0.204 0.223
with eigenvalues higher than 1.0 were identified, accounting for a total MCE14 0.217
MCE16 0.205
variance of 75.4% after the Varimax rotation. The first group, referred to
MCE17 0.170
as “Optimization”, accounted for 38.5% of the variance, followed by the MCE18 0.204
second group, “Planning and Management”, which accounted for Preparation MCE3 0.344 0.143
18.24% of the variance. The third group, “Preparation”, accounted for MCE9 0.330
9.9% of the variance, and the fourth group, “Promotion and Improve­ MCE13 0.326
Promotion and MCE1 0.260 0.187
ment”, accounted for 8.7% of the total variance. Table 4 displays the
Improvement MCE2 0.239
categorization of enablers after being grouped together. MCE7 0.260
Pallant [56] suggested analysing the scree plot and matrix objec­ MCE12 0.241
tively to determine the extracted components (i.e. enablers). The shape

Fig. 3. Scree plot result for enablers to the adoption of MC.

51
A. Hassan Ali et al. Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55

The values for the MF3 were obtained from the survey participants’ Table 8
evaluations of the various enablers through the use of Equation (8). The MF2, MF1 and overall level for all components.
outcomes for MF3 are presented in Table 7. Components MF Di TL
The MF2 and weighting function of all the components and their Level
corresponding enablers of the MFs can be determined from Equation (9). Optimization MF2 0.01 0.04 0.49 0.20 0.47 4.70
The MF1 for the components can be found using the same approach. The Planning and 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.20 0.44 4.65
MF1 and MF2 for the components are presented in Table 8. Management
Preparation 0.00 0.09 0.44 0.32 0.34 4.49
Promotion and 0.01 0.11 0.54 0.26 0.29 4.32
4.3. Calculating the total level for each component Improvement
Overall Component MF1 0.01 0.07 0.48 0.26 0.38 4.54

The TL for all components is determined by utilising Equation (12),

and the rest of the components and the total components will be pre­ them with an understanding of the technical aspects of the MC value
sented in Table 8. chain [70]. The results of this investigation are corroborated by a survey
As indicated in Table 8, the results show that the most significant questionnaire study performed by Li et al. [38]. This study aimed to
components that improve the widespread use of MC is the Optimization, identify the enablers that have an impact on the adoption of MC through
followed by Planning and Management, Preparation, and Promotion and a comprehensive review of existing literature and in-depth interviews
Improvement in that order. with experts in the field. The survey was conducted in China and the
results were analysed using the mean score technique. The outcome of
5. Discussion the study indicated that the “competence of MC designers in creating
optimal designs” was one of the most critical enablers identified.
5.1. Optimization Furthermore, the success of this component also necessitates seamless
coordination between factory production and on-site activities to meet
The results showed that the optimization component emerged as the the project timeline. Efficient communication between the on-site, lo­
top performer with a score of 4.70. In the realm of MC, optimization gistics, and factory teams is of utmost importance to ensure the success
involves utilising resources such as materials, labour, and time in the of the MC project. Adequate local transportation infrastructure will
most efficient manner possible, to create building structures that are make it easier to transport the factory-made modules to the job site for
cost-effective, sustainable and of high-quality. The objective of optimi­ installation. Moreover, appropriate job site transport equipment will be
zation in MC is to reduce waste and enhance efficiency, all while necessary to move the modules into place and complete the final as­
ensuring that the finished product meets or surpasses industry standards sembly of the modules [39]. As posited by Trigunarsyah et al. [66],
and satisfies customer requirements [19]. The participation of owners, enhancing the knowledge and capability of construction project stake­
designers, vendors, and contractors throughout the different phases of holders regarding MC can result in a more successful adoption of this
the project is emphasized. Their involvement does not stop after their system. This goal can be achieved through offering training programs
initial involvement and is not limited to a one-time interaction in MC and workshops to individuals in the construction industry, as well as
projects. The focus is on the continuous engagement of these crucial ensuring that engineers and designers receive the necessary preparation
project participants throughout all stages of the MC project. For and education during their university studies.
