See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361820126

Paving the way for industry 4.0 maturity of construction enterprises: a state of
the art review

Article in Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · July 2022

DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2021-1001

CITATIONS READS

3 750

4 authors:

Priyadarshini Das Srinath Perera

Monash University (Australia) Western Sydney University
12 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 258 PUBLICATIONS 3,292 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sepani Senaratne Osei-Kyei Robert

Western Sydney University Western Sydney University
110 PUBLICATIONS 1,529 CITATIONS 122 PUBLICATIONS 2,991 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing a Blockchain Based e-Procurement Framework for Construction Supply Chains View project

Digitalisation of Construction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Priyadarshini Das on 07 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Paving the way for industry 4.0 Industry 4.0

maturity
maturity of construction
enterprises: a state of the
art review
Priyadarshini Das and Srinath Perera Received 12 November 2021
Revised 17 April 2022
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, 21 May 2022
Western Sydney University - Penrith Campus, Kingswood, Australia, and Accepted 17 June 2022

Sepani Senaratne and Robert Osei-Kyei

School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment,
Western Sydney University - Parramatta South Campus, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Industry 4.0 is characterised by the exponential pace of technological innovations compelling
organisations to transform or be displaced. Industry 4.0 transformation of construction enterprises lacks
systematic guidance and notable earlier studies have utilised maturity models to map transformation of
enterprises. This paper proposes a conceptual maturity model for construction enterprises for business
scenarios leading to Industry 4.0.
Design/methodology/approach – The requirements for designing maturity models, including comparison
with existing models and scientifically documenting the design process, make Systematic Literature Reviews
(SLR) appropriate. Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are conducted to shortlist a total of 95 papers,
which are subjected to subsequent content analysis.
Findings – The first SLR identifies the following process categories as critical levers of industry 4.0 maturity;
data management, people and culture, leadership and strategy, collaboration and communication, automation,
innovation and change management. The second SLR ascertains that the existing maturity models in
construction literature do not adequately correspond to Industry 4.0 business scenarios with limited emphasis
on data management, automation, change management and innovation. The findings are assimilated to
propose a conceptual Smart Modern Construction Enterprise Maturity Model (SMCeMM).
Originality/value – The paper systematises the transformation of construction enterprises in Industry 4.0
and leads to state-of-the-art development of Industry 4.0 and maturity model research in construction. The
proposed conceptual model addressed both the demands of the construction industry as well as what is
required to navigate Industry 4.0 better.
Keywords Industry 4.0, Maturity model, Smart modern construction, Business transformation,
Systematic review, Content analysis
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Construction enterprises have historically tried to embrace process innovation that
originated in other industries as a means of improving efficiency and compliance (Svehla
et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2009). However, change has proved to be arduous for construction
enterprises despite intentions and investments and failures are common (Hammer, 2007;
Colley, 2018; Smithers, 2018; Bleby, 2018). Dowd and Marsh (2020) stated that to shape the
future of the construction industry, it is needed to understand Industry 4.0 and its impact on

The authors would like to acknowledge that this research is fully funded by the Centre for Smart Modern
Construction under the School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment at Western Sydney
Engineering, Construction and
University. Architectural Management
Data availability statement: All data generated or used during the study appear in the submitted © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
article. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-11-2021-1001
ECAM construction enterprises. Industry 4.0 is characterised by a range of new technologies fusing
the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries
and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human (Schwab, 2016). In Industry 4.0,
the construction industry is expected to shift to more integrated, mass-customised and hybrid
process-product business models to maintain competitive advantage (Weking et al., 2020;
Culot et al., 2020; Das et al., 2021). While a significant amount of research has evolved on the
technological implications of Industry 4.0, how the technological innovations can be
translated into strategic business outcomes is hardly discussed (Trotta and Garengo, 2018;
Alaloul et al., 2020; Oztemel and Gursev, 2018).
Construction enterprises are struggling to identify intermediate steps and embrace the
change associated with Industry 4.0 (Weking et al., 2020). Insolvencies in construction
enterprises are on the rise (Sas, 2019; Smithers, 2018). The construction sector is one of the
largest non-service-related industries and the impact due to insolvency of large businesses is
significant, affecting the immediate supply chain to the country’s economy (Economics
References Committee, 2015). The magnitude of the problem makes it necessary for
construction enterprises to navigate Industry 4.0 better (Dowd and Marsh, 2020). Despite the
urge, Industry 4.0 transformation lacks systematic guidance and there is an urgent need for
practice-proven approaches such as assessment frameworks and maturity models for
construction enterprises (Dowd and Marsh, 2020; Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016; Hizam-
Hanafiah et al., 2020).
Maturity models prove to be a preferred tool to adopt due to its ability to identify
predictable patterns of evolution and change that form an anticipated, desired, or logical path
from an initial state to maturity (P€oppelbuß and R€oglinger, 2011; Nosalska et al., 2019; Jesus
and Lima, 2020; Becker et al., 2009). Maturity models emerged from software engineering, but
their usage has crossed industry boundaries. Santos-Neto and Costa (2019) pointed out that
some notable fields where maturity models have been applied are the medical sector
(Mccarthy et al., 2014), supply chain management (Lockamy and Mccormack, 2004),
education (Egberongbe et al., 2017), e-governance (Misra and Dhingra, 2002), project
management (Grant and Pennypacker, 2006), knowledge management (Serenko et al., 2016)
and enterprise interoperability (Campos et al., 2013). Prominent earlier researchers in
construction management and economics also have adopted maturity models for their
studies (Sarshar et al., 1999; Ruikar et al., 2006; Alshawi, 2007; Bew and Richards, 2008;
Succar, 2009). Several recent publications have presented maturity models in construction
management to assess project controls maturity (Jawad and Ledwith, 2021), BIM maturity
(Yilmaz et al., 2019), risk management maturity (Hartono et al., 2019), safety management
maturity (Musonda et al., 2021), offsite construction maturity (Dang et al., 2020) and lean
construction maturity (Rodegheri and Serra, 2020) demonstrating continued interest and
effectiveness. While the publication activity in maturity modelling relevant to construction
management has seen steady growth, an Industry 4.0 maturity model for construction
enterprises is significantly absent in the literature, which is what this paper is proposing to
develop.
The fundamentals of maturity models research lie in comparison with existing models
(Becker et al., 2009; Hevner et al., 2004). Researchers and professional consulting
organisations have developed several Industry 4.0 maturity models. The maturity model
for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises (Schumacher
et al., 2016), the connected enterprise maturity model (Rockwell Automation, 2014), IMPULS
Industrie 4.0 readiness model (Lichtblau et al., 2015), the INDUSTRIE 4.0 migration model
(Leineweber et al., 2018), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) model of Industry 4.0 (Geissbauer
et al., 2016), KPMG Fourth Industrial Revolution Benchmark (Kpmg, 2020) are some of the
most popular models in use. There also exist a few systematic literature reviews on Industry
€
4.0 maturity models. Elibal and Ozceylan (2020) and Hajoary (2020) emphasise that Industry
4.0 maturity modelling is an emerging concept; however, publications related to Industry 4.0 Industry 4.0
maturity models have seen a significant rise in the past year. Hizam-Hanafiah et al. (2020) maturity
review digital readiness models to identify four major dimensions of digital readiness with an
attempt to represent digital readiness as Industry 4.0 readiness. Sony and Naik (2020)
conduct a review to identify the critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry
4.0 but fail to advise on how organisations can be assessed on this implementation. Williams
et al. (2019) focus on the digital maturity of small and medium sized enterprises and
Angreania et al. (2020) conduct a review of Industry 4.0 maturity models for manufacturing
and logistic sectors. The information available in literature creates an opportunity to present
an integrator theoretical maturity model for Industry 4.0 maturity in construction enterprises
that considers the characteristic elements of the Industry 4.0 maturity models in literature.
The overarching aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual maturity model for
construction enterprises for business scenarios leading to Industry 4.0. This will be achieved
through three objectives which are as follows:
(1) To identify the process categories critical for Industry 4.0 maturity and find out if
there was an Industry 4.0 maturity model for construction in the literature
(2) To explore the domains of application of maturity model research in construction and
ascertain whether maturity models in literature correspond to the process categories
identified for Industry 4.0 maturity.
(3) To propose a Smart Modern Construction Enterprise Maturity Model (SMCeMM) for
business scenarios leading to Industry 4.0.
The results present state-of-the-art development of Industry 4.0 and maturity model research
in construction that intends to systematise the transformation of construction enterprises in
Industry 4.0 by identifying the process categories critical for assessing Industry 4.0 maturity.
Prior to this research, there was little to no evidence of what maturity means for construction
enterprises in Industry 4.0, leading to a capacity deficit in identifying the intermediate steps
they need to harness its full potential. The paper is structured into five main sections.
Section 2 presents literature relevant to Industry 4.0 and construction. Section 3 presents the
methodology adopted in this paper. Section 4 presents the findings and discussion and
indicates how Objectives 1, 2 and 3 are achieved. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper and
offers suggestions for further work.

