A Framework for Assessing Maturity and Readiness Towards

Industrialized Construction
Mohamad Razkenari, Aff.M.ASCE1 and Charles J. Kibert2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Industrialized construction has garnered attention in the construction industry owing to the economic benefits resulting from the
reduction in time of project delivery, the enhancement of quality control, and an increase in labor productivity. The adoption of industrialized
construction might require a change in the business processes and delivery methods. These changes are often costly and could be unsuccessful
without careful instruction. The objective of this study is to provide a practical framework for shifting the operational model from conven-
tional construction to industrialized construction. A structured case survey was designed to collect data from companies with high utilization
of offsite strategies. The results were used to design a maturity framework for adopting industrialized construction technology. The proposed
framework evaluates industrialized construction capability in technological, functional, and organizational components, and provides strat-
egies to improve the technology adoptions in four stages of explore, initiate, control, and optimize. The outcome of this study addresses the
problem of immature process models in construction companies and facilitates the employment of industrialized construction practices.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000528. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Offsite construction has been proposed as a solution to some of the
traditional problems in the built environment, including low labor
productivity, lack of affordable housing, and a shortage of construc-
tion workers. Although existing offsite construction practices have
improved different aspects of building construction, they still face
several internal and external barriers that limit progress toward
reaching their full potential. Many attempts to implement offsite
strategies have led to unpredictable outcomes, lower quality, or
higher cost and time of project delivery (Velamati 2012). Several
studies have discussed the benefits of implementing offsite
construction strategies, as well as the barriers that have held the in-
dustry back (Smith and Rice 2015; Cowles and Warner 2013; Pan
et al. 2007; MGH 2011; Tam et al. 2007). According to the market
analysis by Dodge Data & Analytics (2020) companies in the con-
struction industry have identified adoption of offsite construction
technologies and correspondingly processes as a requirement for
their organizations to remain competitive. Moreover, in a recent
study (Razkenari et al. 2020), industry experts repeatedly mentioned
operational change management as one of the main challenges to in-
corporate offsite and industrialized methods. Construction projects
usually pursue traditional project delivery practices where offsite
construction methods are not considered during the design phase
and general contractors may utilize single-trade prefabrication dur-
ing the construction phase. However, to integrate industrialized con-
struction, companies need significant coordination with multiple
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sustainable Resources Management,
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State Univ. of New York,
Syracuse, NY 13210. (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0002-1815-7570. Email: marazken@esf.edu
2
Professor, M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Construction Management,
College of Design, Construction, and Planning, Univ. of Florida, Gaines-
ville, FL 32611. Email: ckibert@ufl.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 18, 2021; approved on
December 3, 2021; published online on February 2, 2022. Discussion pe-
riod open until July 2, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431.
trades from early design stages, and strong technical and operational
capabilities (Li et al. 2020; Sadoughi et al. 2020). Previous studies
investigated the cutting-edge characteristics and emerging technol-
ogies for industrialized construction (Razkenari et al. 2019) and
identified several factors related to the likelihood of construction
companies to adopt these technologies to improve their industrial-
ized construction capability (Lessing and Brege 2018). In particular,
the adoption of industrialized construction is an ongoing process and
depends on the existing capability and readiness of an organization.
Companies might need to reengineering the work process to incor-
porate offsite strategies. These changes are often costly and could
be unsuccessful without careful instruction (Dumas and Beinecke
2018). Therefore, this study aims to develop a framework to help or-
ganizations assess their readiness and improve their capability for in-
dustrialized construction by making sequential low-risk changes in
their operational process.
A company’s action plan for adopting a new technology or pro-
cess depends on its business model, size, existing processes, and
many other factors. The capability maturity model is one of the
tools that can help organizations establish goals for process im-
provement and identify opportunities for business optimization.
Capability maturity models have been used in several research
studies for the assessment of maturity in employing new technolo-
gies or strategies in the construction or manufacturing industries.
There are several maturity assessment frameworks for smart
manufacturing concepts, such as DREAMY (de Carolis et al.
2017), SMSRL (Jung et al. 2016), and MOM (Brandl 2016). More-
over, Schumacher et al. (2016) presented a maturity model for
assessing industry 4.0 maturity of manufacturing enterprises.
Maturity models are also proposed to enable practical adoption
of building information modeling (BIM) in construction organiza-
tions. For example, Liang et al. (2016) proposed a BIM maturity
model that identifies and presents the domains and subdomains
and their maturity stages in a matrix framework. Despite the differ-
ences, maturity models always specify maturity levels with an inte-
ger value, provide benchmarks to evaluate the capabilities of an
organization, and identify the actions to move the system from
its current level to a more mature level (Antoniades 2014). There-
fore, developing a maturity model for industrialized construction

© ASCE 04022003-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 can help an organization to identify practical steps for adopting in-
dustrialized construction strategies.
In this study, we developed a framework to assess industrialized
construction capability and enable practical steps for adopting
emerging technologies with a high level of maturity. The model
was built based on the information collected from a panel of indus-
try experts with a diverse background in the field, together with the
information collected from academic articles, surveys, and inter-
views. The Methodology section summarizes the details of research
process. A structured case survey was designed for data collection,
which included sequential interviews with experts. The Maturity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
industrialized construction practices. We researched the list of
members at the Modular Building Institute, participants at the Off-
site Construction EXPO, and the top 400 contractors published by
the Engineering News Record. We selected general contractors that
have successfully delivered commercial construction projects using
industrialized construction approaches beyond single-trade prefab-
rication. The selected companies either have a vertically integrated
process that includes design, manufacturing, and assembly, or they
partner with other organizations in a vertically integrated system.
The selected population included between 30 and 40 organizations.
A request was sent through email to experts in director or manage-