example, modular fabricators or manufacturers can provide support to
assembly contractors during the on-site installation of modules since 5.2. Planning and management
they have a better understanding of the engineered interfaces and the
acceptable tolerances between modules than the contractors [45]. The results indicated that the Planning and Management component
Moreover, the participation of fabricators during the design phase received the second-highest score, with TL 4.65. In order to execute
presents the opportunity for them to form a relationship with the design successful planning and management in MC, it is important to have a
before actual production of the modules begins. Engaging owners and thorough comprehension of the modular building process and the spe­
contractors during the modular design and fabrication phases provides cific demands of each project. Additionally, having robust communica­
tion and teamwork abilities, as well as the foresight to address and
Table 7 mitigate potential risks and challenges, are crucial factors [66]. As
MCEs MF3. indicated by the results, the Planning and Management aspect received a
Enabler Codes MF Level 3 score of 5.81 and ranked second. Proper management of the initial
stages of the MC project life cycle is crucial, as research has consistently
MCE4 0.008 0.017 0.150 0.150 0.675
MCE5 0.017 0.025 0.075 0.400 0.483 shown that the ultimate success or failure of a project can often be
MCE8 0.000 0.033 0.125 0.142 0.700 attributed to the decisions and management of the early stages of the
MCE10 0.000 0.017 0.083 0.208 0.692 project life cycle [26]. This is of utmost significance because not every
MCE11 0.017 0.017 0.133 0.183 0.650 situation and circumstance makes MC a viable and competitive
MCE15 0.000 0.042 0.125 0.083 0.750
approach [72]. During the planning and management stage, the owner
MCE19 0.000 0.017 0.083 0.108 0.792
MCE20 0.008 0.025 0.075 0.558 0.333 and other key participants will have the opportunity to determine the
MCE21 0.000 0.025 0.100 0.083 0.792 advantages of utilising MC in the project and assess whether the project
MCE6 0.025 0.025 0.067 0.592 0.292 is suitable for modularisation [14]. In this phase, it is imperative and
MCE14 0.000 0.017 0.133 0.317 0.533
advantageous to precisely define the project’s engineering scope,
MCE16 0.000 0.017 0.133 0.558 0.292
MCE17 0.000 0.050 0.533 0.358 0.058 budget, and planning, align the primary drivers of the MC project, and
MCE18 0.008 0.008 0.358 0.108 0.517 make sure that all involved parties have a clear understanding of key
MCE3 0.008 0.025 0.142 0.158 0.667 decisions that are made as early as feasible. The success of this phase also
MCE9 0.008 0.042 0.092 0.383 0.475 relies on strong collaboration and effective communication among the
MCE13 0.008 0.000 0.067 0.608 0.317
project participants, support from upper management, and efficient
MCE1 0.000 0.017 0.150 0.275 0.558
MCE2 0.000 0.017 0.150 0.617 0.217 management of stakeholders [13].
MCE7 0.000 0.017 0.125 0.317 0.542
MCE12 0.000 0.025 0.133 0.592 0.250

52
A. Hassan Ali et al.
5.3. Preparation
Based on the results, the Preparation component received the third-
highest score of 4.49. In the context of MC, preparation encompasses the
activities and processes that are carried out prior to the commencement
of construction work. Adequate preparation is crucial for ensuring the
success of the MC project. Proper preparation can enhance the chances
of achieving a favourable outcome by ensuring that the project runs
seamlessly, complies with all necessary regulations and standards, and is
delivered within the prescribed timeline and budget. By undertaking
effective preparation measures, potential risks and challenges can be
identified and addressed in advance, reducing the likelihood of unex­
pected delays, cost overruns, and other unfavourable outcomes [29]. To
ensure MC projects are completed in a timely manner, it is important to
obtain timely design approvals and establish an early design freeze,
allowing for mock-up testing and pre-site prototyping. These measures
are particularly important given the shorter lead times of MC projects, as
they can help ensure the project progresses smoothly and within budget.
Early design approvals and a design freeze can help identify and address
potential issues early on, while pre-site prototyping and mock-up testing
can further reduce the risk of delays or costly revisions during con­
struction [10]. To proceed to the production and manufacturing stage of
the supply chain hierarchy, it is crucial to have precise design, an early
design freeze, and the owner’s approval. Contractors must exhibit
discipline and prompt endorsement of designs to enable the early design
freeze and accommodate the fabricator’s operations for modules [14].