2. Construction in industry 4.0

In Industry 4.0, the construction industry is radically transforming using a range of emerging
technologies (Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016). Cyber-physical systems including but not
limited to sensors, drones, radio frequency identification combined with technologies such as
augmented reality, virtual reality, big data, cloud computing, additive manufacturing and
autonomous robots are acting as change agents for automation, communication, simulation,
virtualisation and standardisation (Perrier et al., 2020; Forcael et al., 2020; Ribeirinho et al.,
2020; Lekan et al., 2020). Farmer (2018) argues that as Industry 4.0 matures, construction
enterprises will have the ability to digitally connect design to a global supply chain with
automated ordering, manufacturing and payment processes – as well as a system that
monitors the site assembly and the performance of the asset. In support of his claim, Zabidin
et al. (2020) stated that this will probably start in closed, vertically integrated supply chains
aligned to specific delivery platforms followed by automated procurement enabling the
market to interact with the supply chain increasingly through technology. Gavron (2017)
stated that Industry 4.0 will disrupt the usual workflows, at least at the start of projects,
through the widespread enabling of design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA). The
ECAM synergy of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Design for Manufacture and Assembly
(DfMA) is enabling building designers to work closely with engineers and fabricators in
multidisciplinary teams, simulating the knowledge from parties in the downstream up to the
design stage (Gao et al., 2020; Boothroyd et al., 2010). Another way of looking at the future
involves artificial intelligence (AI) - based design and engineering systems that will create 7D
BIM models with all the information needed later in an asset’s life; including, 3D object data,
scheduling (4D), cost (5D), sustainability (6D) and operations and maintenance (O&M) (7D)
(Rivera et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2020). This is already occurring through the acquiring,
processing and analyses of time-stamped data from construction sites to generate wider
insights for intelligent decision-making and strategy-building (Turner et al., 2021).
As Industry 4.0 drives an incremental shift in paradigms, a challenge is arising for
researchers to understand how appropriate technologies can be assembled to assist in
achieving the goals of construction businesses (Dowd and Marsh, 2020). However, current
research is limited to exploring the exponential technological prowess of Industry 4.0 in
construction with very little work on how construction enterprises can systematically
transform in Industry 4.0 (Osunsanmi et al., 2020; Tahmasebinia et al., 2020; You and Feng,
2020). Given this, the following section describes the methodology adopted in this paper to
develop a conceptual maturity model to systematise the transformation of construction
enterprises in Industry 4.0.2020

3. Research methodology
This research adopts a top-down approach of developing a maturity model where the process
categories are first identified as the domain of application of the model is relatively nascent
with very little evidence of what is considered as maturity (Bruin et al., 2005). The
requirements for designing maturity models, including comparison with existing models and
scientifically documenting the design process (Becker et al., 2009; Hevner et al., 2004), make
Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) appropriate. Several researchers in the past have used
SLRs to develop maturity models (Eadie et al., 2011; Sony and Naik, 2020). This research
adopted a step-by-step methodology based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to conduct a transparent and replicable SLR (Moher
et al., 2009; Kitchenham, 2004; Tranfield et al., 2003). Figure 1 shows the research
methodology for the paper. The SLRs were conducted in three phases as described in the
following sub-sections.

3.1 Phase 1
The first systematic literature review was conducted to identify the process categories critical
for Industry 4.0 maturity and determine if there was an Industry 4.0 maturity model for
construction in literature. The keywords and inclusion criteria are included in the search
strategy illustrated in Figure 2 under Search 1. It is to be noted that there were no exclusion
criteria adopted for the search at this stage as the purpose of the search was to explore
Industry 4.0 maturity models across subject areas. The Scopus and Web of Science databases
were used for the search as they are known for their accuracy and coverage of publications
and have been recommended for use in systematic reviews related to construction
management (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015; Pillai and Matus, 2021; Hijazi et al., 2021). 48 papers
were retrieved from the Scopus database. Two papers were eliminated as full text was
unavailable and 10 other papers were eliminated as they were found unrelated after reading
the abstract. 36 papers were shortlisted for full paper review. 68 were retrieved from the Web
of Science database. 33 papers were eliminated due to duplication with Scopus and 15 other
papers were eliminated as they were found unrelated after reading the abstract. 20 were
 Industry 4.0
maturity

Figure 1.
Research Methodology
for the study

shortlisted for full paper review. As illustrated in Table A1, a total of 56 papers were
subjected to content analysis to identify the process categories critical for Industry 4.0
maturity. Content analysis is a research technique for making contextual, replicable and valid
inferences from data (Krippendorff, 1989). A central idea in content analysis is to classify data
into much fewer content categories (Weber, 2011). Given the process categories were highly
interrelated, the boundaries set around the categories identified were defined by a set of terms
associated with the categories from the researcher’s semantic understanding to help
distinguish between their dimensions. Past researchers have used similar ways of content
analysis to identify patterns and clusters from data obtained through SLRs (Siraj and Fayek,
2019). The results are illustrated using a weighted graph in Section 4.1 and the boundaries set
around each category are presented in Section 4.1.1 to 4.1.7.

3.2 Phase 2
The second systematic literature review was conducted to explore the application of maturity
model research in construction and identify the process categories critical for the maturity of
construction enterprises. Additionally, to ascertain whether maturity models in construction-
related literature correspond to the process categories identified for Industry 4.0 maturity. As
a result, the combination of Search 1 and 2 ensured that the proposed maturity model
addressed both the demands of the construction industry as well as what is required to
navigate Industry 4.0 better. The keywords and inclusion criteria are included in the search
ECAM

Figure 2.
Search strategy
strategy illustrated in Figure 2 as Search 2. It is to be noted that there were no exclusion Industry 4.0
criteria adopted for the search at this stage as the keywords had already narrowed the search maturity
down to construction or built environment related research. The search was limited to
publications from 2016 to now because Search 1 indicated that Industry 4.0 related maturity
models began appearing in publications only after 2016. The Scopus and Web of Science
databases were used for the search. 64 papers were retrieved from the Scopus database.
Three papers were eliminated as full text was unavailable. After reading the abstract, 25
others were eliminated as they were unrelated or contained no model or maturity dimensions.
36 papers were shortlisted for full paper review. 56 papers were retrieved from the Web of
Science database. 44 papers were eliminated due to duplication with Scopus and two papers
were eliminated as full text was unavailable. After reading the abstract, seven other papers
were eliminated as they were found unrelated or contained no model or maturity dimensions.
Three papers were shortlisted for full paper review. As illustrated in Table A2, a total of 39
papers were subjected to content analysis to identify the domains of application of maturity
model research in construction and ascertain whether maturity models in literature
correspond to the process categories identified for Industry 4.0 maturity. The results are
illustrated using a weighted graph in Section 4.2.

3.3 Phase 3
The outputs from Phases 1 and 2 were assimilated to propose a conceptual Smart Modern
Construction Enterprise Maturity Model (SMCeMM) for business scenarios leading to
Industry 4.0. The proposed conceptual model was developed considering the process
categories critical for Industry 4.0 maturity as identified in Phase 1 and addressing the
deficits observed in construction-related literature’s maturity models.

3.4 Challenges of developing the model

The lack of a universally accepted definition of Industry 4.0 often leads to the use of
representative and associated terms to describe the paradigm. Several very closely associated
terms and technologies including but not limited to “digitalisation”, “digital”, “industrial
Internet of things” and “cyber-physical systems” when included in the list of keywords, led to
an explosion of articles from the databases. Additionally, even though maturity model
research is an extensive field of research, many existing papers do not propose a model with
dimensions that can be compared with. To mitigate these challenges, the paper uses the most
optimal search strategy in keeping with the purpose of the study, which is arrived at after
several iterations and illustrates one of the plausible ways of conducting the SLR.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1 Process categories for industry 4.0 maturity
Process categories are clusters of related practices in an area that, when implemented,
collectively satisfy a set of goals important for improvement in that area (Software
Engineering Institute, 2002). The seven process categories of Industry 4.0 maturity identified
in Search 1 are data management, people and culture, leadership and strategy, collaboration
and communication, automation, innovation and change management. The content analysis
of shortlisted papers is presented in Table A1 and Figure 3 shows the weighted graph of
process categories for Industry 4.0 maturity, which are discussed in detail in the following
sub-sections.
4.1.1 Data management. Data management emerged as the most significant process
category for Industry 4.0 success, with 86% of the papers mentioning it. Terms clustered
together under the process category “Data Management” include “data management”,
ECAM Leadership and Strategy
71%
80%
Innova on People and Culture

41%

45%
Change Management Data Management
86%

Collabora on and
Figure 3. Automa on
Process categories for Communica on 75% 77%
Industry 4.0 maturity
From Search 1 [Scopus + WoS = 56 papers]