Framework Development section presents the findings of this ment positions at 11 organizations. Among the targeted organiza-
study and describes the developed framework. The Maturity tions, five agreed to participate in the study. Previous studies
Framework in Practice section further discusses the practical use typically used the Delphi method with between 8 and 20 panelists
cases of the framework to promote industrialized construction (Liang et al. 2016; Goncalves Filho et al. 2010) or relied on an in-
and compares the findings with similar studies. Finally, the Conclu- depth investigation of a few cases (Schumacher et al. 2016; Schuh
sion section summarizes the findings and provides some recom- et al. 2017) for developing and validating maturity models. In this
mendations for future studies. study, considering the small population size and in-depth analysis
of cases beyond the Delphi method, five cases were sufficient for
creating an initial maturity model. Future studies can provide eval-
Methodology uations and validations of the proposed framework using additional
cases. Table 1 presents detailed information about the organizations
A case study approach was used to create a framework for assess- and backgrounds of panelists who represent the organization.
ing readiness and maturity of industrialized construction. Case
study methods are vastly used in the business research and their de-
sign, implementation, and evaluation are formulated (Dul and Hak Maturity Framework Development
2007). We implemented a theory-oriented case study (Dul and Hak
2007), where the cases were analyzed to create a maturity frame- The maturity framework is built based on the information collected
work that explains industrialized construction development in the from a panel of industry experts with a diverse background in the
selected organizations. We selected companies with successful field, together with the information collected from academic arti-
adoption of industrialized construction as the study subjects, and cles, surveys, and interviews. After identifying the panelists, the
designed a structured case survey (Larsson 1993) to identify their first-round questionnaire was distributed to the selected experts.
technology development steps and formulate lesson learnt during The results were analyzed to find the general tendency and appear-
their development. Case survey is a specific type of data collection ance of convergence in the responses. The study continued with a
for case studies, which requires collecting surveys to gain general- detailed interview of each panelist. The interview result was used to
izable and cross-sectional analysis of the topic and then an in-depth
and procedural analysis as in a traditional case study. The case sur- Table 1. Demographic information of panelists in the case survey
vey was designed with three rounds: an online questionnaire, an
structured interview, and a follow-up survey. Fig. 1 provides a ge- Characteristics A B C D E
neral overview of research approach. The data collection process Type of organization
and results are summarized in the next section with outlined find- Design firm Y — — Y —
ings and conclusions. Manufacturer Y — Y Y —
The success of case survey studies depends on the careful selec- Contractor Y — — Y Ya
tion of cases and number of experts. The panelists in this study Owner — — — — Y
were selected from organizations with an extensive focus on Consultant — Yb — — —
Offsite utilization
Modular units Y — Y Y Y
Volumetric pre-assemblies — — — Y Y
Prefabricated MEP systems Y — — — Y
Panelized units Y — — — Y
Prefabricated structural systems
Project types
Multifamily buildings Y — Y Y Y
Student housing Y — — — —
Hotel Y — — — —
Industrial projects — — — Y —
Future investment
Yes, Manufacturing Y — Y Y —
Yes, Analytics — — — — Y
Position
President — Y — Y Y
Manager — — Y — —
Director Y — — — —
Years of experience 5 30 8 30 40
Fig. 1. Overview of the research approach to develop an industrialized a
Specialize in design–build delivery.
construction maturity framework. b
The consultant has extensive experience in offsite industry.

© ASCE 04022003-2 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 create the maturity model framework. In the third round, the frame-
work was distributed to panelists, asking for their feedback, to
reach a consensus.
First Round: Questionnaire
In the first round of the survey, an online questionnaire was distrib-
uted to collect background information from each panelist, and
their opinion about the emerging technologies and important cate-
gories of industrialized construction. The questionnaire was created
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Interviewee D stated that their organization has a structured
decision-making process that directs the optimal solution for each
project. Moreover, all of the organizations track performance met-
rics related to processes and activities in manufacturing and assem-
bly phases. All panelists claimed that their organizations have
structured processes for monitoring the cost, schedule, productiv-
ity, safety, and other performance metrics, based on various soft-
ware platforms. The cost data are analyzed after project
completion; however, the issues at the project level are handled
in internal meetings between the design, manufacturing, and con-
struction partners. The panelists unanimously believed that indus-