Hwang et al. [26] observed that effective coordination and communi­
cation among different stakeholders are critical to the success of MC
projects, both before and during the construction process. Therefore,
preparation of MC projects needs to establish strategies for configuring,
coordinating, optimising, and controlling the various stages of the sup­
ply chain and the relevant stakeholders to ensure a seamless delivery of
the project.
5.4. Promotion and Improvement
The fourth highest score of 4.32 was achieved by the Promotion and
Improvement component, as shown in the results. Promotion and
improvement in MC refer to the combined efforts to enhance the
acceptance and use of modular building techniques, as well as to
continually advance the quality and efficiency of the entire process. By
promoting and improving MC, it can become a more widespread and
embraced construction method, leading to increased efficiency, reduced
costs, and higher-quality buildings. One way to achieve these goals is by
conducting intensive early research on modularisation and soliciting
advice on modularisation considerations from experts and professionals
in the field of MC design. Through the collaboration of experts and
professionals in the early stages of a MC project, potential issues and
concerns can be identified and addressed promptly, which can result in
more effective and efficient modular building techniques. The promo­
tion and improvement of MC could lead to numerous benefits, including
a streamlined and more sustainable construction process, improved
building quality, and greater customer satisfaction [70]. To ensure the
successful onsite installation of modular building modules to the desired
level of quality, it is essential to have an experienced workforce and a
supervising team with technical capabilities. The expertise and knowl­
edge of these individuals can be leveraged to guarantee that the instal­
lation process adheres to the required standards and specifications. The
use of experienced workers ensures that the installation process is car­
ried out efficiently and safely, reducing the risk of errors or accidents.
With technical supervision, any issues that may arise during the instal­
lation process can be identified and addressed promptly, preventing
them from escalating into larger problems that could compromise the
integrity of the entire building [39]. Additionally, organizing exhibi­
tions, seminars, and marketing campaigns can raise awareness and
improve the knowledge of MC among construction project stakeholders.
53
Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55
These events can provide a platform for MC experts to showcase the
advantages and potential of modular building techniques to construc­
tion professionals, clients, and other stakeholders in the industry. By
presenting case studies, best practices, and success stories, these events
can help to educate and inform stakeholders about the benefits of using
MC for construction projects. Furthermore, such marketing efforts can
facilitate partnerships between MC suppliers and clients, leading to
more opportunities for collaboration and the integration of MC tech­
niques into the broader construction industry [66].
6. Conclusion and implications
This study surveyed 120 building experts and professionals in Egypt
to understand enablers that improve the adoption of MC in developing
countries. Despite the benefits of MC, its adoption in Egypt is still in the
preliminary stages. The researchers identified 21 MCEs and grouped
them into four categories using EFA. To prioritize the impact of MCEs
based on the perspectives of professionals in Egypt, a FSE was used.
Based on the achieved results, it was discovered that the “Optimization”
component showcased the highest performance, whereas the “Promo­
tion and Improvement” component displayed the lowest performance.
This study provides valuable insights into the enablers of MC adop­
tion and advances sustainability in housing projects. It represents one of
the pioneering empirical studies conducted in Egypt and presents pro­
posed categories and rankings that can support professionals in inte­
grating these enablers into their projects to attain MC. As a result, the
study provides valuable insights into the MC diffusion knowledge base.
The conclusions have significant impact in several areas. Theoretically,
(1) the study highlights the complicated nature of factors that promote
the wider adoption of MC in the construction sector; and (2) the research
advances the literature by classifying the list of enablers and examining
and assessing these components. Practically, (1) the enablers recognized
may be of aid to nations that have yet to embrace the concept of MC,
serving as a reference for MC project planning; (2) the findings may
enhance the understanding of MC researchers and professionals
regarding the enablers in the implementation of MC; and (3) a prior
examination and prioritization of the enablers in other nations may
augment the impact of the success factors on the objectives of the
project.
The study aims were met; however, there were several limitations to
the investigation. First, the study’s data was based on participants’
subjective evaluations of their own experiences. Second, although the
questionnaire survey sample size was sufficient, it was still little.
