buildings
Article
Assessment of Barriers to Robotics Process Automation (RPA)
Implementation in Safety Management of Tall Buildings
Ahsan Waqar 1, * , Idris Othman 1 , Ibrahim Idris Falqi 2 , Hamad R. Almujibah 3 ,
Abdullah Mohammed Alshehri 4, * , Saleh Hamed Alsulamy 5 and Omrane Benjeddou 6
Citation: Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; Falqi,
I.I.; Almujibah, H.R.; Alshehri, A.M.;
Alsulamy, S.H.; Benjeddou, O.
Assessment of Barriers to Robotics
Process Automation (RPA)
Implementation in Safety
Management of Tall Buildings.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071663
Academic Editors: Elena Mele,
Athanasios Chassiakos and Stylianos
Karatzas
Received: 3 April 2023
Revised: 16 June 2023
Accepted: 26 June 2023
Published: 29 June 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071663
1 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University Technology PETRONAS,
Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
2 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099,
Taif City 21974, Saudi Arabia
4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Majmaah University,
Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
5 Department of Architecture and Planning, College of Engineering, King Khalid University,
Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
6 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University,
Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: ahsan_21002791@utp.edu.my (A.W.); a.m.alshehri@mu.edu.sa (A.M.A.)
Abstract: Construction is dangerous, making safety management essential. Robotics process au-
tomation (RPA) can improve construction project risk management. RPA is hindered by several
factors. This study examined the primary technical, economic, legal, privacy, and resource obstacles
to RPA adoption for tall building safety management. The pilot survey comprised 161 Malaysian tall
building specialists, while the full questionnaire poll included 231 experts. EFA and SEM analyzed
the data. Technology, economics, legislation, privacy, and resources prevented RPA from managing
tall building safety. Theoretical and empirical breakthroughs in construction safety management and
RPA deployment prompted this inquiry. This study illuminates the main obstacles to employing RPA
for tall building safety management. The results show where to spend time and money to eliminate
the obstacles. The study’s management implications may benefit construction safety managers,
project managers, and company owners. The findings may help the building industry plan RPA
safety management in tall projects and overcome hurdles. This study contributes to construction
safety management and RPA deployment theory by identifying and analyzing the main barriers to
using RPA for safety management in high-rise buildings. This research can help solve the problems
preventing RPA from being used in construction project safety management.
Keywords: barriers; robotic process automation (RPA); safety management; tall buildings
1. Introduction
In highly crowded places, tall structures provide much-needed space for habitation
and employment. Nonetheless, inherent dangers are associated with huge constructions,
and accidents in towering buildings may have catastrophic results [1,2]. Several high-profile
mishaps in tall structures have occurred in recent years, including fires, collapses, and falls.
Management of safety in tall structures is essential for avoiding such tragedies and guaran-
teeing the safety of residents, tourists, and neighboring communities [3]. Appropriate safety
measures, such as routine inspections, training, and emergency preparation plans, may
decrease the likelihood of accidents and lessen their severity if they occur [3]. In addition
to safeguarding people, safety management in tall structures is essential for conserving
property and assets [1,2]. A catastrophic accident in a tall structure may result in substan-
tial property damage and financial losses, which can have long-term repercussions for
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 2 of 27