based upon previous studies of the authors for identifying emerging

technologies in industrialized construction. Razkenari et al. (2020)
identified four classifications of emerging technology in the indus-
trialized construction: (1) business digitalization; (2) computer-
integrated design; (3) data acquisition, optimization, and predictive
analytics; and (4) robotics and automation. Qi et al. (2020) sur-
veyed industry experts to find the level of utilization and potential
for future investments in each of the technology categories. Ac-
cording to the findings of those studies, a series of questions
were designed and distributed to identify the work process, find
the difficulties in using industrialized construction, and find the im-
portant factors in adopting the industrialized construction in each of
the cases. Table 2 lists the results of the questionnaire.
The panelists believed the request or suggestion for using indus-
trialized construction might come from the owner, designer, con-
tractor, or subcontractors. They specified that this decision
depends on the economical and schedule impacts to the project.
Apart from Interviewee C, who said that their organization only
performs modular projects, all of the interviewees suggested that
they make decisions regarding the use of industrialized construc-
tion on a case-by-case basis in early project stages. In fact, all pan-
elists emphasized the importance of schedule and cost metrics and
suggested identifying limitations in early design phases.
trialized construction companies should work toward vertically
integrated business strategies. Vertical integration refers to the pro-
cess of expanding a company by acquisition or investment in divi-
sions to perform different stages of industrialized construction,
including design, manufacturing, and assembly. As stated by Inter-
viewee A, vertical integration is aligned with integrated project de-
livery strategies that reduce the risk of unexpected errors or change
orders. It also allows collaborative decision-making among design,
manufacturing, and construction teams in early project phases. In-
terviewee C argued that some general contractors may also aim for
horizontal development in their business model in order to have
control over a wider range of trade scopes. Horizontal integration
refers to the process of expanding a company by acquisition or in-
vestment in different types of industrialized construction strategies,
such as precast concrete, panelized components, and modular units.
The panelist believed that improving the manufacturing capability
of an organization is critical for successful implementation of in-
dustrialized strategies. The company may either own their prefab-
rication facility or use the facility of one of the partners. Having
their own factory or prefabrication facility enables better control
of quality and costs, whereas partnering with manufacturers or
using temporary factories for production of prefabricated

Table 2. Significance of improvement strategies in the first round of the case survey
Improvement strategies Extreme Moderate Low None
Having libraries of standardized components, subassembles, and prefabricated systems that can be used by designers 3 1 1 —
Design optimization features to evaluate the design for minimizing the cost of manufacturing, waste, assembly, etc. 4 1 — —
Artificial intelligence features for design assistant (automated creation of design alternatives, configuration of building — 3 2 —
layouts, suggestions for adopting industrialized strategies, etc.)
Flexible manufacturing system for fabrication of various complex components (using digital fabrication, CNC, 3D 3 1 — 1
printing, etc.)
Adopting lean, agile, or other production planning strategies from manufacturing industry 4 — 1 —
Tracking the production, transportation, and assembly progress and performance data using Internet of Things (IoT) 2 3 — —
Data analytics and optimization for continuous improvement based on the collected data 1 4 — —
Computer vision (digital imaging, photogrammetry, laser scanning, etc.) for monitoring progress and quality 2 2 1 —
Workforce training specific to manufacturing processes and advanced technologies 4 1 — —
Horizontal and Vertical systems integration (interoperability and integration of information systems in different stages 3 2 — —
and sectors)
The cloud for data management and communication 1 3 1 —
Encouraging a culture of readiness for change, accepting innovations, and professional development 4 1 — —
Extended reality (VR, AR, MR) for marketing and educational purposes 0 4 1 —
Universal code compliance standards, local code compliances, and safety code acceptance for building code 1 — — —
compliance
Note: AR, augmented reality; MR, mixed reality; VR, virtual reality.

Table 3. Structure and list of items included in the maturity framework

Item Function
Category Three main categories are technological, functional, and organizational.
Index Maturity indices for each category are identified and described. The key relationships between indices are also specified.
Maturity levels Four levels of maturity are explore, initiate, control, and optimize. Meeting criteria and strategies for transition to the next level is states in
each category.

© ASCE 04022003-3 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 components saves on investing in the capital assets necessary to run
a facility.
The initial framework was created based on the information col-
lected in this round, as well as the findings from previous studies.
The framework breaks down each development area into indices
with their specific description. Strategies for implementation are
provided in detail. Accordingly, the framework includes specific
approaches to be considered when performing each index at differ-
ent levels of maturity. The initial structure of the maturity frame-
work is presented in Table 3.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in the technological category. The organizational category includes
the cultural, staffing, and structural changes needed for successful
implementation of industrialized construction. The interviewees
believed these three categories are appropriate for a maturity frame-
work in industrialized construction. Although the emerging tech-
nologies are being recognized, their successful implementation
requires knowing the key functional areas and organizational read-
iness for the change.
Maturity levels. The interview asked about the number of matu-
rity levels in the framework. The interviewees asserted that having
four levels for each maturity index, explore, initiate, control, and

optimize, would be appropriate for the framework. Interviewee E

Second Round: Interview
The panelists were interviewed to validate the initial structure of the
maturity framework. The interview process included specific ques-
tions about selected development categories, maturity levels, assess-
ment approaches, indices for each category, and necessary
descriptions and relationships among categories. The interview had
six parts, which are summarized in Table 4. The first three parts
asked about the overall structure of the framework, whereas the
next three parts asked specific questions about the elements in each
category. A detailed description of research approach and the initial
structure was provided to the panelists for their review and feedback
before the interview. A summary of the interview output is presented
in this section. The incidents and components that are required for
adopting industrialized construction are identified in the interviews.
Development categories. The first part of the interview asked
about the three development categories selected for the framework.
The technological category encompasses technologies that are used
to improve the offsite construction process. The functional category
includes processes used at different stages in offsite construction
projects that covers applications and use cases for items mentioned
argued that the adoption of new technologies requires knowing
the company’s capability for implementing the technology in ques-
tion. Therefore, the states of maturity for their organization’s man-
agement were mainly two levels: (1) deciding whether they want to
use the technology; and (2) assuming they decide to adopt the tech-
nology, hiring the right people to guide the technology implemen-
tation. This approach is most appropriate for small-size and
mid-size companies where they can use the experience of other
companies rather than making large investments in their research
and development departments.
Assessment approaches. The third part of the interview sur-
veyed the ideal approach for maturity assessment. The frameworks
typically involved a mixture of quantification and qualification
evaluation. The interviewees unanimously believed that the best as-
sessment is quantifying in the index level within each development
area to provide three maturity scores, one for each category. They
argued that while it is helpful to go beyond the qualitative analysis
and use some metrics for the assessment, having one maturity score
for the company is not feasible owing to the varying nature of se-
lected categories.