“digital strategy”, “big data”, “data analytics”, “data usage”, “data-driven services”, “data-
based learning and decision-making”, “data collection and usage”, “data security”, “data
protection”, “model data”, “data requirements”, “data standards and data transparency”,
“ICT add-on functionalities”, “vision for ICT”, “predictive capacity”. Akdil et al. (2018)
emphasise on real-time data management, including collection, processing, analysis and
inference and interoperability and decentralisation of data, as primary principles of Industry
4.0 maturity. G€okalp et al. (2021) rightly point out that Industry 4.0 aims to continuously
improve processes by utilising intelligent, context-aware, conscious and self-learning devices
enabled by technologies such as cyber-physical systems, digital twins and the industrial
Internet of things that collect big data and benefit from such data to improve and optimise
processes and develop a predictive capacity for outperforming competitors. This is seconded
by Silva et al. (2021), who establish that analysis of data to achieve actionable and focussed
intelligence for a better understanding of business performance is a significant contributor
towards Industry 4.0 maturity. A dimension that is often overlooked but has been correctly
identified by Basl and Doucek (2019) is data security. They mention that the safety and
security of Industry 4.0 systems and the reliability and completeness of data are enablers of
Industry 4.0 maturity. The prominence of digital in Industry 4.0 creates the opportunity for
data management as a process category to influence all the other process categories identified
in this research by enabling data-driven decision making and information exchange between
stakeholders using standard data structures.
4.1.2 People and culture. Human resources and its management are overshadowed by the
technological advancement and accessibility of Industry 4.0 (Ramingwong et al., 2019).
However, in Industry 4.0, automation and digitalisation will significantly influence human
work, which will become more demanding and complex (Silva et al., 2021). Demand for
cognitive, social and communication skills will increase, so will autonomy and self-
management skills (Reiman et al., 2021). In this paper, dimensions including “People and
Culture”, “people capabilities”, “culture”, “employee skill sets and skill acquisition”,
“relationship between employees”, “human resource management – gaining and retaining
qualified staff”, “mutual trust”, “autonomy” were clustered together under the process
category ‘People and Culture’. 80 of the shortlisted papers identified “People and Culture” as
essential for Industry 4.0 maturity. A balanced and empowered workforce continuously Industry 4.0
being skilled at handling automation and data driven operations enhances Industry 4.0 maturity
success (Jain and Ajmera, 2021). In addition to the reskilling of employees as per the Industry
4.0 requirements, success depends on the employees’ ability to adapt to the changing
environment without experiencing a threat or an existential crisis (Hajoary, 2020). The
dimension ‘culture’ emphasises openness, transparency and mindset, ensuring employees
exhibit involvement, ownership and a sense of security in being part of the Industry 4.0
journey (Santos and Martinho, 2020). Herceg et al. (2020) establish that a clear strategy and
leadership drive Industry 4.0 transformation only when combined with an organisational
culture that meets the expectations of customers, employees and partners. The results align
with the Davos Manifesto 2020, which describes treating its people with dignity and respect,
honouring diversity and continuous upskilling as some of the universal purposes of a
company in Industry 4.0 (Schwab, 2019).
4.1.3 Automation. “Automation” was identified as a process category toward Industry 4.0
maturity in 77% of the shortlisted papers as the adoption of Industry 4.0 concepts becomes
more manageable in a lean manufacturing environment. The terminologies used include
“automation”, “autonomous robots”, “autonomous processes”, “smart production and
operations”, “production processes”, “manufacturing strategy”, “manufacturing capacity”,
“standard operating process”. It is incredibly beneficial to introduce automation to reduce
employee workload, manufacturing times and human errors while cultivating an
environment of visibility and clarity where processes can be easily tracked (Amjad et al.,
2020). Automation gives rise to decentralisation and the transition of roles and
responsibilities, impacting an organisation’s horizontal and vertical value chains (Jain and
Ajmera, 2021). Data-driven operations and strategic collaboration, when combined with
automation, allow for an increase in productivity, quality, flexibility and customer
satisfaction transforming the relations of the classic value supply chain into a digital value
supply chain fully leveraging the Industry 4.0 technologies (Pessot et al., 2021). Santos and
Martinho (2020) reiterate that automation of processes, including automated data acquisition,
autonomous and intelligent equipment leading to data-driven decision-making, is a crucial
aspect of Industry 4.0 maturity. The terms “autonomous” and “automation” have been
interchangeably used in the shortlisted papers. Colli et al. (2019) emphasise that organisations
reach a greater level of maturity when decision-making is performed autonomously based on
automated and synchronised data, structured and transmitted following a universal
standard. While automation was initially adopted to enhance productivity and reduce
wastage, it has now grown in significance towards attaining competitive advantage through
widespread standardisation and digitalisation of processes (Herceg et al., 2020; Rafael et al.,
2020) by leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies such as machine learning and artificial
intelligence that can make systems self-learn (Silva et al., 2021; Sj€odin et al., 2018).
4.1.4 Collaboration and communication. Ease of collaboration and communication within
the organisation and with external partners can enhance Industry 4.0 maturity (Sriram and
Vinodh, 2021; Chonsawat and Sopadang, 2021). The shortlisted papers referred to
“Collaboration and Communication” using several terminologies including “cross-functional
collaboration”, “collaboration and mobility”, “dynamic collaboration within the value network”,
“social collaboration”, “working relationship”, “mutual help”, “structured communication”,
“communication variables”, “workgroup communication”, “communication” as a dimension
toward Industry 4.0 maturity. The Industry 4.0 technologies create an opportunity for teams
and partners to exchange information seamlessly and transparently through digital platforms
(Mittal et al., 2020; Akdil et al., 2018; Hajoary, 2020). Clear communication of the objectives and
benefits of an envisaged Industry 4.0 strategy from the leadership team to all stakeholders
helps establish a collaborative culture, thereby translating strategy into concrete
implementation actions. In contrast, efficient communication structures prove to be a critical
ECAM factor to secure management support toward Industry 4.0 change and innovation (Pessot et al.,
2021). Who will drive Industry 4.0 change is very much dependent on the understanding of
which type of collaboration exists in the enterprise’s value chain, which also influences the
organisation’s autonomy and shared learning (Amaral and Peças, 2021a). The degree of
inclusion in decision-making and visibility in communication between stakeholders is an
essential element of the Industry 4.0 strategy. A fully immersive experience across teams and
stakeholders focussing on transparent communication channels promoting a deep connection
toward common goals is key to Industry 4.0 maturity (Schumacher and Sihn, 2020). The results
align with the KPMG Fourth Industrial Revolution Benchmark that points out that technology-
based strategic collaborations are essential in Industry 4.0 (Kpmg, 2020).
4.1.5 Leadership and strategy. The shortlisted papers referred to “Leadership and
Strategy” using several terminologies. “Leadership”, “leadership competency”, “leadership
behaviour”, “commitment of the board and senior management”, “top management
commitment”, “strategy and organisation”, “strategic partnerships”, “vision”, “degree of
strategy implementation”, “broad execution strategy”, “strategic alignment”, “strategy and
policy”, “strategy and governance” were all considered as essential dimensions of Industry
4.0 maturity in organisations. 71% of the shortlisted papers indicated that “leadership and
strategy” were critical in Industry 4.0. Results show a real need for guided support in
developing a company-specific Industry 4.0 vision and specific project planning (Ganzarain
and Errasti, 2016). Organisations are experiencing a lack of shared understanding and vision
among employees towards the technological complexity of Industry 4.0 and they are falling
short of creating sustainable business cases (Sj€odin et al., 2018). Leadership capabilities and
organisational strategy enable the business model, company culture, collaboration network
and roadmaps (Chonsawat and Sopadang, 2021; Johannes et al., 2021). Organisations need to
identify the value in the Industry 4.0 technologies and understand the immediate market to
consider a range of business cases and translate the foresight into action (Schumacher and
Sihn, 2020; Akdil et al., 2018; Basl and Doucek, 2019). Industry 4.0 maturity of an organisation
is heavily dependent on the leadership team’s or top management’s awareness and
commitment to undertake long-term and short-term strategic decisions towards a defined
Industry 4.0 roadmap (Hajoary, 2020). A straightforward narrative that the leadership team
understands and recognises what the people on the ground have to say and has organisation-
wide strategic goals that everybody feels bought into and is likely to accomplish is key to
Industry 4.0 transformation.
4.1.6 Change management. Schwab (2016) argues that Industry 4.0 induced changes to
businesses are perhaps the most profound in history. Dimensions including “willingness to
change”, “organisational change management system”, “continuous improvement
capabilities”, “continuous improvement – performance measurement and feedback”,
“agility” are critical to Industry 4.0 maturity and are clustered together in this paper as the
process category “Change Management”. 45% of the shortlisted papers mentioned change
management as a significant enabler of Industry 4.0 maturity. While it remains essential to
have a global strategic vision, all changes performed in an organisation must be incremental
by the gradual introduction of individual parts. Everyone involved in the change must
conclude that the change carries advantages (Pessot et al., 2021; Benesova et al., 2021). The
degree of adaptability to change indicates organisation cultures that are open and flexible
and more mature in Industry 4.0 (Chonsawat and Sopadang, 2021; Maier et al., 2020;
Chaopaisarn and Woschank, 2021). Industry 4.0 performance attributes heavily depend on an
organisation’s agility to respond to changes, including flexibility of plans, production
flexibility and supply chain adaptability (Ayyildiz and Gumus, 2021; Wagire et al., 2021).
Leadership is instrumental in conducting changes in the organisation. They will be required
to govern and control the incremental changes triggered within the organisation due to
Industry 4.0 (Da Silva et al., 2020). Industry 4.0 business transformation requires robust
change management plans, including evaluation of the change implementation iteratively to Industry 4.0
limit surprises at the end of the implementation program (Sj€odin et al., 2018). When the maturity
learning is shared amongst capable peers, it exposes the change to feedback, critique and
reflection, thereby helping to improve the performed outcomes and scale up the change
management process (Colli et al., 2019).
4.1.7 Innovation. Maturity in Industry 4.0 requires continuous innovation in products,
processes and services. Industries are experiencing a complete transformation toward
achieving competitive advantage through innovation by enhancing efficiency,
professionalism, knowledge and quality of products and services (Jain and Ajmera, 2021).
41% of the shortlisted papers mentioned “Innovation” as a process category for Industry 4.0
maturity and the terms used included “innovation openness”, “innovation aptitude”,
“innovation”, “innovation management”, “openness to innovation”. While innovation is a
requirement for Industry 4.0 maturity in the shortlisted papers, it is still at a relatively nascent
exploration stage. Pessot et al. (2021) ascertain that an effective path toward innovation and
investment requires an internal diagnosis of the organisation’s needs, resources, strengths
and weaknesses and a clear awareness of the implications of innovation and investment on
business strategy. Organisations are expected to attain a higher level of Industry 4.0 maturity
with a clear strategy to appraise and incubate pilot innovations (Kruger and Steyn, 2021).
Industry 4.0 maturity demands commitment from top management in driving a culture of
open innovation where cross-enterprise collaboration between information technology,
production and operation teams thrive (Çınar et al., 2021). The results suggest that technology
is mediating in driving innovations presently, but the mature end of Industry 4.0
transformation will see growth through business model innovation.
4.1.8 Is there an industry 4.0 maturity model for construction?. The shortlisted papers
presented maturity models in various domains of application. Figure 4 shows the domains of
application of the Industry 4.0 maturity studies shortlisted from Search 1.
Given the origin of Industry 4.0 is in the manufacturing sector, most papers dealt with
process improvement priorities of manufacturing enterprises, predominantly with a small
and medium-sized scale of operations (Sj€odin et al., 2018; Rafael et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020a;
Peukert et al., 2020; Amaral and Peças, 2021a). Some of the models presented overall
organisational maturity of enterprises, without a focus on any specific industry
predominantly for small and medium-sized enterprises (Ganzarain and Errasti, 2016; Colli

25

20
Environmental Sustainability
Logis cs/Supply Chain
No. of papers

15 Manufacturing
Data Science

10 Organisa onal Maturity

Human Resources
Figure 4.
Maintenance Management Domains of application
5 for Industry 4.0
maturity studies
shortlisted from
0 Search 1
Scopus + WoS {n = 56}
ECAM et al., 2019; Santos and Martinho, 2020; Herceg et al., 2020; Pech and Vrchota, 2020). Another
domain of application showing a growing research trend in terms of Industry 4.0 maturity
modelling is logistics and supply chains due to the massive impact of Industry 4.0 on the
horizontal and vertical value chains of organisations (Asdecker and Felch, 2018; Facchini
et al., 2020; Caiado et al., 2021; Chaopaisarn and Woschank, 2021; Zoubek and Simon, 2021).
Other application domains include human resource management, maintenance management,
environmental sustainability and data science (Reiman et al., 2021; Johannes et al., 2021;
Benesova et al., 2021; G€okalp et al., 2021). Results indicate that Industry 4.0 maturity
modelling in construction or built environment research is significantly absent in the
literature. The following section will explore the state of maturity model research in
construction and ascertain whether maturity models in literature correspond to the process
categories identified for Industry 4.0 maturity.