building owners, renters, and insurance [4]. The implementation of RPA has the potential
to greatly improve safety monitoring within the construction sector. This can be achieved
through the automation of repetitive tasks, provision of instantaneous data analysis, and
mitigation of potential human errors [5,6]. The implementation of this technology has the
potential to enhance safety performance, optimize efficiency, and reduce the probability of
accidents and injuries, rendering it an indispensable instrument for enterprises functioning
in hazardous settings.
Robotic process automation (RPA) has developed as a potent instrument for expediting
various industrial operations, such as the safety monitoring of tall structures. RPA may
automate regular activities, therefore minimizing human error and saving time, hence
improving productivity [7]. Robotic process automation (RPA) is a technological approach
that involves the utilization of software robots to automate routine and monotonous
activities in organizational workflows [8]. The robots possess the ability to imitate human
actions and engage with digital systems in order to execute a variety of tasks, including but
not limited to data entry, processing, and communication [9,10]. Nonetheless, despite the
potential advantages of RPA, its adoption in tall building safety management is not without
barriers. This paper evaluates the obstacles encountered in deploying RPA in tall building
safety management, including technical difficulty, cost, and opposition to change [11]. This
research provides insights that assist businesses in overcoming the hurdles to RPA adoption
and enhancing the safety management of tall buildings by examining these difficulties and
proposing alternative solutions [9].
While RPA can potentially improve safety management in tall buildings, several
barriers must be overcome to guarantee its effective deployment. The intricacy of safety
management operations in tall structures is one of the primary barriers [10]. It is necessary
to determine which operations may be efficiently automated without jeopardizing safety
while ensuring that key tasks requiring human judgment and knowledge are not mecha-
nized. Integration of RPA with current safety management systems is another barrier. It is
necessary to ensure that RPA complements current safety management systems rather than
replacing them and the integration process is smooth [8].
The purpose of the research is to identify the most significant barriers associated
with applying RPA in the safety management of tall buildings and propose solutions for
addressing them. The study will also explore the advantages of robotic process automa-
tion (RPA) in the safety management of tall buildings and emphasize the significance of
cooperation among diverse stakeholders for effective deployment. Conducting an inves-
tigation into the benefits of RPA in the context of safety monitoring has the potential to
enhance risk management in the construction sector, thereby augmenting worker safety
and mitigating the probability of mishaps. Furthermore, collaborative efforts between
regulatory bodies and industry participants can facilitate adherence to regulations and
encourage the conscientious implementation of robotic process automation (RPA) within
the construction industry.
The potential applications of RPA are diverse and encompass various fields, including
project monitoring. However, this study aims to concentrate on the possible utilization
of RPA in safety management in tall buildings. The implementation of RPA can enhance
safety management in construction projects by optimizing processes and minimizing
the likelihood of human error, ultimately leading to improved safety outcomes. More-
over, skyscrapers frequently entail iterative tasks, rendering them suitable contenders for
RPA implementation.
This research uses in-depth structural equation modeling to examine the barriers to
RPA adoption in tall building safety management. This is the first research to apply struc-
tural equation modeling to analyze the complicated interactions between many parameters
linked to RPA deployment in tall building safety management. Structural equation model-
ing is used to conduct a full investigation of the interdependent elements that influence the
effective application of RPA in safety management. This study’s results will help to identify
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 3 of 27

the factors that impact the adoption of RPA in safety management and will inform future
research on this subject.

2. Current Safety Status in Tall Buildings

According to research by the National Fire Protection Association, between 2014
and 2018, there were an estimated 14,500 structural fires in high-rise buildings yearly in
the United States, resulting in an average of 50 fatalities, 400 injuries, and $257 million
in property damage every year [5,12]. According to the Council on Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat, there are 157 structures higher than 300 m around the globe as of 2021,
with many more under construction or in the planning phases [6,13]. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reports that falls are the top cause of death in
the construction business, with 320 of the 1008 construction deaths in the United States
in 2018 attributable to falls from heights [14]. According to research published in the
International Journal of High-Rise Structures, most high-rise accidents are attributable to
human errors, such as building, maintenance, and operating errors. The National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) stresses the significance of safety management
in reducing accidents and injuries in high-rise structures and offers recommendations and
tools for implementing effective safety measures [15,16]. Effective safety management
may minimize the frequency and severity of accidents, according to research published
in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. According to the American
Association of Safety Professionals, falls from heights result in an average of 287,000
nonfatal injuries and 849 deaths every year across all sectors, including those outside of
construction, in the United States [17,18]. According to Fire Protection Research Foundation
research, automated sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings greatly lower the chance of
fire-related deaths and property loss. According to the National Safety Council, safety
culture is a crucial element of successful safety management in any business, and firms
with strong safety cultures tend to have lower accident and injury rates [19,20]. The
International Code Council (ICC) creates and publishes building safety codes and standards,
especially those about tall structures, and offers training and certification programs to
assist construction professionals in efficiently implementing these codes [21]. Overall,
these numbers demonstrate the necessity for rigorous safety management measures in tall
structures to avoid accidents, protect people and property, and foster a safety culture.
Although there exists literature on the advantages and obstacles associated with the
utilization of RPAs in the management of safety in construction, a dearth of comprehensive
research exists that scrutinizes the determinants which influence the implementation of
RPAs in the milieu of skyscrapers. Furthermore, prior research has not employed SEM
as a means of examining the interrelationships among the various factors that impact the
adoption of RPA. The present study endeavors to address this deficiency by examining
the interrelationship between these limitations and furnishing valuable perspectives for
professionals and scholars to surmount these hindrances.

3. Robotic Process Automation Implementation

RPA may be used to automate repetitive safety procedures like inspections and main-
tenance checks. By automating these operations, firms may decrease the risk of human
mistakes and guarantee the constant use of safety measures [22,23]. RPA may be used to
construct automated emergency response plans to assist building managers in respond-
ing swiftly and efficiently to fires and natural catastrophes [24,25]. By automating these
procedures, businesses may increase reaction times and lessen the danger of bodily harm
or property damage [26]. RPA may be used to evaluate safety data and identify possible
risks or improvement opportunities [27,28]. Businesses may swiftly detect and fix safety
concerns by assessing data in real-time, minimizing the likelihood of accidents and injuries.
RPA can enhance communication and cooperation between diverse teams engaged in safety
management, such as building managers, maintenance personnel, and emergency respon-
ders [29,30]. By automating communication procedures, companies may reduce reaction
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 28

Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 4 of 27

in safety management, such as building managers, maintenance personnel, and emer-
gency responders [29,30]. By automating communication procedures, companies may re-
duce reaction times and guarantee everyone access to the necessary information to re-
times and guarantee everyone access to the necessary information to respond effectively
spond effectively to crises. Overall, RPA may aid in maintaining safety management in
to crises. Overall, RPA may aid in maintaining safety management in tall buildings by
tall buildings by automating mundane jobs, boosting emergency response, enhancing
automating mundane jobs, boosting emergency response, enhancing data analysis, and
data analysis, and promoting communication and cooperation [31,32]. By adopting RPA,
promoting communication and cooperation [31,32]. By adopting RPA, enterprises may
enterprises may improve safety management operations and guarantee that tall buildings
improve safety management operations and guarantee that tall buildings remain safe and
remain safe
secure for alland secure for all occupants.
occupants.

4.
4. Method
Method
Overall,
Overall, this
this study
study used
used aa mixed-method
mixed-method researchresearch approach
approach to to identify
identify and
and analyze
analyze
the barriers
barriers totoRPA
RPAimplementation
implementationinin thethe safety
safety management
management of tall
of tall buildings,
buildings, as indi-
as indicated
cated in Figure
in Figure 1. This1.approach
This approach
includedincluded a literature
a literature review,review, semi-structured
semi-structured interviews,
interviews, a pilot
aand
pilot
mainandsurvey
main survey questionnaire,
questionnaire, and SEM anddata
SEM data analysis.
analysis. The reason
The reason for usingfor ausing
mixed a
mixed methodology
methodology study study
designdesign is because
is because of theofresearch
the research objective,
objective, which which
waswas focused
focused on
on
thethe assessment
assessment of barriers
of barriers of implementing
of implementing RPA RPA in safety
in safety management
management of tall
of tall build-
buildings.
ings. Because
Because of theofsignificant
the significant
number number of factors
of factors and SEMand SEM analysis
analysis approach
approach involved,
involved, it
it was
was important
important to validate
to validate each each
stagestage tillmost
till the the most critical
critical barriers
barriers are evaluated.
are evaluated. That’sThat’s
why
why
expertexpert interviews,
interviews, a literature
a literature review,review, and questionnaires
and questionnaires were involved.
were involved. This re-
This research
shed light
search shedonlight
the difficulties and barriers
on the difficulties that must
and barriers bemust
that overcome before RPA
be overcome may
before RPAbe used
may
effectively
be in the safety
used effectively in themanagement of tall structures.
safety management A detailed
of tall structures. description
A detailed of the tests
description of
conducted is presented in the following sections.
the tests conducted is presented in the following sections.

Figure 1.
Figure Research methodology
1. Research methodology flowchart.
flowchart.

RPA barriers
RPA barriers were
were evaluated from the
evaluated from the literature
literature and
and then investigated for
then investigated for significant
significant
barriers by pilot survey. EFA was used on pilot survey findings and then outcomes were
barriers by pilot survey. EFA was used on pilot survey findings and then outcomes were
used to
used to develop
developthethemodel
modelbybythe
the main
main survey
survey questionnaire
questionnaire andand
SEM.SEM. To begin,
To begin, we
we did
did a thorough literature analysis to locate prior studies that examined the use
a thorough literature analysis to locate prior studies that examined the use of RPAs to of RPAs
to manage tall building safety. Electronic databases, relevant journals, and conference
manage tall building safety. Electronic databases, relevant journals, and conference pro-
proceedings were scoured for inclusion in the review [33,34]. Robotics process automation,
ceedings were scoured for inclusion in the review [33,34]. Robotics process automation,
safety management, high-rises, and barriers were some keywords people used to find this
article [35,36].
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 5 of 27