Table 4. Interview structure and sample questions

Interview section Sample questions
Development categories Do you think having the three categories is suitable for the framework?
Would you recommend any other categories?
Maturity levels Do you think having these four levels of maturity is suitable for the framework?
Would you recommend having more or less than four levels?
Do you think the selected four levels (explore, initiate, control, and optimize) are appropriate?
Assessment approaches Which of the approaches would be more appropriate, quantifying in category level, index level, or qualitative analysis? Why?
Technological category Do you believe the selected categories, presented in Table xx, are suitable for the maturity framework?
Would you recommend any other technologies to be considered in the framework?
Functional category Do you believe having project stages as main functional areas, where the strategy to perform processes will change in each level of
maturity (refer to Table xx) is suitable for the framework?
Do you think having the four selected project stages, as presented in Table xx, is suitable for covering the functional areas of
maturity in the framework?
Would you recommend any modification for project stages or the processes in each stage?
Organizational category Do you think the two selected indices, as presented in Table xx, are suitable for the maturity framework?
Would you recommend any other index for the organization area of maturity framework?

Table 5. Development indices for technological category

Index
T1: Business process digitalization
T2: Computer-integrated design
T3: Data acquisition and analytics
T4: Robotics and automation
Components
Horizontal and vertical system integration; information systems; the cloud
3D modeling and beyond (nD); standardization (BIM, ifc); design automation; extended reality (VR, AR, MR)
Photogrammetry; laser scanning; sensors (not connected); IoT (sensor, microcontroller, communication); optimization
algorithms; data analytics (machine learning, deep learning, big data)
Digital fabrication; robot assembly; autonomous vehicles; additive manufacturing

© ASCE 04022003-4 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 Technological category. The emerging technologies that were
identified in this study and included in the first round questionnaire
are categorized in four main indices (Table 5). The description of
each technology index includes the state-of-the-art technologies
in that category. Interviewee C argued that some technologies
would be outdated after a few years. Therefore, it would be neces-
sary to investigate new technologies to perform the same function.
For example, using 3D modeling for computer-integrated design
would have had a high level of maturity 10 years ago, whereas it
is now the baseline. Therefore, the framework presents technology
indices as a broad area of technology development that is evaluated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Third Round: Framework Validation
A final version of the framework for industrialized construction
maturity was created by analyzing the information from the first
two rounds of the study. The updated framework was distributed
to panelists for verification and reaching consensus. The panelists
reviewed, confirmed, and validated the framework collectively.
They also verified that the framework could be used to assess
their organization’s readiness and maturity for adopting industrial-
ized construction and guide them to create a strategic improvement
plan. However, using the framework for maturity assessment re-

quires detailed analysis of existing operational process and strategic

in four maturity levels, whereas it would be imperative to continu-
ously reevaluate their description and requirement for each level of
maturity.
Functional category. The framework categorizes processes in
four different factional areas for stages in project life cycle. Table 6
presents the processes and their descriptions at each index. The in-
terviewees suggested considering the project life cycle stage to in-
clude postconstruction processes such as operation, maintenance,
and warranties in the framework. They argued that the companies
are already involved in some project life cycle activities, which
vary depending the project types, code, and contract. Therefore,
it would be essential to consider technology function in those pro-
cesses. However, Interviewee D argued that this consideration
should be case-by-case and stay in the scope of the organization’s
involvement in the project life cycle. Therefore, operation and
maintenance is considered as an element in the construction stage.
Organizational category. For the organizational area, the frame-
work considers two indices: culture and management. Many of the
previous studies suggested that the required changes for successful
implementation of industrialized construction should start in the or-
ganizational area. The interviewees argued that appropriate leader-
ship and change management is the most critical success factor for
technology adoption. Table 7 presents the selected indices and
subindices in each organizational area.
development goals, which is out of the scope of this study.
Maturity Framework in Practice
The framework has three main development areas in which compa-
nies should continuously improve for successful implementation of
industrialized construction. These areas are technological, func-
tional, and organizational, which target the technology, process,
and people aspects of an organization, respectively. Each of these
development areas includes maturity indices that are considered
key elements. The framework explains four levels of maturity: ex-
plore, initiate, control, and optimize. Fig. 2 shows the structure of
proposed framework and clarify steps for its implementation.
Strategies to achieve higher capability and tips for transition
were specified at each level of maturity. These criteria are summar-
ized in Table 8 for the first level of maturity (explore), Table 9 for
the second level of maturity (initiate), Table 10 for the third level of
maturity (control), and Table 11 for the fourth level of maturity (op-
timize). These criteria are categorized by the identified maturity in-
dices in technological, functional, and organizational domains.
It is essential that a company considers both the present state and
the move towards their mature level. Therefore, the maturity frame-
work is designed to act as a tool for self-assessment of their

Table 6. Development indices for functional category

Index
F1: Design and preconstruction
F2: Manufacturing
F3: Logistics and supply chain
F4: Assembly and construction
Components
Architectural and engineering design; bidding and contract management; scheduling and estimating; permitting; risk
analysis; value engineering; clash detection
Production planning; material handling; fabrication; safety management; quality control; progress monitoring
Material supply planning; material inventory planning; products inventory planning; transportation planning
Assembly planning; site logistics planning; crane operation planning; quality control; safety management; progress
monitoring; operation and maintenance

Table 7. Development indices for organizational category

Index Components
O1: Culture Willingness to change; openness to innovation; continuous professional development; social collaboration
O2: Leadership Flexible communities; motivational goal systems; dynamic partnership; agile management; customer-centric marketing

Fig. 2. Steps for industrialized construction maturity assessment.