Therefore, findings should be interpreted and generalised carefully.
Second, a cost-benefit analysis of the MC technique and a study of
project objectives’ crucial success and enabling elements are necessary.
Third, correlation analysis needs to be carried out to determine the
relationship between the enablers and how they influence each other.
Finally, case studies may give in-depth and reliable assessments for
future study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] O. Akinradewo, C. Aigbavboa, D. Aghimien, A. Oke, B. Ogunbayo, Modular method
of construction in developing countries: the underlying challenges, Int. J. Constr.
Manag. (2021) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1970300.
[2] A.B.A. Al-Mekhlafi, A.S.N. Isha, N. Chileshe, M. Abdulrab, A.A.H. Saeed, A.
F. Kineber, Modelling the relationship between the nature of work factors and
driving performance mediating by role of fatigue, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 18 (13) (2021) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136752.
[3] A. Al-Otaibi, A.F. Kineber, Identifying and Assessing Health and Safety Program
Implementation Barriers in the Construction Industry: A Case of Saudi Arabia,
A. Hassan Ali et al.
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 13 (4) (2023) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/
app13042630.
[4] A.H. Ali, G.M. El-Mahdy, A.H. Ibrahim, A.O. Daoud, Towards the Adoption of
Modular Construction in Residential Projects in Egypt: Benefits, Barriers, and
Enablers. In Towards a Sustainable Construction Industry: The Role of Innovation and
Digitalisation: Proceedings of 12th Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB)
Postgraduate Research Conference,, Springer, Cham 1 (2023) 72–81, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-031-22434-8_8.
[5] A.H. Ali, A. Elyamany, A.H. Ibrahim, A.F. Kineber, A.O. Daoud, Modelling the
relationship between modular construction adoption and critical success factors for
residential projects in developing countries, Int. J. Constr. Manag. (2023) 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2023.2185940.
[6] A.H. Ali, A.F. Kineber, A. Elyamany, A.H. Ibrahim, A.O. Daoud, Modelling the role
of modular construction’s critical success factors in the overall sustainable success
of Egyptian housing projects, Journal of Building Engineering 71 (2023), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106467.
[7] A.H. Ali, A.F. Kineber, A. Elyamany, A.H. Ibrahim, A.O. Daoud, Identifying and
assessing modular construction implementation barriers in developing nations for
sustainable building development, Sustain. Dev. (2023) 1–19, https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.2589.
[8] M.F. Antwi-Afari, H. Li, E.A. Pärn, D.J. Edwards, Critical success factors for
implementing building information modelling (BIM): A longitudinal review,
Autom. Constr. 91 (February) (2018) 100–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.03.010.
[9] J.A. Bamgbade, A.M. Kamaruddeen, M.N.M. Nawi, Malaysian construction firms’
social sustainability via organizational innovativeness and government support:
The mediating role of market culture, J. Clean. Prod. 154 (2017) 114–124, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.187.
[10] N. Blismas, C. Pasquire, A. Gibb, Benefit evaluation for off-site production in
construction, Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (2) (2006) 121–130, https://doi.org/
10.1080/01446190500184444.
[11] A. Boussabaine, Risk Pricing Strategies for Public-Private Partnership Projects,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118785812.
[12] D.W.M. Chan, T.O. Olawumi, A.B. Saka, D. Ekundayo, Comparative analysis of the
barriers to smart sustainable practices adoption in the construction industry
between Hong Kong and Nigeria, Int. J. Constr. Manag. (2022), https://doi.org/
10.1080/15623599.2022.2108973.
[13] Choi, J. O. (2014). Links between Modularization Critical Success Factors and
Project Performance. In Ph.D. Dissertation.
[14] J.O. Choi, J.T. O’Connor, Modularization Critical Success Factors Accomplishment:
Learning from Case Studies, Construction Research Congress 2014 (2008) (2014)
140–149.
[15] J.O. Choi, J.T. O’Connor, T.W. Kim, Recipes for Cost and Schedule Successes in
Industrial Modular Projects: Qualitative Comparative Analysis, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 142 (10) (2016) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-
7862.0001171.