Experts in the field were interviewed using semi-structured questions to help pinpoint
the barriers. Experts in the area, especially those with expertise in the administration of
tall building safety, were sought for the positions [37,38]. These experts possessed a deep
understanding of RPA technologies, particularly in the context of safety management and
tall buildings. Their practical experience in implementing RPA solutions in complex envi-
ronments, specifically within the construction or facilities management industry, justified
their inclusion in the research. This expertise allowed them to provide valuable insights
into the challenges and opportunities associated with implementing RPA in the safety man-
agement of tall buildings. Moreover, their familiarity with relevant safety regulations and
standards related to tall buildings enabled them to analyze the compliance requirements
and identify potential barriers to RPA adoption [39,40]. Their expertise in risk management,
process optimization, and change management further strengthened their ability to assess
the barriers and propose effective solutions. Thus, their multidisciplinary perspective,
combining technical knowledge, industry experience, and a comprehensive understanding
of safety management practices in tall buildings, made them the ideal experts to contribute
to the research on RPA implementation barriers.
A set of closed-ended questions served as the basis for the interviews. Based on
content analysis of the interview replies, we found 21 barriers to adopting RPA for the
safety monitoring of tall structures [41,42].
The identified 21 barriers were used to create a preliminary survey questionnaire.
One hundred sixty-one people in Malaysia’s high-rise construction industry completed the
survey. The people who took part in the study were chosen using a process of convenience
sampling. The pilot survey ensured that the questionnaire was reliable and valid [43]. Ex-
ploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to assess the data from the pilot survey, with tests
for reliability, normalcy, and mean score analysis. EFA was used to identify the underlying
factors or dimensions among the barriers to RPA adoption identified from the literature
review and expert interviews. It helps in reducing the number of variables and grouping
them into meaningful factors for further analysis. The pilot survey’s findings were the basis
for the final survey’s question [44,45]. The 21 barriers found in the research literature and
semi-structured interviews were among the 35 questions on the survey [46,47]. Two hun-
dred thirty-one people in Malaysia’s high-rise construction industry completed the study.
Using a method of random stratification, the participants were chosen. The primary survey
questionnaire data was examined employing structural equation modelling (SEM) [48,49].
A quick validity poll gathered experts’ opinions on the model’s accuracy [50,51]. Barriers
to RPA deployment in tall building safety management were identified using SEM findings
and incorporated into a final framework [52,53]. The most important obstacles to RPA de-
ployment in the safety management of tall buildings were identified using the framework,
which might aid in creating efficient methods for overcoming these barriers.
The identification of experts was conducted through a rigorous process that took into
account their professional backgrounds and extensive experience in the field of safety
management specifically pertaining to tall buildings. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with the participants, and these interviews were recorded in audio format
and transcribed verbatim. The data obtained from the interviews underwent content
analysis, wherein the information was coded to recognize and classify the hindrances to the
adoption of RPA. The study conducted a comparative analysis of the barriers identified in
the literature review and expert interviews, highlighting their similarities and differences.
The utilization of a mixed-methods approach facilitated the triangulation of data, thereby
enabling a more comprehensive comprehension of the impediments to the adoption of RPA
for safety management in high-rise structures.

5. Identification of Challenges
Two methodologies were used to determine the barriers to robotics process automation
(RPA) application in the safety management of tall structures. First, a comprehensive
literature search was undertaken utilizing academic databases such as Springer, WoS, ASCE,
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 6 of 27

ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar, whose summary is indicated in Table 1. The
study uncovered several barriers associated with deploying RPA in the safety management
of tall structures, including the complexity of safety management in tall buildings. Lack of
rules and regulations, absence of data and personal information security safeguards, issues
about legal liability, and safety management personnel, who are responsible for the safety
of the workers, needing greater technical assistance in order to employ the appropriate
equipment have been expressed. In the construction industry, technology that does not
correspond to the already recognized safety requirements is unacceptable, due to a lack of
online security management resources, lack of leadership, and unwillingness to assume
responsibility; affecting cost, time, and quality negatively. Emerging sectors of innovation
face issues with technical growth and a dearth of knowledge, the refusal of customers
to pay more for safety insurance as a result of technology advancements, and existing
technologies suffering from inefficiency. An ageing workforce hinders the capacity to adjust
to novel circumstances, and robotic process automation and its associated complexity, as
does inadequate education, and virtual learning. The cost involved with implementing
new technology, unwillingness to change, the purpose of the procedure is safety. To be
feasible, staff training would need to be cost-effective. Insufficient government assistance
is another barrier, while the market’s competitive forces restrict the possibility for profit.
The market’s competitive forces curtail the potential for gain, as do cybersecurity threats,
and the lack of human judgement and knowledge.

Table 1. Research paper evaluation.

Database Keywords Combination Total Collected Studies Relevant Studies

“Tall Buildings AND Robotic Process Automation
OR Challenges or Barriers in Robotic Process
Springer 610 35
Automation Adoption in the Safety of
High-Rise Buildings”
“Technology Challenges in Safety Management
AND High-Rise Building Projects OR Robotic
WoS 188 18
Process Automation Adoption Barriers in Safety in
Tall Buildings”
“Robotic in Construction OR Robotic in Tall
ASCE Buildings OR Robotic Process Automation Barriers 315 30
OR RPA Challenges”
“Advanced Technology AND High-Rise Buildings
Science Direct OR Safety Managing Technology Challenges AND 98 25
High-Rise Buildings”
“Robotic Process Automation Challenges OR RPA
Scopus Hurdles in Safety Management of High-Rise 20 7
Buildings OR Robotic Process Automation”
“Robotic Technology OR RPA OR Barriers AND
Google Scholar 260 25
Safety Management Challenges OR Tall Buildings”
Total 1491 140

Secondly, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, including safety managers,

building managers, and RPA specialists, were undertaken. The interviews gave more
insight into the barriers to using RPA in the safety management of tall structures and
underlined the need for stakeholder participation. The discussions also indicated the
necessity of overcoming cultural hurdles to adoption, and the need for effective training and
instruction on RPA technology [40,54]. Literature analysis and semi-structured interviews
offered a full grasp of the issues and barriers to RPA deployment in tall building safety
management. The final identified challenges are presented in Table 2.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 7 of 27

Table 2. Identified challenges.