© ASCE 04022003-5 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 Table 8. Identified criteria for meeting the first level of maturity
Assessment criteria T1 T2 T3 T4 F1 F2 F3 F4 O1 O2
Explore
□ Isolated information systems x — — — — — — — — —
□ Handling most of the information exchange manually — — — — x x x x — —
□ Automate some portion of information exchange by creating standard formats in electronic data x — — — — — x — — —
interchange (EDI) for invoices, purchase orders, etc.
□ Lack of interoperability among different design teams, and manufacturing sectors — — — — x x x x — —
□ RFID or barcodes for tracking and tracing — — x — — — x x — —
□ Photogrammetry and laser scanning for quality control and progress monitoring — x — — — x — x — —
□ Case-by-case feasibility analysis for using industrialized strategies in early design phase — x — — x — — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

□ BIM tools for architectural and engineering design — x — — x — — — — —

□ BIM tools for clash detection — x — — x — — x — —
□ Unstructured value engineering and risk analysis — — — — x — — — — —
□ Mid-size 3D printing — — — x — x — — x —
□ Manually operated machines (CNC) — — — x — x — — — —
□ Performing repetitive task manually — — — — x x — — — —
□ Openness to innovation in the workforce — — — — — — — — x —
□ Recognize the need for changes — — — — — — — — — x
□ Training programs for lean and agile practices — — — — — — — — x x

Table 9. Identified criteria for meeting the second level of maturity

Assessment criteria T1 T2 T3 T4 F1 F2 F3 F4 O1 O2
Initiate
□ Connected information systems x — — — — — — — — —
□ Cloud services for collaboration x — — — x — x x — —
□ Standardized communication x — — — x x — — — —
□ Creating standardized and interoperable design platforms — x — — x — — — — —
□ Automated and real-time data collection in production monitoring — x — — x — — — — —
□ IoT smart object in supply chain control — — x — — — x — — —
□ Smart and sensor-based safety monitoring — — x — — x — x — —
□ Extended reality in training and marketing — x — — x — — — — x
□ Autonomous robots for material handling and assembly lines — — — x — x — — — —
□ Digital fabrication (automated CAD to CAM processes) — — — x — x — — — —
□ Create workforce and human–computer interaction training programs — — — — — — — — x —
□ Changes are being implemented in departments and portfolio levels — — — — — — — — — x
□ Change management training is initiated for staff — — — — — — — — x —
□ Established programs for lean and agile practices — — — — — — — — — x

readiness and creating strategic vision toward future developments.
The interconnections with indices in technological category was
specified for organizational and functional categories. The reason
for this is to facilitate the understanding of key processes and struc-
tural needs to implement emerging technologies in each category.
In addition, a maturity model should have a distinctly defined
first level that focus on fundamental needs. This suggests that
many organizations already have some capability for industrialized
construction, and in the first level they explore their needs to in-
crease the implementation of these strategies. The transition from
“explore level” to “initiate level” may include a drastic change in
the organizational operations of a company, as it involves adopting
new technologies, culture, and learning skills. Therefore, this shift
may take a longer period of time, require more resources, and in-
volve more unforeseen problems compared with a transition be-
tween other levels. In the rest of this section, we provide further
details about the framework structure and discuss observations
and challenges identified in the case surveys.
Level 1: Explore
In this stage, different information technologies are used in isola-
tion from each other within the company. The organizations in
this stage may already implement an enterprise resource planning
(ERP) system to collect, store, manage, and interpret data from dif-
ferent business activities. However, their ERP system is not inte-
grated with the control operations in manufacturing and assembly
stages. In addition, the business application systems are not con-
nected to the company’s ERP system. Although most of the infor-
mation exchange is performed manually, some portion of it may be
automated by utilization of electronic data interchange (EDI)
against suppliers and customers. EDI uses a standard format, mak-
ing it possible for invoices, purchase orders, and so forth to flow
automatically from one parts system to another.
Although the companies use computer-integrated systems for
most of the architectural and engineering design, the systems are
similar to conventional design practices and are used to perform re-
petitive tasks more efficiently. Most of the feasibility and risk anal-
yses are performed on a case-by-case basis, without systematic and
structured instructions, and are based on personal experience.
With regard to data acquisition and analytics, the organizations in
this level have implemented some use of “track and trace” technol-
ogy, as RFID and/or barcodes in the production and/or warehouse
environment, but with limited functionality. In addition, they may
use some semi-automated quality assurance based on laser scanning
and photogrammetry. Sensor technology, which is a vital component
of machinery and control systems, is not used for integrating and
connecting physical operations with cybersystems.