[16] A.L. Comrey, H.B. Lee, A First Course in Factor Analysis, (2nd Edition (ed.)).,
Psychology Press, 2013.
[17] A.O. Daoud, H. Omar, A.A.E. Othman, O.J. Ebohon, Integrated Framework
Towards Construction Waste Reduction: The Case of Egypt, International Journal
of Civil Engineering (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00793-2.
[18] M. Abdel-tawab, A.F. Kineber, N. Chileshe, H. Abanda, A.H. Ali, A. Almukhtar,
Building Information Modelling Implementation Model for Sustainable Building
Projects in Developing Countries : A PLS-SEM Approach,” Sustainability 15 (12)
(2023) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129242.
[19] K.M.A. El-Abidi, G. Ofori, S.A.S. Zakaria, M.A. Mannan, N.F. Abas, Identifying and
Evaluating Critical Success Factors for Industrialized Building Systems
Implementation: Malaysia Study, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 44 (10) (2019) 8761–8777,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-03941-4.
[20] I.O. Famakin, I. Othman, A.F. Kineber, A.E. Oke, O.I. Olanrewaju, M.M. Hamed, T.
M. Olayemi, Building Information Modeling Execution Drivers for Sustainable
Building Developments, Sustainability (Switzerland) 15 (4) (2023) 1–18, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15043445.
[21] A. Farouk Mohamed, Comparative study of traditional and modern building
techniques in Siwa Oasis, Egypt: Case study: Affordable residential building using
appropriate building technique, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 12 (2020) e00311.
[22] A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (Fourth Edi), SAGE
Publications Ltd., 2013.
[23] X. Gan, J. Zuo, P. Wu, J. Wang, R. Chang, T. Wen, How affordable housing becomes
more sustainable? A stakeholder study, J. Clean. Prod. 162 (2017) 427–437,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.048.
[24] A.G.F. Gibb, F. Isack, Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations
and drivers, Build. Res. Inf. 31 (2) (2003) 146–160, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210302000.
[25] Hair, J., Tatham, R., Anderson, R., & Black, W. (2002). Multivariate data analysis
5th ed.
[26] B.G. Hwang, M. Shan, K.Y. Looi, Knowledge-based decision support system for
prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction, Autom. Constr. 94 (June)
(2018) 168–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.06.016.
[27] H.F. Kaiser, The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20 (1) (1960) 141–151.
[28] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, Development of performance criteria for sustainability
evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods, J. Clean. Prod.
142 (2017) 3592–3606, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108.
54
Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55
[29] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Conventional versus modular construction
methods: A comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings, Energ.
Buildings 204 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479.
[30] K.A.M. Kamar, Z.A. Hamid, M. Alshawi, The Critical Success Factors (CSFs) to the
Implementation of Industrialised Building System (IBS) in Malaysia, in: 18th CIB
World Building Congress, 2010, pp. 64–76.
[31] S. Karthik, K. Sharareh, R. Behzad, Modular Construction vs, Traditional
Construction: Advantages and Limitations: A Comparative Study. 11–19 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.3311/ccc2020-012.
[32] A.F. Kineber, A.E. Oke, M.M. Hamed, E.F. Rached, A. Elmansoury, Modeling the
Impact of Overcoming the Green Walls Implementation Barriers on Sustainable
Building Projects: A Novel Mathematical Partial Least Squares—SEM Method,
Mathematics 11 (3) (2023) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3390/math11030504.
[33] A.F. Kineber, A.E. Oke, T. Jibril, O. Qaralleh, N.S. Alaboud, A. Alshahrani,
M. Alaboud, A.O. Daoud, Cyber Technology Implementation Barriers for
Sustainable Buildings : A Novel Mathematical Partial Least Square Structural
Equation Modelling, Buildings 13 (1052) (2023) 1–21.
[34] A.F. Kineber, I. Othman, I.O. Famakin, A.E. Oke, M.M. Hamed, T.M. Olayemi,
Challenges to the Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for
Sustainable Construction Projects, Appl. Sci. (2023) 1–24, https://doi.org/
10.3390/app13063426.