Sr. No. Barriers References
1 Absence of norms and restrictions. [35,36]
2 Lacking assurances of data and personal information security. [33,34]
3 Concerns concerning legal responsibility have been raised. [31,32]
The safety management staff who are responsible for the safety of the workforce need more technical support so that
4 [29,30]
they can utilize the right equipment.
5 Technology that does not conform to the already accepted safety standards in the construction business. [27,28]
6 Owing to the scarcity of online safety management resources. [23,26]
7 Lack of leadership and reluctance to take charge. [21,22]
8 Negative effect on cost, time, and quality. [19,20]
9 Problems with technological development and a need for more education in emerging fields of innovation. [18]
10 Customers’ unwillingness to spend more on safety insurance due to technological advances. [16,17]
11 Problems with the efficiency of existing technologies. [14,15]
12 An aging workforce needs to improve its ability to adapt to new situations. [6,13]
13 Robotic process automation and its inherent complexities. [5,12]
14 Insufficient knowledge and virtual education [8,10]
15 The financial burden associated with adopting new technologies. [9,11]
16 Reluctance to change. [4,7]
17 Purpose of the practice is for safety. [55,56]
18 Training staff could require being cost-effective. [57,58]
19 There needs to be more government support. [59,60]
20 Competitive pressures in the market limit the profit sustainability potential. [61,62]
21 Competitive pressures in the market limit the profit potential. [63,64]

5.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

5.1.1. Reliability and Normality Analysis
The reliability and consistency of a scale or test may be determined by calculating its
Cronbach’s alpha. This metric measures how well items on a scale or test assess the same
concept or feature. Cronbach’s alpha may take on a value between 0 and 1, with higher values
suggesting more consistent results. Research acceptability often begins at a score of 0.7 or above.
On the other hand, the Shapiro-Wilk Normality test is a statistical method for checking
whether data in a given sample follows a normal distribution [49,65]. The assumption that
the data is regularly distributed is put to the test. If the p-value is larger than 0.05, there
is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis (that the data follows a normal distri-
bution). However, when the p-value is less than 0.05, the data is not normally distributed,
and the null hypothesis may be rejected [39,54]. Important statistical analyses in the field
of research include Cronbach’s alpha and the Shapiro-Wilk Normality test. Data reliability
and consistency may be checked using Cronbach’s alpha, and normality can be matched
with the Shapiro-Wilk Normality test, both presuppositions of many statistical studies.

5.1.2. Mean Score Analysis and Kruskal Wallis Analysis

The results of a survey or questionnaire may be analyzed statistically using a procedure
called mean score analysis. Finding the average answer to each study or questionnaire
requires a similar calculation [66,67]. The participants’ results on various items may be
summarized and compared using mean score analysis. It may also be used to prioritize
questions in a questionnaire or survey. Kruskal-Wallis is the test to employ if there is
a need to compare the medians of three or more different groups [68,69]. Parametric
ANOVA assumes that the data follows a normal distribution as an alternative to non-
parametric ANOVA. Kruskal-Wallis analysis is more reliable than ANOVA when the data
is not normally distributed or includes outliers since it makes no such assumptions [70,71].
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 8 of 27

Kruskal-Wallis analysis is performed in the case of an ordinal or continuous dependent

variable and a categorical independent variable with more than two levels. The test looks
for statistically significant differences by comparing the median positions of the groups. No
statistically significant difference exists between the groups’ median rankings; this is the
null hypothesis [72,73]. Statistical approaches like mean score analysis and Kruskal-Wallis
testing are crucial in scientific investigations. Kruskal-Wallis analysis compares the median
values of two or more separate groups, whereas mean score analysis summarizes and
compares participants’ replies to various items in a survey or questionnaire [74]. Kruskal-
Wallis is non-parametric and makes no assumptions about the data distribution, whereas
mean score analysis is parametric and assumes a normal data distribution.

5.1.3. KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Common statistical tests used to determine whether data is suitable for factor analysis
include the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests. Bartlett’s test determines whether
the correlation matrix of variables is an identity matrix, whereas the KMO test examines the
sampling adequacy of variables in the dataset. The factorability of the data from the pilot
survey was analyzed here using the KMO and Bartlett’s tests [64]. For the factor analysis to be
valid, the KMO test statistic must be more than 0.6, and a p-value of less than 0.05 in Bartlett’s
test must be reached to reject the null hypothesis. These checks bolstered the data’s suitability
for factor analysis and revealed the significance of the factors.