4.2 Maturity model research in construction

The shortlisted papers in Search 2 were subjected to content analysis to explore the domains
of application of maturity model literature in construction and ascertain whether maturity
models in literature correspond to the process categories identified for Industry 4.0 maturity
in Section 4.1. Figure 5 shows the domains of application of the maturity model literature in
construction and reiterates that an Industry 4.0 maturity model for construction enterprises is
significantly missing from the literature.
4.2.1 Organisational or project control maturity models. The most frequently occurring
domain of application is organisational or project controls. Langston and Ghanbaripur (2016)
present a management maturity model that assesses the management maturity of
construction enterprises at the project, program and portfolio levels in the relevance of
areas that include but are not limited to stakeholder management, communications
management and human resource management. Arif et al. (2017) present a knowledge
management maturity model considering communication, management and trust factors.
Omotayo et al. (2020) combine systems thinking with capability maturity modelling to
achieve continuous improvement in the construction industry based on communication,
organisational culture, waste reduction, post-project reviews and post-contract cost control.

9
8
7
6
No. of papers

5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 5.
Domains of application
relevant to maturity
model literature in
construction
Scopus + WoS {n = 39}
Wernicke et al. (2021) propose a maturity model to assess digitalisation across design Industry 4.0
management, scheduling, logistics, information management, production and human maturity
resource management and assess maturity based on five criteria; individuals, technology,
organisational structure, goals and environment. Jawad and Ledwith (2021) present a
measurement model of project control systems considering change management, earned
value, baseline plan, resource-loaded, progress method and governance program. There is a
predominance of project-based maturity over organisational maturity in literature. Project
maturity research primarily concerns assessment of construction projects on methods and
tools, human resources, project environment, project knowledge management and safety
(Klaus-Rosi nska and Iwko, 2020; Pornthepkasemsant and Charoenpornpattana, 2019).
4.2.2 Building Information Modelling (BIM) maturity models. Building Information
Modelling (BIM) related maturity models frequently occur in literature. Liang et al. (2016)
propose a multifunctional BIM maturity model focussing on information accuracy, spatial
coordination and management support. Yilmaz et al. (2019) propose a reference model to assess
BIM capability across design, construction and facility management based on BIM skills, BIM
collaboration, BIM interoperability, corporate-wide BIM deployment and continuous BIM
improvement. Siebelink et al. (2018) present a BIM maturity model that assesses maturity
based on BIM-related strategy, including vision, goals and management support,
organisational structure, people and culture, processes and procedures, IT infrastructure
and data structure. Wang et al. (2019) present a maturity model to assess supplier capabilities
in exploiting BIM based on their execution capability and strategic vision. The recurring
process categories in literature for assessing BIM maturity are found to be overall BIM
strategy including top management commitment, the capability to use it and the processes and
protocols in place (Olugboyega and Windapo, 2019; Phang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021).
4.2.3 Risk management maturity models. Risk management is another popular area, with
several shortlisted papers presenting risk management maturity models. Overall risk strategy,
vision and top management commitment are the main assessment criteria (Hoseini et al., 2021;
Karunarathne and Kim, 2021). Zhao et al. (2016) present an enterprise risk management
maturity model with criteria including but not limited to the commitment from the board and
senior management, risk appetite and tolerance, risk-aware culture, risk communication and
leveraging risk as opportunities. Hartono et al. (2019) propose a project risk management
maturity model. The dimensions proposed include culture and leadership, implementation
process of risk management, capability of the team in relevance to risk management and the
utilisation of tools. There is a commonality among all risk management maturity models in the
literature regarding the process categories. While organisational culture and management
support is considered essential, the process of risk identification, evaluation, monitoring and
control also determines maturity; so does effective communication, skillsets and knowledge
(Roghabadi and Moselhi, 2020; Perrenoud et al., 2021; Serpell et al., 2016).
4.2.4 Other domains of application. A strand of literature that concerns maturity models
related to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) in construction suggests that leadership,
commitment, involvement, communication, competence and procedures are critical for
maturity (Musonda et al., 2021; Lawani et al., 2019). Information and technology resources and
collaboration enabled through technology also form an essential criterion for evaluating
construction projects’ OHS maturity (Poghosyan et al., 2020). Quaigrain and Issa (2021)
propose a disability management maturity model considering dimensions such as return to
work, disability and injury prevention and senior management support. As observed in
several domains of application earlier, the focus is on project-based maturity instead of
organisational maturity (Lee, 2019; Lawani et al., 2019). Offsite construction maturity has seen
a rising trend in publications. Liu et al. (2018) propose a maturity model to evaluate supplier
management maturity in prefabricated construction projects based on the procurement
process, operation efficiency, relationship coordination, strategy alignment and corporate
ECAM social responsibility. Wang et al. (2020) present a project-based industrialised construction
maturity model and the dimensions proposed include leadership, participant capabilities and
collaboration, planning and control, offsite construction technology and schema. Given the
predominance of production in offsite construction and prefabrication, operational efficiency is
considered in all models in literature, while overall strategy and top management commitment
appear only in certain models (Bendi et al., 2021; Dang et al., 2020). Nesensohn et al. (2016) and
Rodegheri and Serra (2020) present lean construction maturity models with dimensions such
as lean leadership, customer focus, way of thinking, culture and behaviour, competencies,
improvement enablers, process and tools, change, work environment, business results,
learning and competency development. Unlike other domains, where there is a dominance of
project-based maturity models, lean construction maturity models attempt to look at
organisational maturity. Taking the life-cycle approach, Johannes et al. (2021) proposes a smart
maintenance management maturity model considering dimensions including but not limited to
leadership, culture, data-driven decision making and knowledge management. Focussing on
digital twins, Davila Delgado and Oyedele (2021) mentions the need for a digital twin maturity
model. It discusses the importance of data management, organisational culture, collaborative
working and innovation as criteria for maturity.
4.2.5 Commonalities and deficits in relevance to industry 4.0 process categories. A
comparative analysis of the short-listed papers from Search 2 with the process categories
identified in Search 1 was conducted to ensure that the proposed maturity model addressed
both the demands of the construction industry as well as what is required to navigate
Industry 4.0 better. It revealed certain commonalities and deficits as illustrated in Figure 6

Figure 6.
Comparative analysis
of shortlisted papers
with Industry 4.0
process categories
using a weighted graph. The detailed analysis of the shortlisted papers is presented in Industry 4.0
Table A2. maturity
Aligning with the Industry 4.0 process categories, 56% of the shortlisted papers consider
leadership, strategy and top management commitment to assess maturity. 82% of the
shortlisted papers consider organisational culture and employee skills as essential elements
of maturity. Similarly, 54% of the shortlisted papers identify collaboration and
communication as a critical dimension of maturity and corresponds to the Industry 4.0
requirements. However, the most frequently occurring process category for Industry 4.0
maturity, data management, only appears in 38% of the shortlisted papers, which shows that
this is an emerging area in construction maturity modelling literature and has not been
substantially explored yet. Acquiring, managing, processing and analysing time-stamped
data from construction sites will enable a historical database (Hijazi et al., 2021) that could be
mined to generate more comprehensive insights for intelligent decision making and strategy
building (Turner et al., 2021; Pillai and Matus, 2021). Given this, data management is indeed a
critical dimension of Industry 4.0 maturity of construction enterprises. Therefore, the existing
models in construction literature do not adequately correspond to the needs of Industry 4.0
business scenarios.
Data management is less explored, so it is not surprising that automation as a process
category is also a developing concept in construction maturity modelling literature. Only
21% of the shortlisted papers identify automation as a critical dimension. There is a deficit in
how Industry 4.0 technologies such as drones, Internet of things and radio frequency
identification supporting automation in a smart construction site to achieve automated data
acquisition leading to data-driven decision making, can be assessed. As already mentioned in
Section 3.1.6, Industry 4.0 induced changes to businesses are radical and profound. However,
only 15% of the maturity models in construction literature consider change management as a
dimension of maturity, which is a clear indication of a gap. The final dimension of Industry 4.0
maturity identified is innovation; however, the mention of innovation as a dimension of
maturity in construction literature is insignificant, with only five percent of the shortlisted
papers identifying it. Construction business scenarios in Industry 4.0 demand technology-
driven and business model innovations to gain competitive advantage (Das et al., 2021), which
necessitates the inclusion of innovation as a dimension of maturity. The following section
proposes an integrator conceptual maturity model for construction enterprises for business
scenarios leading to Industry 4.0 by assimilating the results obtained from the comparative
analysis.

4.3 Conceptual smart Modern Construction enterprise maturity model (SMCeMM)

This study envisions a Smart and Modern Construction enterprise (SMCe) to take full
advantage of the opportunities brought along by Industry 4.0, instead of collapsing under the
impact of its radical changes and presents a conceptual maturity model as illustrated in
Figure 7 to assess the evolution of such enterprises. The proposed process categories of the
SMCeMM have been assimilated from the content analysis of the shortlisted papers in Search
1 and address the deficits of the existing maturity models in construction literature by
corresponding to the needs of Industry 4.0 business scenarios.
Leadership and strategy are at the core of this model, as it was a recurring process
category for attaining maturity in both Industry 4.0 maturity models and construction
maturity modelling literature. The model will assess construction enterprises on their “smart”
quotient that is the confident, critical and creative use of Information Communication and
Technology (ICT) to achieve goals related to work (Radford et al., 2017). In other words, the
ability to acquire, analyse and derive meaningful insights for decision-making using a well-
defined data management process while having data security standards in place. The model
ECAM

Figure 7.
Conceptual smart
modern construction
enterprise maturity
model (SMCeMM)

will also assess how “modern” the enterprises are in fulfilling essential functions of
integrating manufacturing into work processes to deliver a catalogue of standard products
combining humans and machines optimally, leading to continuous learning and cross-
functional collaboration. The model will invigorate enterprises towards deep technology
partnerships that support strategy building and platforms that integrate the construction
supply chain from conception to assembly (Das et al., 2021; Maskuriy et al., 2019). The model’s
unique feature is the inclusion of change management and innovation as process categories
that were inconspicuous in construction literature related to maturity modelling. This allows
the model to assess the ability of construction enterprises to be proactive in handling changes
and appraise and invest in the right innovation pilots. Construction enterprises are emerging
from their siloed operations toward being part of a highly digitalised and collaborative
ecosystem in Industry 4.0. The nature of this emergence is dynamic and occurs in a
continuum, from a fairly moderate state to a highly evolved state. Since there is no static point
in this transformation, mapping it becomes difficult. The proposed SMCeMM will be
equipped to explore and analyse the significant levels of development in this evolution
process and guide construction enterprises to navigate Industry 4.0 better in becoming more
mature.