[35] A.F. Kineber, I. Othman, A.E. Oke, N. Chileshe, M.K. Buniya, Identifying and
assessing sustainable value management implementation activities in developing
countries: The case of Egypt, Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (21) (2020) 1–20,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219143.
[36] A.F. Kineber, I. Othman, A.E. Oke, N. Chileshe, M.K. Buniya, Impact of Value
Management on Building Projects Success: Structural Equation Modeling
Approach, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 147 (4) (2021) 04021011, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002026.
[37] A.F. Kineber, I. Othman, A.E. Oke, N. Chileshe, T. Zayed, Exploring the value
management critical success factors for sustainable residential building – A
structural equation modelling approach, J. Clean. Prod. 293 (2021), 126115,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126115.
[38] L. Li, Z. Li, G. Wu, X. Li, Critical success factors for project planning and control in
prefabrication housing production: A China study, Sustainability (Switzerland) 10
(3) (2018) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030836.
[39] L. Luo, G. Qiping Shen, G. Xu, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Stakeholder-Associated Supply
Chain Risks and Their Interactions in a Prefabricated Building Project in Hong
Kong, J. Manag. Eng. 35 (2) (2019) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-
5479.0000675.
[40] M. Matsunaga, How To Factor-Analyze Your Data Right, International Journal of
Psychological Research 3 (1) (2010) 97–110.
[41] R.K. Mavi, D. Gengatharen, N.K. Mavi, R. Hughes, A. Campbell, R. Yates,
Sustainability in construction projects: A systematic literature review,
Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (4) (2021) 1–24, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13041932.
[42] S.R. Mohandes, A.F. Kineber, S. Abdelkhalek, K. Kaddoura, M. Elsayed, M.
R. Hosseini, T. Zayed, Evaluation of the critical factors causing sewer overflows
through modeling of structural equations and system dynamics, J. Clean. Prod. 375
(April) (2022), 134035, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134035.
[43] E.M.O. Mokhtar, A VISION ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN EGYPT, Journal of the Egyptian Society of
Engineers 59 (1) (2020) 2020.
[44] S. Mostafa, J. Dumrak, N. Chileshe, J. Zuo, Offsite Manufacturing in Developing
Countries, Current Situation and Opportunities. November (2014) 64–73, https://
doi.org/10.32738/ceppm.201411.0007.
[45] M. Mulrooney, G. Shahani, Modularization: The key to success in today’s market,
Hydrocarb. Process. (2016) 27–30.
[46] Norouzi, M., Chàfer, M., Cabeza, L. F., Jiménez, L., & Boer, D. (2021). Circular
economy in the building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis.
Journal of Building Engineering, 44(December 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2021.102704.
[47] J.T. O’Connor, W.J. O’Brien, J.O. Choi, Critical Success Factors and Enablers for
Optimum and Maximum Industrial Modularization, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (6)
(2014) 04014012, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000842.
[48] A.E. Oke, A.F. Kineber, I. Al-Bukhari, I. Famakin, C. Kingsley, Exploring the
benefits of cloud computing for sustainable construction in Nigeria, Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology. (2021).
[49] A.E. Oke, A.F. Kineber, I. Albukhari, I. Othman, C. Kingsley, Assessment of cloud
computing success factors for sustainable construction industry: The case of
Nigeria, Buildings 11 (2) (2021) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings11020036.
[50] Oke, A. E., Kineber, A. F., Elseknidy, M., & Kayode, F. S. (2022). Radio frequency
identification implementation model for sustainable development: A structural
equation modeling approach. Sustainable Development, August, 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sd.2486.
[51] A.E. Oke, A.F. Kineber, O.I. Olanrewaju, O. Omole, P.S. Jamir Singh, M.
S. Samsurijan, R.A. Ramli, Exploring the 4IR Drivers for Sustainable Residential
Building Delivery from Social Work Residential Perspective—A Structural Equation
Modelling Approach, Sustainability (Switzerland) 15 (1) (2023) 1–21, https://doi.
org/10.3390/su15010468.
[52] O.I. Olanrewaju, A.F. Kineber, N. Chileshe, D.J. Edwards, Modelling the
relationship between Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation
barriers, usage and awareness on building project lifecycle, Build. Environ. 207
(2022) 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108556.