5.1.4. Component Matrix Formation

Factors in a dataset may be discovered using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a
statistical technique. This data reduction method aims to find the fewest possible variables
that account for the most variation in the data. Being an experimental technique, EFA does
not assume anything is happening [63]. The findings of the pilot poll were used to run
EFA with a Varimax rotation. The Varimax orthogonal rotation approach is often used to
optimize the factor loadings variation. It aids understanding by making issues clearer and
less intertwined. Each variable’s factor loading indicates how strongly it is correlated with
that factor [61,62]. Indicators of an element are variables that have strong factor loadings
on that factor. An eigenvalue larger than 1 criterion and the scree plot are used to decide
how many original elements to keep [59,60]. The number of factors, how to interpret them,
and which variables load on each aspect are all shown in the EFA findings. Based on the
findings, a trustworthy instrument for gauging the challenges of implementing robotics
process automation (RPA) in Tall Buildings’ Safety Management may be constructed.

5.2. Structure Equation Modeling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) aims to empirically test and verify theoretical
models that account for the interrelationships of many variables. This research examined
the connection between barriers and RPA implementation in the safety management of
tall buildings using the primary questionnaire responses. There were two components
to the SEM analysis: the measurement model and the structural model. The validity and
trustworthiness of the measurements were evaluated using the measurement model [57,58].
Average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) criteria were used to
examine convergent and discriminant validity. The internal consistency of the constructs
was evaluated using the Cronbach alpha reliability test. The discriminant validity was
assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criteria [55,56]. To examine the discriminant validity of
the constructs, an HTMT (Heterotrait-Monotrait) analysis was used. To be discriminantly
valid, the HTMT ratio has to be under 0.90.
The postulated connections between the barriers and RPA deployment were tested
using the structural model. Using structural path analysis, we calculated predicted route
coefficients and confidence intervals [62,74]. Based on the findings, a conceptualization
of the challenges associated with using RPA for safety management in tall buildings was
created. Structural equation modeling (SEM) provides a robust statistical method for evalu-
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 9 of 27

ating sophisticated theoretical models. To examine the hypothesized connections between

the barriers and RPA implementation, this research used the measurement and structural
models to assess the measurements’ reliability and validity [57,58]. The findings demon-
strated that the barriers significantly hampered RPA deployment. This research may be
utilized better to apply RPA for the safety management of tall structures and overcome the
obstacles that have been identified. The model was validated by a short survey involving
13 experts, and only the 5 following questions was asked. The measurement scale was from
1 to 5, with 5 being the highest satisfaction.
1. Rate the validity and accuracy of the method adopted in the analysis to form the
framework.
2. Rate the accuracy of the presented significance of constructs with the latent variable.
3. Rate the validity of the hypothesis according to your experience in the construction
industry.
4. Rate the validity of each barrier included in the framework.
5. Rate the validity of future significance of this framework in tall building construction.

6. Results and Analysis

6.1. Reliability and Normality of Data
Cronbach’s alpha and the Shapiro-Wilk normality tests were run on the data from
the pilot survey, and their results are shown in Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha ratings for
the questionnaire questions varied from 0.856 to 0.876, demonstrating strong internal
consistency and reliability. All test variables exhibited p-values significantly lower than
0.05 when tested using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, suggesting that the data were not
normally distributed [55,56]. The findings as a whole imply that the pilot survey data is
trustworthy for further study, and this may need the use of non-parametric statistical tests.

Table 3. Reliability and normality test results.

Shapiro-Wilk
Code Cronbach’s Alpha
Statistic df Sig.
C1 0.864 0.862 204 0.000
C2 0.865 0.859 204 0.000
C3 0.864 0.837 204 0.000
C4 0.867 0.860 204 0.000
C5 0.873 0.843 204 0.000
C6 0.865 0.833 204 0.000
C7 0.870 0.841 204 0.000
C8 0.871 0.832 204 0.000
C9 0.869 0.857 204 0.000
C10 0.870 0.886 204 0.000
C11 0.868 0.859 204 0.000
C12 0.865 0.844 204 0.000
C13 0.867 0.845 204 0.000
C14 0.861 0.850 204 0.000
C15 0.866 0.838 204 0.000
C16 0.856 0.823 204 0.000
C17 0.872 0.851 204 0.000
C18 0.873 0.839 204 0.000
C19 0.876 0.826 204 0.000
C20 0.865 0.836 204 0.000
C21 0.864 0.840 204 0.000
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 10 of 27