© ASCE 04022003-6 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 Table 10. Identified criteria for meeting the third level of maturity
Assessment criteria T1 T2 T3 T4 F1 F2 F3 F4 O1 O2
Control
□ Vertical integrated systems for design, manufacturing, logistics, and assembly x — — — x x x x — —
□ Cloud data management and communication x — — — x x x x — —
□ Smart and data-driven bidding and contract management x — — — x — — — — —
□ Real-time key performance indicators and dashboards x — — — — x x x — —
□ Automated design optimization and value engineering — x — — x — — — — —
□ Data-driven design and engineering — x — — x — — — — —
□ Internal data management platforms x — x — x x x — — —
□ Data-driven optimization for planning decisions — — x — — x x x — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

□ Real-time and rapid decision-making — — x — — x x x — —

□ Standardized production with automated design to fabrication work flow — x — x x x — — — —
□ Automated production and warehouse environment — — — x — x x — — —
□ Modifications are accepted and institutionalized in the entire organization — — — — — — — — x —
□ Openness to innovation is institutionalized — — — — — — — — x x

Table 11. Identified criteria for meeting the fourth level of maturity
Assessment criteria T1 T2 T3 T4 F1 F2 F3 F4 O1 O2
Optimize
□ Business intelligence platforms x — — — — x x x — —
□ Automated and predictive planning decisions x — x — — — x — — —
□ Continuous improvement x — — — — — — — — —
□ Data-driven risk analysis x x — — x — — — — —
□ AI-based design — x — — x — — — — —
□ Big data analytics — — x — — — x — — —
□ Automated decision-making — — x — x — x — — —
□ Connected manufacturing systems — — — x — x — — — —
□ Automated assembly — — — x — — — x — —
□ Highly flexible production system with rich product libraries for automated fabrication and 3D printing — — — x — x — — — —
□ Structured programs for continuing improvements — — — — — — — — x —
□ Appropriate staffing process is established — — — — — — — — x —
□ Established change management programs — — — — — — — — — x

The organizations in this level use some manually operated ma-
chines without digital interface for some processes. For example, Com-
puter Numerical Control (CNC) machines may need manual transfer
of detailing CAD data for performing actions with great precision.
The warehouse environment may also have some use of individual ro-
bots for material handling or assembly. However, most of these invest-
ments are for exploring the possibility of future larger investments. The
company may also invest in using mid-size 3D printers for research
and development purposes. In fact, organizations at this level are
searching for solutions to improve the effectiveness of existing func-
tions, moving towards higher levels of technology adoption in the pro-
cess. The leadership as well as the workforce are open to innovations
and recognize the need to improve existing processes.
Level 2: Initiate
At this level, parts of the operational technology systems provide
connectivity and interoperability, but full integration of layers has
not yet occurred. Isolated deployment of information technology
is replaced by connected components. Using standardization im-
proves the ability of vertical communication in operations and con-
trol systems. Cloud services are used to support this vertical
integration, enabling platforms to support the connection of devices
and sensors, for example, the use of a PC, tablet, or a smart phone,
from a remote location. However, for functions such as production,
logistics, and assembly services, it is often still the case that very
little data are collected at all, even in centralized processes.
The effect of the initial change in design operations is creating
standardized and interoperable design platforms. The standardized
design libraries have a high level of connectivity, meaning that
once a design has been created in engineering, its data can be
pushed to production, so that the production steps can be executed
accordingly (CAD/CAM processes).
Although many machines in the manufacturing and construction
industries are 50 or more years old, using the Internet Protocol en-
ables standardized communication among them with new sensor
technology. In effect, these assets can easily be connected to pro-
vide production data while remaining very productive. In addition,
the manufacturing operations that are controlled by the manufactur-
ing execution system (MES) can be integrated vertically with other
systems. For example, the progress and quality monitoring feed-
back from manufacturing operations can be provided automatically
in real time. In this stage, the use of IoT-enabled objects is still
under development in the internal supply chain control, with the
ability to communicate vertically through a control system or the
Internet.
Organizational readiness is an essential element of industrial-
ized construction maturity. Therefore, an organization at this
level should initiate training programs that facilitate the operational
and cultural changes. Change management is the most important
training for the organization’s leadership, whereas common work-
force training to promote lean and agile strategies will facilitate the
improvement of production and construction practices.
Level 3: Control
Assets or products have the ability to communicate horizontally
and vertically through the use of a control system, the Internet, or