5. Conclusions and future work

This study has led to state-of-the-art development of Industry 4.0 and maturity model
research in construction. It is intended to systematise the transformation of construction
enterprises in Industry 4.0 by proposing a conceptual maturity model. The model
comprises seven process categories critical for assessing the Industry 4.0 maturity of
organisations including data management, people and culture, automation, collaboration
and communication, leadership and strategy, change management and innovation which
were identified by analysing results from systematic literature reviews. Search 1 was
conducted to identify the process categories critical for Industry 4.0 maturity.
Subsequently, Search 2 was conducted to explore the application of maturity model
research in construction and identify the process categories critical for the maturity of
construction enterprises. The combination of Search 1 and 2 ensured that the proposed
maturity model addressed both the demands of the construction industry as well as what Industry 4.0
is required to navigate Industry 4.0 better. maturity
The theoretical implication of the proposed Smart Modern Construction Enterprise
Maturity Model (SMCeMM) is to give coherence to the strategic planning of construction
enterprises by assessing their capabilities across process categories of data management,
people and culture, leadership and strategy, collaboration and communication, automation,
innovation and change management. The SMCeMM addresses the deficits of the existing
maturity models in the construction literature by corresponding to the needs of Industry 4.0
business scenarios. For instance, data management is still an emerging area in the
construction maturity modelling literature and has not yet been substantially explored.
Similarly, the process categories of automation, change management and innovation were
conspicuous in construction-related maturity models.
The conceptual SMCeMM proposed in this paper has the potential to pave the way for
Industry 4.0 benchmarks for the construction industry by developing maturity
characteristics from an initial to a desired state of maturity. This could indirectly benefit
policymakers and government bodies by enabling them to understand the current status of
the construction industry in their region and set targets and mandates. Thus, the model is
about collectively improving the standards of the industry by educating a broad spectrum of
general contractors. The SMCeMM can also be used by consultants to assess the Industry 4.0
capabilities of their clientele and draw macroscopic strategic roadmaps for them. It is widely
accepted historically that sustaining radical improvements in the construction industry is
difficult given its diverse and fragmented nature; however, the gap lies in strategic direction.
Given this, in terms of long-range planning, the model helps to set the strategy for platform
thinking in construction.
Despite the relevance of the findings of this research, there are a few limitations worth
acknowledging. The SMCeMM is still at a conceptual stage where the process categories
critical for Industry 4.0 maturity have been identified. However, maturity characteristics
across different levels of maturity must be defined for the SMCeMM to act as a complete
assessment framework. This requires primary data collection from industry experts
including but not limited to digital engineering managers, strategy managers and offsite
construction specialists, to enhance its applicability to the industry. The model further needs
to be validated using organisational case studies.
Future research may focus on conducting an assessment survey with a significant
number of construction enterprises and analysing the data using quantitative techniques to
develop benchmarks. These benchmarks will be valuable to the entire spectrum of
enterprises to compare their assessment with the industry-wide benchmarks, prompting
them to improve to maintain a competitive advantage. The proposed model also has the
potential to be transformed into action research by putting it to use in an enterprise and
conducting the assessment at intervals to understand if the improvements suggested have
helped enhance their maturity.