6.2. Mean Score Ranking of Barriers

The findings of the mean score analysis for each survey question are shown in Table 4.
Each code’s average, median, rank, and standard deviation are shown in the table. Kruskal-
Wallis test p-values, which were used to compare the replies of several groups based on
education, experience, and occupation, are also included. The mean score is an item’s
average rating from all responses [60,61]. The median score indicates the midpoint, while
the rank reveals where each code falls concerning the mean. The dispersion of the answers
is represented by the standard deviation [63,74]. Whether there are statistically significant
variations in the replies of various groups for each question is shown by the p-values for
the Kruskal-Wallis tests. The greater the significance of a difference, the smaller the p-value.
Table 4 is helpful since it offers the variation in answers among groups and the overall
distribution for each question.

Table 4. Mean score analysis results.

Code Mean Median Rank Std. Deviation p-Value 1 p-Value 2 p-Value 3

C1 3.52 4 4 1.139 0.083 0.104 0.068
C2 3.61 4 2 0.885 0.002 0.289 0.015
C3 3.62 4 1 1.035 0.000 0.293 0.279
C4 3.50 4 5 0.961 0.000 0.147 0.050
C5 3.46 3 6 0.999 0.001 0.224 0.004
C6 3.37 3 16 1.037 0.491 0.080 0.117
C7 3.28 3 20 1.034 0.124 0.041 0.270
C8 3.36 3 17 1.073 0.003 0.217 0.005
C9 3.41 4 9 1.066 0.000 0.001 0.227
C10 3.44 4 7 1.028 0.011 0.029 0.026
C11 3.36 3 18 0.999 0.000 0.065 0.039
C12 3.58 4 3 0.949 0.000 0.001 0.000
C13 3.42 3 8 0.958 0.000 0.003 0.034
C14 3.33 3 19 1.056 0.033 0.000 0.006
C15 3.39 3 11 1.016 0.010 0.004 0.016
C16 3.40 3 10 0.991 0.000 0.000 0.000
C17 3.37 3 15 1.026 0.000 0.026 0.000
C18 3.38 3 14 1.005 0.000 0.005 0.008
C19 3.39 3 13 0.976 0.000 0.000 0.000
C20 3.39 3 12 0.981 0.000 0.000 0.000
C21 3.26 3 21 0.967 0.000 0.044 0.004
p-value of Kruskal-Willi’s test for intergroup comparison of respondents of different Education. p-value 2 of
1

Kruskal-Willi’s test for intergroup comparison of respondents of different Experience. p-value 3 of Kruskal-Willi’s
test for intergroup comparison of respondents of different Profession.

6.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity test results are shown in Table 5.
The KMO score of 0.858 exceeds the minimum threshold of 0.6 required for factor analysis.
There is a statistically significant correlation between the variables in the dataset, as shown
by the chi-square value of 1559.139 for Bartlett’s test of sphericity, with 212 degrees of free-
dom and a significance level of 0.000. This proves that factors that explain the relationship
between the variables may be isolated using factor analysis. These findings are consistent
with the data suitable for factor analysis.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 11 of 27

Table 5. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.858
Approx. Chi-Square 1559.139
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity df 212
Sig. 0.000

Factor analysis was performed on the survey data, and the rotated component matrix
is shown in Table 6. The study was conducted to determine which variables account for
the observed differences in answers across the 21 questions (items C1–C21). The matrix
displays the loadings of the questionnaire items onto the five components that were de-
termined to best describe the data. We rotated the components to make the structure
more understandable [60,62]. Most items in the questionnaire were found to have signif-
icant loadings on a single component, suggesting that they were all related to the same
underlying issue. The first component has a high loading for the items C11, C14, C4,
C9, and C5, which may be read as ’Project Planning and Scheduling.’ High loadings on
the aforementioned ‘Cost Management and Budgeting’ component are also seen in codes
C3, C7, C13, and C2. If given items do not load strongly on any of the five elements, it
is probably not very relevant to deciphering the underlying causes. For instance, every
component experiences heavy demand while processing the C8, C20, C12, or C16. C6 and
C17, on the other hand, place heavy emphasis on the fifth factor. Overall the elements that
explain the differences in respondents’ answers may be summed up in a few words using
the rotated component matrix [59,61]. The matrix may be used as a roadmap for creating
a questionnaire that probes these areas of concern or pinpointing weak spots in current
project management methods.

Table 6. Rotated component matrix.

Component
Code
1 2 3 4 5
C11 0.817
C14 0.778
C4 0.756
C9 0.712
C5 0.689
C8
C15 0.753
C10 0.715
C18 0.688
C21 0.643
C20
C12
C16
C19 0.812
C1 0.784
C13 0.744
C3 0.791
C7 0.781
C2 0.621
C6 0.671
C17 0.628
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 12 of 27

The EFA identified five distinct barriers, given descriptive names in Table 7. Technol-
ogy, economy, legislation, privacy, and resources describe these elements.