© ASCE 04022003-7 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003

 the cloud. The design and preconstruction systems achieved stand-
ardization for data standards, communication protocols, design
platforms, and production technologies. Interoperability must be
established on various levels: the physical level, when assembling
and connecting manufacturing equipment; the design level, when
exchanging information or sharing services; and the business
level, where operations and objectives must be aligned. An impor-
tant characteristic of this level is creating the ability to learn from
experiences and improve operations in a systematic way. There-
fore, the captured data must be analyzed by applying engineering
knowledge, and real-time key performance indicators (KPIs) and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dashboards must be created to aid performance analysis.
The data acquisition is in a stage that sensors enable processes to
be captured from beginning to end with large numbers of data
points. The supply chain control is increasingly utilizing IoT ob-
jects within assets or products. The digital simulation of processes
helps record and monitor the operations at any given moment, so
that management decisions can be based on real data. This makes
it possible to more rapidly determine delivery dates, delays, and un-
expected events. The process improvement strategies can be out-
lined by means of real-time KPIs and dashboards. In effect,
real-time decision-making in production planning would be easier
for production managers and suppliers. Data management is crucial
for successful digitalization. Data platforms should therefore inte-
grate various information systems and focus on all of the ex-
changed data at this level. The semantics need to be developed to
link data from various sources to create information required for
rapid and complex decision-making.
At this level, most parts of production operation and warehouse
environments should be automated. Assembly robots and autono-
mous machines should be connected into a control network to per-
form production activities and replace the manual workforce with
trained staff that can effectively interact with robots and computer
systems. This is one area where companies must institutionalize the
way they approach changes and innovations.
Level 4: Optimize
At this stage, the organization finds a clear vision of optimal indus-
trialized construction use. The business digitalization is based on
IoT platforms where all objects are connected and seamlessly inte-
grated, with a high level of interoperability and standardization in
the systems. Business intelligence platforms are part of common
practices in the organizations. Continuous improvement is enabled
by continuous monitoring of real-time performance data to dis-
cover and figure out design, production, and assembly problems
that experts failed to predict. The data-driven digital simulation is
developed to virtualize the relevant interactions in project delivery
and ensure that both the forecasts and the recommendations have a
high standard. The organizations are able to simulate different fu-
ture scenarios and identify the most likely.
Data analytics are performed with the inspection, cleaning, trans-
forming, and modeling of data from sensors, machine-to-machine,
networks, and control systems. All of the central database systems
with heterogeneous data sets are integrated in cloud-based data man-
agement platforms. An enormous amount of data arises from the in-
ternal and external communication and the monitoring and
measuring of objects in the business environment. Big data applica-
tions are deployed parallel to business application systems such as
ERP or MES systems. Big data platforms provide reliable and secure
means for extensive data analysis in order to discover useful infor-
mation on the data and support data-driven decision-making. Predic-
tive capacity is a fundamental requirement for automated actions and
automated decision-making. Manufacturing environments are highly
© ASCE 04022003-8
J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003
automated with robots for material handling and assembly, where
connected robots, machines, and products constantly and increas-
ingly are exchanging various types of information. The leadership
and cultural aspects are also completely established, where the com-
pany offers professional development opportunities for staff and ap-
propriate staffing processes that focus on these needs.
Implications and Conclusion
Industrialized construction relies on rationally coordinated offsite
construction processes with the adoption of modern management
techniques and advanced technologies. Current perceptions of off-
site strategies in building construction reflect their potential for ad-
dressing several problems in the construction industry, including
low labor productivity, a lack of affordable housing, and a shortage
of construction workers. Although industrialized construction prac-
tices are being increasingly used for addressing these problems, or-
ganizations face significant challenges when changing their
business processes. For successful adoption of industrialized con-
struction, companies needs to continuously improve their capabil-
ity for integrated design and construction platforms, efficient
production planning, and standardization. Successful technology
adoption might even require reengineering and optimizing the en-
tire process. These changes are often costly and unsuccessful with-
out careful instruction and learning from past experiences. The
industrialized construction maturity framework, developed in this
study, guides organizations to assess the maturity level of their in-
dustrialized construction and help them to find improvement strat-
egies to move from their existing level to a more mature level
(Fig. 2). The framework has classified the technology identified
in the development indices into three categories: technological,
functional, and organizational. The framework identified factors
in four levels: explore, initiate, control, and optimize. In addition,
the criteria for meeting each level of maturity have been specified.
This framework provides practical recommendations for shift-
ing an organization’s operational model from conventional con-
struction to industrialized construction. The development of this
framework was based upon experts’ judgment and is in accordance
with previously developed maturity frameworks for other use
cases. In order to use this framework, the organizations should
start from the explore level, where they can assess their existing ca-
pability and discover whether they meet the conditions correspond-
ing with the first level of maturity. This is repeated for the next
three levels. By using this approach, the company can identify
the areas with lower capability and plan for future: improvements.
The research outcomes contribute to the knowledge of industrial-
ized construction and guide organizations to effectively develop
their technology adoption and industrialized construction capabil-
ity. The research fills a significant gap in the body of knowledge
by identifying technological, functional, and organizational indices
for industrialized construction maturity. The proposed maturity
framework reduces the risk of implementing changes and points
out constraints, especially for inexperienced companies. Still,
there are several limitations in the study that can be addressed in
the future studies, including the following.
• The overall goal of this research project is to provide
step-by-step guide for increasing industrialized construction ca-
pability. However, owing to the focus on technology during the
case survey and the small number of panelists, this paper pro-
vides preliminary recommendations for creating such a frame-
work. Future research must focus on conducting in-depth case
studies to further define and validate the framework.