References
Akdil, K.Y., Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (2018), “Maturity and readiness model for industry 4.0
strategy”, in Ustundag, A. and Cevikcan, E. (Eds), Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital
Transformation, Springer.
Alaloul, W.S., Liew, M.S., Zawawi, N.a. W.A. and Kennedy, I.B. (2020), “Industrial Revolution 4.0 in the
construction industry: challenges and opportunities for stakeholders”, Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 225-230.
Alshawi, M. (2007), Rethinking IT in Construction and Engineering: Organisational Readiness, Taylor
& Francis, Oxon.
ECAM Amaral, A. and Peças, P. (2021a), A Framework for Assessing Manufacturing Smes Industry 4.0
Maturity, Applied Sciences, Switzerland, p. 11.
Amaral, A. and Peças, P. (2021b), “SMEs and Industry 4.0: two case studies of digitalization for a
smoother integration”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 125, 103333.
Amjad, M.S., Rafique, M.Z., Hussain, S. and Khan, M.A. (2020), “A new vision of LARG Manufacturing
- a trail towards Industry 4.0”, Cirp Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 31,
pp. 377-393.
Angreania, L.S., Vijaya, A. and Wicaksono, H. (2020), “Systematic literature review of industry 4.0
maturity model for manufacturing and logistics sectors”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 52,
pp. 337-343.
Arif, M., Al Zubi, M., Gupta, A.D., Egbu, C., Walton, R.O. and Islam, R. (2017), “Knowledge sharing
maturity model for Jordanian construction sector”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 24, pp. 170-188.
Asdecker, B. and Felch, V. (2018), “Development of an Industry 4.0 maturity model for the delivery
process in supply chains”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 13, pp. 840-883.
Ayyildiz, E. and Gumus, A.T. (2021), “Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy AHP method-based supply
chain performance evaluation by a new extension of SCOR model: SCOR 4.0”, COMPLEX &
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, Vol. 7, pp. 559-576.
Bai, L., Wang, H., Huang, N., Du, Q. and Huang, Y. (2018), “An environmental management maturity
model of construction programs using the AHP-entropy approach”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 15, p. 1317.
Basl, J. and Doucek, P. (2019), “A metamodel for evaluating enterprise readiness in the context of
industry 4.0”, Information, Vol. 10, p. 89.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and P€oppelbuß, J. (2009), “Developing maturity models for IT management -
a procedure model and its application”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 213-222.
Bendi, D., Rana, M.Q., Arif, M., Goulding, J.S. and Sawhney, A. (2021), “An off-site construction
readiness maturity model for the Indian construction sector”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 21,
pp. 123-142.
Bendi, D., Rana, M.Q., Arif, M., Lamb, S.M., Sawhney, A. and Kaushik, A.K. (2022), “Assessing off-site
readiness in construction organisations: cases from India”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 320-341.
Benesova, A., Basl, J., Tupa, J. and Steiner, F. (2021), “Design of a business readiness model to realise a
green industry 4.0 company”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing,
Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 920-932.
Bew, M. and Richards, M. (2008), BIM Maturity Model, Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA),
London.
Bleby, M. (2018), “Prefab pioneer Strongbuild goes into administration after Frasers pulls job”,
available at: https://www.afr.com/real-estate/prefab-pioneer-strongbuild-goes-into-
administration-after-frasers-pulls-job-20181115-h17xrz (accessed 15 November 2018).
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight, W.A. (2010), Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly,
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, London, New York.
Broft, R., Badi, S.M. and Pryke, S. (2016), “Towards supply chain maturity in construction”, Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 6, pp. 187-204.
Bruin, T.D., Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U. and Rosemann, M. (2005), “Understanding the main phases of developing
a maturity assessment model”, 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney.
Cafasso, D., Calabrese, C., Casella, G., Bottani, E. and Murino, T. (2020), “Framework for selecting
manufacturing simulation software in industry 4.0 environment”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 15,
p. 5909.
Caiado, R.G.G., Scavarda, L.F., Gavi~ao, L.O., Ivson, P., Nascimento, D.L.D.M. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. Industry 4.0
(2021), “A fuzzy rule-based industry 4.0 maturity model for operations and supply chain
management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 231, 107883. maturity
Campos, C., Chalmeta, R., Grangel, R. and Poler, R. (2013), “Maturity model for interoperability
potential measurement”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 30, pp. 218-234.
Chaopaisarn, P. and Woschank, M. (2021), “Maturity model assessment of SMART logistics for
SMEs”, Chiang Mai University Journal of Natural Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 1-8.
Chonsawat, N. and Sopadang, A. (2020), “Defining SMEs’ 4.0 readiness indicators”, Applied Sciences,
Vol. 10 No. 24, p. 8998.
Chonsawat, N. and Sopadang, A. (2021), “Smart SMEs 4.0 maturity model to evaluate the readiness of SMEs
implementing industry 4.0”, Chiang Mai University Journal of Natural Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 1-13.
Çınar, Z.M., Zeeshan, Q. and Korhan, O. (2021), “A framework for industry 4.0 readiness and maturity
of smart manufacturing enterprises: a case study”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 12, p. 6659.
Colley, J. (2018), “Carillion Q&A: the consequences of collapse and what the government should do
next”, available at: http://theconversation.com/carillion-qanda-the-consequences-of-collapse-
and-what-the-government-should-do-next-90252 (accessed 13 July 2018).
Colli, M., Berger, U., Bockholt, M., Madsen, O., Møller, C. and Wæhrens, B.V. (2019), “A maturity
assessment approach for conceiving context-specific roadmaps in the Industry 4.0 era”, Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 48, pp. 165-177.
Culot, G., Nassimbeni, G., Orzes, G. and Sartor, M. (2020), “Behind the definition of Industry 4.0:
analysis and open questions”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 226, 107617.
Da Silva, V.L., Kovaleski, J.L., Pagani, R.N., Silva, J.D. and Corsi, A. (2020), “Implementation of
Industry 4.0 concept in companies: empirical evidences”, International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 33, pp. 325-342.
Dang, P., Niu, Z., Zhang, G., Gao, S. and Hou, L. (2020), “Developing a fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation
model for prefabrication development maturity of construction firms”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8,
pp. 222397-222409.
Das, P., Perera, S., Senaratne, S. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2021), “Developing a construction business model
transformation Canvas”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 1423-1439.
Davila Delgado, J.M. and Oyedele, L. (2021), “Digital Twins for the built environment: learning from
conceptual and process models in manufacturing”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 49,
101332.
Dowd, T. and Marsh, D. (2020), “The future of BIM: digital transformation in the UK construction and
infrastructure sector”, RICS Insight Paper.
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2011), “Key process area mapping in the production of an e-
capability maturity model for UK construction organisations”, Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 16, pp. 197-210.
Economics References Committee (2015), Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry,
Commonwealth of Australia.
Egberongbe, H., Sen, B. and Willett, P. (2017), “The assessment of quality maturity levels in Nigerian
university libraries”, Library Review, Vol. 66 Nos 6-7, pp. 399-414.
€
Elibal, K. and Ozceylan, E. (2020), “A systematic literature review for industry 4.0 maturity modeling:
state-of-the-art and future challenges”, Kybernetes, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 2957-2994.
Facchini, F., Oleskow-Szłapka, J., Ranieri, L. and Urbinati, A. (2020), “A maturity model for logistics
4.0: an empirical analysis and a roadmap for future research”, Sustainability, Vol. 12, pp. 1-18,
Switzerland.
Farmer, M. (2018), “Digital dexterity”, available at: https://www.building.co.uk/communities/digital-
dexterity/5094574.article (accessed 25 July 2018).
ECAM Fettermann, D.C., Cavalcante, C.G.S., De Almeida, T.D. and Tortorella, G.L. (2018), “How does Industry
4.0 contribute to operations management?”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Vol. 35, pp. 255-268.
Forcael, E., Ferrari, I., Opazo-Vega, A. and Pulido-Arcas, J.A. (2020), “Construction 4.0: a literature
review”, Sustainability, Vol. 12, p. 9755.
Gajsek, B., Marolt, J., Rupnik, B., Lerher, T. and Sternad, M. (2019), “Using maturity model and
discrete-event simulation for industry 4.0 implementation”, International Journal of Simulation
Modelling, Vol. 18, pp. 488-499.
Ganzarain, J. and Errasti, N. (2016), “Three stage maturity model in SME’s towards industry 4.0”,
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 9, pp. 1119-1128.
Gao, S., Jin, R. and Lu, W. (2020), “Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: a review”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 48, pp. 538-550.
Gaur, L. and Ramakrishnan, R. (2019), “Developing internet of things maturity model (IoT-MM) for
manufacturing”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering,
Vol. 9, pp. 2473-2479.
Gavron, N. (2017), Designed, Sealed, Delivered: the Contribution of Offsite Manufactured Homes to
Solving London’s Housing Crisis, London Assembly.
Geissbauer, R., Vedso, J. and Schrauf, S. (2016), Industry 4.0: Building the Digital Enterprise,
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
Glogovac, M., Ruso, J. and Maricic, M. (2020), “ISO 9004 maturity model for quality in industry 4.0”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 33 Nos 5-6, pp. 529-547.
git, A. and Eren, P.E. (2021), “Data-driven manufacturing: an
G€okalp, M.O., G€okalp, E., Kayabay, K., Koçyi
assessment model for data science maturity”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 60, pp. 527-546.
Grant, K.P. and Pennypacker, J.S. (2006), “Project management maturity: an assessment of project
management capabilities among and between selected industries”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 53, pp. 59-68.
Hajoary, P.K. (2020), “Industry 4.0 maturity and readiness models: a systematic literature review and
future framework”, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 17
No. 7, 2030005.
Hammer, M. (2007), “The process audit”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 4, p. 111.
Hartono, B., Wijaya, D.F. and Arini, H.M. (2019), “The impact of project risk management maturity on
performance: complexity as a moderating variable”, International Journal of Engineering
Business Management, Vol. 11, pp. 1-16.
Herceg, I.V., Kuc, V., Mijuskovic, V.M. and Herceg, T. (2020), “Challenges and driving forces for
industry 4.0 implementation”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 10, p. 4208.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004), “Design science in information systems
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 75-105.
Hijazi, A.A., Perera, S., Calheiros, R.N. and Alashwal, A. (2021), “Rationale for the integration of BIM
and blockchain for the construction supply chain data delivery: a systematic literature review
and validation through focus group”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 147, 03121005.
Hizam-Hanafiah, M., Soomro, M.A. and Abdullah, N.L. (2020), “Industry 4.0 readiness models: a
systematic literature review of model dimensions”, Information, Vol. 11, p. 364.
Hoseini, E., Hertogh, M. and Bosch-Rekveldt, M. (2021), “Developing a generic risk maturity model
(GRMM) for evaluating risk management in construction projects”, Journal of Risk Research,
Vol. 24, pp. 889-908.
Jain, V. and Ajmera, P. (2021), “Modelling the enablers of industry 4.0 in the Indian manufacturing
industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 70,
pp. 1233-1262.
Jawad, S. and Ledwith, A. (2021), “A measurement model of project control systems success for Industry 4.0
engineering and construction projects case study: contractor companies in Saudi’s petroleum
and chemical industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 maturity
No. 3, pp. 1218-1240.
Jesus, C.D. and Lima, R.M. (2020), “Literature search of key factors for the development of generic and
specific maturity models for industry 4.0”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 10, p. 5825.
Johannes, K., Voordijk, J.T., Adriaanse, A.M. and Aranda-Mena, G. (2021), “Identifying maturity
dimensions for smart maintenance management of constructed assets: a multiple case study”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 147, 05021007.
Karunarathne, B.V.G. and Kim, B.S. (2021), “Risk management application-level analysis in South
Korea construction companies using a generic risk maturity model”, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 25, pp. 3235-3244.
Kiraz, A., Canpolat, O., Ozkurt, C. and Taskin, H. (2020), “Analysis of the factors affecting the Industry
4.0 tendency with the structural equation model and an application”, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 150, 106911.
Kitchenham, B. (2004), Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, Keele University, Keele, Vol. 33,
pp. 1-26.
nska, A. and Iwko, J. (2020), “Research in the field of project maturity in construction
Klaus-Rosi
companies”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 29 Suppl. 1, pp. 361-374.
Kpmg (2020), “The 2020 Fourth industrial revolution benchmark”, Digital and Disruption, KPMG
Digital Delta in collaboration with Faethm, available at: https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/
insights/2020/02/2020-fourth-industrial-revolution-benchmark.html#:∼:text5The%202020%
20Fourth%20Industrial%20Revolution,as%20they%20digitally%20transform%20their.
Krippendorff, K. (1989), Content Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York.
Kruger, S. and Steyn, A.A. (2021), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurial competencies needed to
utilise technologies of Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
Vol. 22, pp. 56-67.
Langston, C. and Ghanbaripur, A.N. (2016), “A Management Maturity Model (MMM) for project-based
organisational performance assessment”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 16, pp. 68-85.
Lawani, K., Hare, B. and Cameron, I. (2019), “Evaluating workplace trust as a construct of worker
engagement in construction”, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management,
Procurement and Law, Vol. 172, pp. 125-134.
Lee, J. (2019), “Safety culture evaluation model at construction site”, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 12, pp. 1972-1977.
Leineweber, S., Wienbruch, T., Lins, D., Kreimeier, D. and Kuhlenk€otter, B. (2018), “Concept for an
evolutionary maturity based Industrie 4.0 migration model”. Procedia CIRP, Vol. 72.
Lekan, A., Clinton, A., Fayomi, O.S.I. and James, O. (2020), “Lean thinking and industrial 4.0 approach
to achieving construction 4.0 for industrialization and technological development”, Buildings,
Vol. 10, p. 221.
Liang, C., Lu, W., Rowlinson, S. and Zhang, X. (2016), “Development of a multifunctional BIM maturity
model”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142, 06016003.
Lichtblau, K., Stich, V., Bertenrath, R., Blum, M., Bleider, M., Millack, A., Schmitt, K., Schmitz, E. and
Schr€oter, M. (2015), Industrie 4.0 Readiness, VDMA’s IMPULS-Stiftung, Aachen, Cologne.
Lin, T.-C., Wang, K.J. and Sheng, M.L. (2020a), “To assess smart manufacturing readiness by maturity
model: a case study on Taiwan enterprises”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 33, pp. 102-115.
Lin, T.C., Sheng, M.L. and Wang, K.J. (2020b), “Dynamic capabilities for smart manufacturing
transformation by manufacturing enterprises”, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol. 28,
pp. 403-426.
ECAM Ling, Y.M., Hamid, N. and Te Chuan, L. (2020), “Is Malaysia ready for industry 4.0? Issues and
challenges in manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Integrated Engineering, Vol. 12,
pp. 134-150.
Liu, K., Su, Y. and Zhang, S. (2018), “Evaluating supplier management maturity in prefabricated
construction project-survey analysis in China”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 9, p. 3046.
Lockamy, A. and Mccormack, K. (2004), “The development of a supply chain management process
maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 272-278.
Lu, W., Chen, K., Zetkulic, A. and Liang, C. (2021), “Measuring building information modeling maturity: a
Hong Kong case study”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 21, pp. 299-311.
Maiboroda, O., Bezuhla, L.S., Gukaliuk, A.F., Shymanska, V., Momont, T. and Ilchenko, T.V. (2021),
“Assessment of perspective development of transport and logistics systems at macro and micro
level under the Conditions of industry 4.0 integration”, International Journal of Computer
Science and Network Security, Vol. 21, pp. 235-244.
Maier, H.T., Schmiedbauer, O. and Biedermann, H. (2020), “Validation of a lean smart maintenance