A. Hassan Ali et al.
[53] M.M. Omer, A.F. Kineber, A.E. Oke, C. Kingsley, A. Alyanbaawi, E.F. Rached,
A. Elmansoury, Barriers to Using Cloud Computing in Sustainable Construction in
Nigeria: A Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation, Mathematics 11 (4) (2023) 1–20, https://
doi.org/10.3390/math11041037.
[54] J.W. Osborne A.B. Costello J.T. Kellow Best Practices in Exploratory Factor
Analysis. Best Practices in Quantitative Methods 2011 10.4135/9781412995627.
d8.
[55] R. Osei-Kyei, A.P.C. Chan, Evaluating the project success index of public-private
partnership projects in Hong Kong: The case of the Cross Harbour Tunnel, Constr.
Innov. 18 (3) (2018) 371–391, https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-08-2017-0067.
[56] Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
IBM SPSS. Routledge.
[57] M. Rady, A.F. Kineber, M.M. Hamed, A.O. Daoud, Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling of Constraint Factors Affecting Project Performance in the
Egyptian Building Industry, Mathematics 11 (3) (2023) 497.
[58] R. Sadiq, M.J. Rodriguez, Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of disinfection by-products - A
risk-based indexing system, J. Environ. Manage. 73 (1) (2004) 1–13, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.04.014.
[59] A. Samuel Adegoke, J. Taiwo Gbadegesin, T. Oluwafemi Ayodele, S. Efuwape
Agbato, J. Bamidele Oyedele, T. Tunde Oladokun, E. Onyinyechukwu Ebede,
Property managers’ awareness of the potential benefits of vertical greenery systems
on buildings, Int. J. Constr. Manag. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/
15623599.2022.2095196.
[60] Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business
Students Eighth Edition. Pearson Education Limited.
[61] S. Sharma, Applied Multivariate Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
[62] P.S.J. Singh, A.E. Oke, A.F. Kineber, O.I. Olanrewaju, O. Omole, M.S. Samsurijan,
R.A. Ramli, A Mathematical Analysis of 4IR Innovation Barriers in Developmental
Social Work—A Structural Equation Modeling Approach, Mathematics 11 (4)
(2023) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3390/math11041003.
55
Alexandria Engineering Journal 78 (2023) 45–55
[63] M. Soliman, “Risk Management in International Construction Joint Ventures,”
2014. [Online]. Available: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30267578.pdf.
[64] B.G. Tabachnick L.S. Fidell Using Multivariate Statistics 7th edition (7th ed.). 2021
Pearson Boston.
[65] B. Thompson Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding
concepts and applications 2004 10.1037/10694-000.
[66] B. Trigunarsyah, T.P. Santoso, M.A. Hassanain, F. Tuffaha, Adopting off-site
construction into the Saudi Arabian construction industry, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Smart Infrastructure and Construction 173 (3)
(2020) 55–62, https://doi.org/10.1680/jsmic.21.00004.
[67] D. Willar, E.V.Y. Waney, D.D.G. Pangemanan, R.E.G. Mait, Sustainable
construction practices in the execution of infrastructure projects: The extent of
implementation, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 10 (1) (2021) 106–124,
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-07-2019-0086.
[68] B. Williams, A. Onsman, T. Brown, Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for
novices, Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care 8 (3) (2010) 1–13, https://doi.
org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93.
[69] I.Y. Wuni, G.Q. Shen, Towards a decision support for modular integrated
construction: an integrative review of the primary decision-making actors, Int. J.
Constr. Manag. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1668633.
[70] I.Y. Wuni, G.Q. Shen, Critical success factors for modular integrated construction
projects: a review, Build. Res. Inf. 48 (7) (2020) 763–784, https://doi.org/
10.1080/09613218.2019.1669009.
[71] I.Y. Wuni, G.Q. Shen, Developing critical success factors for integrating circular
economy into modular construction projects in Hong Kong, Sustainable Production
and Consumption 29 (2022) 574–587, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.010.
[72] I.Y. Wuni, G.Q.P. Shen, A.T. Mahmud, Critical risk factors in the application of
modular integrated construction: a systematic review, Int. J. Constr. Manag. 22 (2)
(2019) 133–147, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1613212.