J. Archit. Eng.
 • In selection of case study subject, this study does not define
criteria for identifying successful companies in the offsite
construction industry. Although success factors for offsite
construction have been explored in some previous papers
(Wuni and Shen 2020), evaluating such criteria is challenging
owing to a lack of data sharing about project performance by or-
ganizations. Therefore, the approach for selecting organizations
relied on successful completion of projects using industrialized
construction approaches.
• Although the use of repeated surveys and interviews from the
same panelists is a valid scientific method in case studies or Del-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS on 01/10/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
phi surveys for detailed investigation of a topic, the availability of
only five panelists and limited responses on online surveys weak-
ened the generality and validation of the detailed maturity frame-
work. Therefore, this study provides a preliminary maturity
model, where further work is needed to have a reliable model. Fu-
ture adoptions of this study include providing guidelines for orga-
nizations to quantify the framework on a case-by-case basis.
• The framework only provides qualitative analysis. It would be
possible to quantify the findings on a case-by-case basis. In ad-
dition, providing the inter-relationships among the factors in
technological, functional, and organizational areas helps the or-
ganization find the technology areas in which future improve-
ment is more desirable for them and prioritize these based on
their existing business model. Although quantitative analysis
is important for assessing offsite construction maturity in orga-
nizations, the small sample size and differing characteristics of
organizations make it difficult to create a practical quantitative
framework that works for all organizations.
• Another limitation in this study was a lack of industry support for
implementing case studies. The manufacturing technologies are
usually too expensive to test at a realistic scale. The imperative
way to validate technology contribution is to assess its perfor-
mance in case studies. The organizations that participated in the
study had no record of case studies on technology use cases
and performance assessments. Most of the examples in the liter-
ature with successful technology use in offsite construction were
either directly funded by industry organization, or funded by the
government to support offsite construction functions in the indus-
try. Therefore, there is a need to perform case studies to validate
the contribution of emerging technologies in offsite construction.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
References
Antoniades, P. 2014. SOA maturity model: A Delphi-derived proposal for
inter-enterprise setups. Berlin, HL: Springer.
Brandl, D. 2016. “Mesa mom capability maturity model version 1.0.”
White Paper 53.
Cowles, E., and P. Warner. 2013. Prefabrication and modularization in
construction. Raleigh, NC: FMI Corporation.
DDA (Dodge Data & Analytics). 2020. Prefabrication and modular con-
struction smartmarket report 2020. Hamilton, NJ: DDA.
de Carolis, A., M. Macchi, E. Negri, and S. Terzi. 2017. “A maturity model
for assessing the digital readiness of manufacturing companies.” In
Proc., IFIP Int. Conf. on Advances in Production Management
Systems, 13–20. Berlin, HL: Springer.
© ASCE 04022003-9
J. Archit. Eng., 2022, 28(2): 04022003
Dul, J., and T. Hak. 2007. Case study methodology in business research.
London: Routledge.
Dumas, C., and R. H. Beinecke. 2018. “Change leadership in the 21st cen-
tury.” J. Organ. Change Manage. 31 (4): 867–876. https://doi.org/10
.1108/JOCM-02-2017-0042.
Goncalves Filho, A. P., J. C. S. Andrade, and M. M. de Oliveira Marinho. 2010.
“A safety culture maturity model for petrochemical companies in Brazil.”
Saf. Sci. 48 (5): 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.01.012.
Jung, K., B. Kulvatunyou, S. Choi, and M. P. Brundage. 2016. “An over-
view of a smart manufacturing system readiness assessment.” In Proc.,
IFIP Int. Conf. on Advances in Production Management Systems,
705–712. Berlin, HL: Springer.
Larsson, R. 1993. “Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of pat-
terns across case studies.” Acad. Manage. J. 36 (6): 1515–1546.
Lessing, J., and S. Brege. 2018. “Industrialized building companies’ busi-
ness models: Multiple case study of Swedish and north American com-
panies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (2): 05017019. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001368.
Li, L., Z. Li, X. Li, S. Zhang, and X. Luo. 2020. “A new framework of in-
dustrialized construction in China: Towards on-site industrialization.”
J. Cleaner Prod. 244 (1): 118469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro
.2019.118469.
Liang, C., W. Lu, S. Rowlinson, and X. Zhang. 2016. “Development of a mul-
tifunctional BIM maturity model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (11):
06016003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001186.
MGH (McGraw Hill Construction). 2011. Prefabrication and modulariza-
tion: Increasing productivity in the construction industry. New York:
McGraw Hill Construction.
Pan, W., A. G. Gibb, and A. R. Dainty. 2007. “Perspectives of UK house-
builders on the use of off-site modern methods of construction.”
Construct. Manage. Econ. 25 (2): 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01446190600827058.
Qi, B., M. Razkenari, J. Li, A. Costin, C. Kibert, and S. Qian. 2020.
“Investigating US industry practitioners’ perspectives towards the
adoption of emerging technologies in industrialized construction.”
Buildings 10 (5): 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10050085.
Razkenari, M., Q. Bing, A. Fenner, H. Hakim, A. Costin, and C. J. Kibert.
2019. “Industrialized construction: Emerging methods and technolo-
gies.” In Computing in civil engineering 2019: Data, sensing, and an-
alytics, 352–359. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Razkenari, M., A. Fenner, A. Shojaei, H. Hakim, and C. Kibert. 2020.
“Perceptions of offsite construction in the United States: An investiga-
tion of current practices.” J. Build. Eng. 29 (1–2): 101138. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101138.
Sadoughi, A., J. A. Morefield, M. A. Razkenari, and C. J. Kibert. 2020.
“The role of architects in design-manufacturing-build of building indus-
try: A case study.” In Construction research congress 2020: Project
management and controls, materials, and contracts, 1358–1365.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Schuh, G., R. Anderl, J. Gausemeier, M. Ten Hompel, and W. Wahlster.
2017. Industrie 4.0 maturity index: Managing the digital transforma-
tion of companies. Munich, Germany: Herbert Utz.
Schumacher, A., S. Erol, and W. Sihn. 2016. “A maturity model for assess-
ing industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises.”
Procedia CIRP 52 (4): 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016
.07.040.
Smith, R. E., and T. Rice. 2015. Permanent modular construction:
Construction performance. Modular and Offsite Construction (MOC)
Summit Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.29173/mocs172.
Tam, V. W., C. M. Tam, S. Zeng, and W. C. Ng. 2007. “Towards adoption
of prefabrication in construction.” Build. Environ. 42 (10): 3642–3654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.003.
Velamati, S. 2012. “Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular con-
struction in high-rise development in the United States: A developer’s
perspective.” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Center for Real Estate.
Wuni, I. Y., and G. Q. Shen. 2020. “Critical success factors for modular
integrated construction projects: A review.” Build. Res. Inf. 48 (7):
763–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1669009.
J. Archit. Eng.