maturity model”, Tehnicki Glasnik-Technical Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 296-302.
Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Maresova, P., Krejcar, O. and David, O.O. (2019), “Industry 4.0 for the
construction industry: review of management perspective”, Economies, Vol. 7, p. 68.
Mccarthy, C.F., Kelley, M.A., Verani, A.R., Louis, M.E.S. and Riley, P.L. (2014), “Development of a
framework to measure health profession regulation strengthening”, Evaluation and Program
Planning, Vol. 46, pp. 17-24.
Miller, R., Strombom, D., Iammarino, M. and Black, B. (2009), The Commercial Real Estate Revolution,
John Wiley & Sons.
Misra, D. and Dhingra, A. (2002), “E-governance maturity model”, Electronics Information and
Planning, Vol. 29, pp. 269-275.
Mittal, S., Khan, M.A., Purohit, J.K., Menon, K., Romero, D. and Wuest, T. (2020), “A smart
manufacturing adoption framework for SMEs”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 58, pp. 1555-1573.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and Group, T.P. (2009), “Preferred reporting Items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Med, Vol. 6, pp. 264-269.
Moura, L.R. and Kohl, H. (2020), “Maturity assessment in industry 4.0 – a comparative analysis of
brazilian and German companies”, Emerging Science Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 365-375.
Musonda, I., Lusenga, E. and Okoro, C. (2021), “Rating and characterization of an organization’s safety
culture to improve performance”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 181-193.
Nafchi, M.Z. and Mohelska, H. (2020), “Organizational culture as an indication of readiness to
implement industry 4.0”, Information, Vol. 11 No. 3, p. 174.
Narula, S., Prakash, S., Dwivedy, M., Talwar, V. and Tiwari, S.P. (2020), “Industry 4.0 adoption key
factors: an empirical study on manufacturing industry”, Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 17, pp. 697-725.
Nesensohn, C., Bryde, D. and Pasquire, C. (2016), “A measurement model for Lean Construction
maturity”, Lean Construction Journal, pp. 1-9.
Newman, C., Edwards, D., Martek, I., Lai, J., Thwala, W.D. and Rillie, I. (2020), “Industry 4.0
deployment in the construction industry: a bibliometric literature review and UK-based case
study”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 557-580.
Nosalska, K., Pia˛ tek, Z.M., Mazurek, G. and Rza˛ dca, R. (2019), “Industry 4.0: coherent definition
framework with technological and organizational interdependencies”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 31, pp. 837-862.
Nunez, M.P., Del Puerto, C.L. and Jeong, H.D. (2018), “Development of a partnering maturity Industry 4.0
assessment tool for transportation agencies”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction, Vol. 10, 04518021. maturity
Oesterreich, T.D. and Teuteberg, F. (2016), “Understanding the implications of digitisation and
automation in the context of Industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and elements of a research
agenda for the construction industry”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 83, pp. 121-139.
Olugboyega, O. and Windapo, A. (2019), “Building information modeling—enabled construction
safety culture and maturity model: a grounded theory approach”, Frontiers in Built
Environment, Vol. 5, p. 35.
Omotayo, T.S., Boateng, P., Osobajo, O., Oke, A. and Obi, L.I. (2020), “Systems thinking and CMM for
continuous improvement in the construction industry”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 69, pp. 271-296.
Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P.C. (2015), “Review of studies on the critical success factors for public–
private partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 1335-1346.
Osunsanmi, T.O., Aigbavboa, C.O., Oke, A.E. and Liphadzi, M. (2020), “Appraisal of stakeholders’
willingness to adopt construction 4.0 technologies for construction projects”, Built Environment
Project and Asset Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 547-565.
Oswald, D. and Lingard, H. (2019), “Development of a frontline H&S leadership maturity model in the
construction industry”, Safety Science, Vol. 118, pp. 674-686.
Oztemel, E. and Gursev, S. (2018), “Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies”, Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 31, pp. 127-182.
Pattanapairoj, S., Nitisiri, K. and Sethanan, K. (2021), “A gap study between employers’ expectations
in Thailand and current competence of master’s degree students in industrial engineering
under industry 4.0”, Production Engineering Archives, Vol. 27, pp. 50-57.
Pech, M. and Vrchota, J. (2020), “Classification of small-and medium-sized enterprises based on the
level of industry 4.0 implementation”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 15, p. 5150.
Perrenoud, A., Short, M.S.E. and Cowan, M.S.D. (2021), “Development and validation of elements for
the construction risk maturity assessment (CRMA)”, International Journal of Construction
Education and Research, doi: 10.1080/15578771.2021.1958959.
Perrier, N., Bled, A., Bourgault, M., Cousin, N., Danjou, C., Pellerin, R. and Roland, T. (2020),
“Construction 4.0: a survey of research trends”, Journal of Information Technology in
Construction, Vol. 25, pp. 416-437.
Pessot, E., Zangiacomi, A., Battistella, C., Rocchi, V., Sala, A. and Sacco, M. (2021), “What matters in
implementing the factory of the future Insights from a survey in European manufacturing
regions”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 32, pp. 795-819.
Peukert, S., Treber, S., Balz, S., Haefner, B. and Lanza, G. (2020), “Process model for the successful
implementation and demonstration of SME-based industry 4.0 showcases in global production
networks”, Production Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 275-288.
Phang, T.C.H., Chen, C. and Tiong, R.L.K. (2020), “New model for identifying critical success factors
influencing BIM adoption from precast concrete manufacturers’ view”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 146, 04020014.
Pillai, V.S. and Matus, K.J.M. (2021), “Towards a responsible integration of artificial intelligence
technology in the construction sector”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 689-704.
Pirola, F., Cimini, C. and Pinto, R. (2020), “Digital readiness assessment of Italian SMEs: a case-study
research”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31, pp. 1045-1083.
P€oppelbuß, J. and R€oglinger, M. (2011), “What makes a useful maturity model? Framework of general
design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management”,
European Conference of Information Systems, No. 28.
ECAM Poghosyan, A., Manu, P., Mahamadu, A.M., Akinade, O., Mahdjoubi, L., Gibb, A. and Behm, M. (2020),
“A web-based design for occupational safety and health capability maturity indicator”, Safety
Science, Vol. 122, 104516.
Pornthepkasemsant, P. and Charoenpornpattana, S. (2019), “Identification of factors affecting
productivity in Thailand’s construction industry and proposed maturity model for
improvement of the productivity”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 17,
pp. 849-861.
Quaigrain, R.A. and Issa, M.H. (2021), “Construction disability management maturity model: case
study within the Manitoban construction industry”, International Journal of Workplace Health
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 274-291.
Radford, J., Macdonald, J., Moulds, A. and Ramchurn, R. (2017), Project 13 Digital Transformation
Workstream: Infrastructure Industry Benchmarking Report, Mott Macdonald Institution of Civil
Engineers (ICE).
Rafael, L.D., Jaione, G.E., Cristina, L. and Ibon, S.L. (2020), “An Industry 4.0 maturity model for
machine tool companies”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 159, 120203.
Ramingwong, S., Manopiniwes, W. and Jangkrajarng, V. (2019), “Human factors of Thailand toward
industry 4.0”, Management Research and Practice, Vol. 11, pp. 15-25.
Reiman, A., Kaivo-Oja, J., Parviainen, E., Takala, E.P. and Lauraeus, T. (2021), “Human factors and
ergonomics in manufacturing in the industry 4.0 context – a scoping review”, Technology in
Society, Vol. 65, 101572.
Ribeirinho, M.J., Mischke, J., Strube, G., Sj€odin, E., Blanco, J.L., Palter, R., Bi€orckas, J., Rockhill, D. and
Andersson, T. (2020), The Next Normal in Construction: How Disruption Is Reshaping the
World’s Largest Ecosystem, McKinsey & Company.
Rivera, F.M.L., Mora-Serrano, J., Valero, I. and O~ nate, E. (2020), “Methodological-technological
framework for construction 4.0”, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 689-711.
Rockwell Automation (2014), “The connected enterprise maturity model”.
Rodegheri, P.M. and Serra, S.M.B. (2020), “Maturity models to evaluate lean construction in Brazilian
projects”, Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 17, pp. 1-21.
Roghabadi, M.A. and Moselhi, O. (2020), “A fuzzy-based decision support model for risk maturity
evaluation of construction organizations”, Algorithms, Vol. 13, p. 115.
Ruikar, K., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. (2006), “VERDICT—an e-readiness assessment application
for construction companies”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 58, pp. 98-110.
Santos, R.C. and Martinho, J.L. (2020), “An Industry 4.0 maturity model proposal”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31, pp. 1023-1043.
Santos-Neto, J.B.S.D. and Costa, A.P.C.S. (2019), “Enterprise maturity models: a systematic literature
review”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 719-769.
Sarshar, M., Finnemore, M. and Haigh, R. (1999), “SPICE: is the capability maturity model applicable
in the construction industry?”, 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials
and Components (CIB W78), Vancouver, Canada.
Schumacher, A. and Sihn, W. (2020), “A strategy guidance model to realize industrial digitalization
in production companies”, Management and Production Engineering Review, Vol. 11,
pp. 14-25.
Sas, N. (2019), “Construction companies in NSW collapsing at record rate as building slowdown bites”,
ABC News, 26 September 2019, viewed 28 August 2020, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/
news/2019-09-26/nsw-construction-companies-liquidated-in-record-numbers/11512002.
Schumacher, A., Erol, S. and Sihn, W. (2016), “A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness
and maturity of manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 52, pp. 161-166.
Schwab, K. (2016), The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Pengin Random House LLC,.
Schwab, K. (2019), “Davos Manifesto 2020: the Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth Industry 4.0
Industrial Revolution [Online]”, World Economic Forum, available at: https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-fourth- maturity
industrial-revolution/ (accessed 5 September 2021).
Serenko, A., Bontis, N. and Hull, E. (2016), “An application of the knowledge management maturity
model: the case of credit unions”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 14,
pp. 338-352.
Serpell, A.F., Ferrada, X., Rubio, L., Bodea, C.N., Purnus, A., Huemann, M. and Hajdu, M. (2016),
“Using a knowledge-based approach to foster the use of risk management in construction”,
Global Business Expansion: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, pp. 308-329.
Siebelink, S., Voordijk, J.T. and Adriaanse, A. (2018), “Developing and testing a tool to evaluate BIM
maturity: sectoral analysis in the Dutch construction industry”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 144 No. 8, 05018007.
Silva, A.J., Cortez, P., Pereira, C. and Pilastri, A. (2021), “Business analytics in Industry 4.0: a
systematic review”, Expert Systems, Vol. 38 No. 7, e12741.
Simetinger, F. and Zhang, Z. (2020), “Deriving secondary traits of industry 4.0: a comparative analysis
of significant maturity models”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 37, pp. 663-678.
Siraj, N.B. and Fayek, A.R. (2019), “Risk identification and common risks in construction: literature
review and content analysis”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 145,
03119004.
Sj€odin, D.R., Parida, V., Leksell, M. and Petrovic, A. (2018), “Smart Factory Implementation and
Process Innovation: a Preliminary Maturity Model for Leveraging Digitalization in
ManufacturingMoving to smart factories presents specific challenges that can be addressed
through a structured approach focused on people, processes, and technologies”, Research
Technology Management, Vol. 61, pp. 22-31.
Smithers, R. (2018), “Insolvencies in UK building firms rise 20% after Carillion collapse”, The
Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/01/insolvencies-in-uk-
building-firms-rise-20-after-carillion-collapse#:~:text5Insolvencies%20in%20UK%20building
%20firms%20rise%2020%25%20after%20Carillion%20collapse,-This%20article%
20is&text5The%20collapse%20of%20construction%20group,insolvent%2C%20according%
20to%20a%20report.
Software Engineering Institute (2002), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI): Version 1:1,
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2020), “Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations:
a literature review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27,
pp. 2213-2232.
Sriram, R.M. and Vinodh, S. (2021), “Analysis of readiness factors for Industry 4.0 implementation in
SMEs using COPRAS”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 38,
pp. 1178-1192.
Succar, B. (2009), “Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery foundation for
industry stakeholders”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18, pp. 357-375.
Svehla, M., Rericha, T., Tupa, J. and Steiner, F. (2020), “The role of process management in the context
of industry 4.0”, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, Dubai, UAE.
Tahmasebinia, F., Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Shirowzhan, S., Niemela, M., Tripp, A., Nagabhyrava, S., Ko, K.,
Mansuri, Z. and Alonso-Marroquin, F. (2020), “Criteria development for sustainable construction
manufacturing in Construction Industry 4.0”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 20, pp. 379-400.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 207-222.
ECAM Trotta, D. and Garengo, P. (2018), “Industry 4.0 key research topics: a bibliometric review”, 7th
International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management (ICITM), Oxford,
UK, IEEE.
Turner, C.J., Oyekan, J., Stergioulas, L. and Griffin, D. (2021), “Utilizing industry 4.0 on the
construction site: challenges and opportunities”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics,
Vol. 17, pp. 746-756.
Vereycken, Y., Ramioul, M., Desiere, S. and Bal, M. (2021), “Human resource practices accompanying
industry 4.0 in European manufacturing industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 32, pp. 1016-1036.
Wagire, A.A., Joshi, R., Rathore, A.P.S. and Jain, R. (2021), “Development of maturity model for
assessing the implementation of Industry 4.0: learning from theory and practice”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 32, pp. 603-622.
Wang, Y., Gosling, J. and Naim, M.M. (2019), “Assessing supplier capabilities to exploit building
information modelling”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 19, pp. 491-510.
Wang, G., Liu, H., Li, H., Luo, X. and Liu, J. (2020), “A building project-based industrialized
construction maturity model involving organizational enablers: a multi-case study in China”,
Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 10, p. 4029.
Weber, R. (2011), Basic Content Analysis, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Weking, J., St€ocker, M., Kowalkiewicz, M., B€ohm, M. and Krcmar, H. (2020), “Leveraging industry 4.0 –
a business model pattern framework”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 225,
107588.
Wernicke, B., Stehn, L., Sezer, A.A. and Thunberg, M. (2021), “Introduction of a digital maturity
assessment framework for construction site operations”, International Journal of Construction
Management, pp. 1-11.
Williams, C., Schallmo, D., Lang, K. and Boardman, L. (2019), “Digital maturity models for small and
medium-sized enterprises: a systematic literature review”, The ISPIM Innovation Conference –
Celebrating Innovation: 500 Years Since daVinci, Florence, Italy.
Yilmaz, G., Akcamete, A. and Demirors, O. (2019), “A reference model for BIM capability
assessments”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 101, pp. 245-263.
You, Z. and Feng, L. (2020), “Integration of industry 4.0 related technologies in construction industry:
a framework of cyber-physical system”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 122908-122922.
Zabidin, N.S., Belayutham, S. and Ibrahim, C.K.I.C. (2020), “A bibliometric and scientometric mapping of
industry 4.0 in construction”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 25, pp. 287-307.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.G. and Low, S.P. (2016), “An enterprise risk management knowledge-based
decision support system for construction firms”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 23, pp. 369-384.
Zoubek, M. and Simon, M. (2021), “A framework for a logistics 4.0 maturity model with a specification
for internal logistics”, MM Science Journal, Vol. 2021, pp. 4264-4274.
Zoubek, M., Poor, P., Broum, T., Basl, J. and Simon, M. (2021), “Industry 4.0 maturity model assessing
environmental attributes of manufacturing company”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 11, p. 5151.

Corresponding author
Priyadarshini Das can be contacted at: p.das@westernsydney.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 Process categories
Leadership and People and Data Collaboration and Change
No Source strategy culture management communication management Automation Innovation

1 Ganzarain and Errasti (2016) U U

2 Sj€odin et al. (2018) U U U U U U U
3 Basl and Doucek (2019) U U U U U U U
4 Asdecker and Felch (2018) U U U
5 Facchini et al. (2020) U U U U
6 Caiado et al. (2021) U U U
7 Santos and Martinho (2020) U U U U U U U
8 Colli et al. (2019) U U U U U U U
9 Gajsek et al. (2019) U U U U
10 Herceg et al. (2020) U U U U U U
11 Rafael et al. (2020) U U U U U U U
12 Lin et al. (2020a) U U U U U U
13 Pech and Vrchota (2020) U U U U
14 Wagire et al. (2021) U U U U U U U
15 Narula et al. (2020) U U U U U U U
16 Amaral and Peças (2021b) U U U
17 Peukert et al. (2020) U U U U
18 Nafchi and Mohelska (2020) U
19 Lin et al. (2020b) U U U U U U
20 Simetinger and Zhang (2020) U U U U
21 Glogovac et al. (2020) U U U U
22 Moura and Kohl (2020) U U U U U U U
23 Gaur and Ramakrishnan (2019) U U U U
24 G€okalp et al. (2021) U U U U U U U
25 Reiman et al. (2021) U U U U U U U
26 Chonsawat and Sopadang U U U U U U U
(2021)
27 Hajoary (2020) U U U U U
28 Amaral and Peças (2021a) U U U U U U U
29 Çınar et al. (2021) U U U U U U U
30 Zoubek et al. (2021) U U
31 Chaopaisarn and Woschank U U U U U
(2021)
32 Zoubek and Simon (2021) U

(continued )
maturity
Industry 4.0

Content analysis of

process categories for

maturity
assessing Industry 4.0
shortlisted papers in
Search 1 to identify the
Table A1.
 ECAM

Table A1.
Process categories
Leadership and People and Data Collaboration and Change
No Source strategy culture management communication management Automation Innovation

33 Benesova et al. (2021) U U U U U U U

34 Vereycken et al. (2021) U U
35 Silva et al. (2021) U
36 Cafasso et al. (2020) U U U U U U
37 Johannes et al. (2021) U U U
38 Kiraz et al. (2020) U U U U U U U
39 Amjad et al. (2020) U U
40 Schumacher and Sihn (2020) U U U U U
41 Pattanapairoj et al. (2021) U U U U U
42 Jain and Ajmera (2021) U U U U U U
43 Sriram and Vinodh (2021) U U U U
44 Pessot et al. (2021) U U U U U U U
45 Pirola et al. (2020) U U U U U
46 Ling et al. (2020) U U U U
47 Maiboroda et al. (2021) U U U
48 Kruger and Steyn (2021) U U
49 Mittal et al. (2020) U U U U U
50 Akdil et al. (2018) U U U U U
51 Chonsawat and Sopadang U U U U U U U
(2020)
52 Ayyildiz and Gumus (2021) U U
53 Fettermann et al. (2018) U U U
54 Ramingwong et al. (2019) U
55 Da Silva et al. (2020) U U U U U U U
56 Maier et al. (2020) U U U U U U
 Process categories
Leadership and People and Data Collaboration and Change
No Source strategy culture management communication management Automation Innovation

1 Liang et al. (2016) U U

2 Broft et al. (2016) U U
3 Bai et al. (2018) U U U U U
4 Yilmaz et al. (2019) U U U U
5 Siebelink et al. (2018) U U U
6 Langston and Ghanbaripur U U U
(2016)
7 Zhao et al. (2016) U U U
8 Liu et al. (2018) U U U
9 Arif et al. (2017) U U U
10 Poghosyan et al. (2020) U U U U
11 Nesensohn et al. (2016) U U U U
12 Oswald and Lingard (2019) U U
13 Lawani et al. (2019) U U
14 Hartono et al. (2019) U U U U
15 Wang et al. (2020) U U U U
16 Omotayo et al. (2020) U U U
17 Wang et al. (2019) U U
18 Olugboyega and Windapo (2019) U
19 Hoseini et al. (2021) U U
20 Musonda et al. (2021) U U U
21 Phang et al. (2020) U U U U
22 Bendi et al. (2021) U
23 Lu et al. (2021) U U
24 Roghabadi and Moselhi (2020) U U U
25 Dang et al. (2020) U U U
26 Johannes et al. (2021) U U U U
27 Karunarathne and Kim (2021) U U
28 Davila Delgado and Oyedele U U U U U
(2021)

(continued )
maturity
Industry 4.0

in Search 1
of shortlisted papers in

4.0 maturity identified

categories of Industry
Table A2.

Search 2 with process

Comparative analysis
 ECAM

Table A2.

View publication stats

Process categories
Leadership and People and Data Collaboration and Change
No Source strategy culture management communication management Automation Innovation

29 Perrenoud et al. (2021) U U U U

30 Wernicke et al. (2021) U U U U
31 Bendi et al. (2022) U
32 Jawad and Ledwith (2021) U
33 Quaigrain and Issa (2021) U
34 Klaus-Rosi nska and Iwko (2020) U
35 Pornthepkasemsant and U
Charoenpornpattana (2019)
36 Lee (2019) U
37 Serpell et al. (2016) U U U U
38 Nunez et al. (2018) U
39 Rodegheri and Serra (2020) U U U