Table 7. Ranking of subgroups.

Construct Code Barriers Mean Subgroup Mean Subgroup Rank

C11 Problems with the efficiency of existing technologies. 3.16
C14 Insufficient knowledge and virtual education 3.20
The safety management staff who are responsible for the
C4 safety of the workforce need more technical support so 3.10
Technology that they can utilize the right equipment. 3.18 3
Problems with technological development and a need for
C9 3.20
more education in emerging fields of innovation.
Technology that does not conform to the already
C5 3.26
accepted safety standards in the construction business.
The financial burden associated with adopting
C15 3.18
new technologies.
Customers’ unwillingness to spend more on safety
C10 3.30
insurance due to technological advances.
Economic 3.21 2
C18 Training staff could require being cost-effective. 3.24
The existing culture of safety in the
C21 3.14
Construction Industry
C19 There needs to be more government support. 3.44
C1 Absence of norms and restrictions. 3.41
Regulation 3.35 1
Robotic process automation and its
C13 3.21
inherent complexities.
Concerns concerning legal responsibility have
C3 2.82
been raised.
Privacy C7 Lack of leadership and reluctance to take charge. 2.79 2.76 5
Lacking assurances of data and personal
C2 2.69
information security.
Owing to the scarcity of online safety
C6 3.17
Resources management resources. 3.16 4
C17 Purpose of the practice is for safety 3.16

Inadequate knowledge and virtual education, the need for greater technical assistance
for safety management employees, challenges with technological progress, and noncon-
formity to established safety standards all fall under the Technology construct (Subgroup
Mean = 3.18, Subgroup Rank = 3).
Costs associated with adopting new technologies, customers’ reluctance to pay more
for safety insurance as a result of technological advancements, the efficiency with which
staff can be trained, and the preexisting safety culture in the construction industry are all
factors in the Economic construct (Subgroup Mean = 3.21, Subgroup Rank = 2).
The complexity of robotic process automation, the lack of established standards and
regulations, and the absence of government assistance all contribute to the Regulation
construct (Subgroup Mean = 3.35, Subgroup Rank = 1).
Concerns about legal liability, a lack of leadership, and an unwillingness to act con-
tribute to the Privacy construct (Subgroup Mean = 2.76, Subgroup Rank = 5), as do insuffi-
cient guarantees of data and personal information protection.
The resources framework factors in issues like a lack of online safety management re-
sources and the need for the practice to improve security (Subgroup Mean = 3.16, Subgroup
Rank = 4).
In sum, the EFA-derived constructs illuminate the most significant challenges to
advancing the use of new technologies in the building sector. They will help pinpoint
 H2: Economic‐related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in tall
buildings.

H3: Regulation‐related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 13 of 27
tall buildings.

H4: Privacy‐related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in tall
actionable methods to push for adopting innovative technology in the construction sector
buildings.
that improves safety.
The following
H5: Resource‐related hypotheses
barriers were
strongly formulated
impact based on EFAforresults,
RPA implementation and the hypothesized
safety management in tall
framework
buildings. is indicated in Figure 2.

Technology

Economic

RPA
Implementation for
Regulation H3
Safety Management
in Tall Buildings

Privacy

Resource

Figure 2. Hypothesized
Figure framework.
2. Hypothesized framework.

6.4.H1:
Demographics
Technology-related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in
tall buildings.to the demographic data from the primary survey questionnaire in Figure
According
3, 56% of respondents had earned a master’s degree, while 17% had earned a doctorate.
H2: Economic-related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in
Most respondents (44%) had between 11 and 15 years of experience, while the next biggest
tall buildings.
group (21%) had between 5 and 10 years of experience. Most responders (57%) identified
H3: Regulation-related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in
tall buildings.
H4: Privacy-related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in
tall buildings.
H5: Resource-related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management in
tall buildings.

6.4. Demographics
According to the demographic data from the primary survey questionnaire in Figure 3,
56% of respondents had earned a master’s degree, while 17% had earned a doctorate. Most
respondents (44%) had between 11 and 15 years of experience, while the next biggest group
(21%) had between 5 and 10 years of experience. Most responders (57%) identified as civil
engineers, followed by project managers (18%). Understanding the survey’s findings in
the context of the intended audience is facilitated by these demographic findings about
the respondents.

6.5. Structure Equation Modeling (SEM)

6.5.1. Measurement Model
Statistics on the reliability and validity of the model are shown in Table 8 for the five
components measured in this research. Cronbach’s alpha for each construct ranges from 0.767
to 0.873, suggesting that the items are trustworthy measures of the constructions for which they
were designed [41]. Values for internal consistency of the constructs themselves, as measured
by composite reliability (rho-a) and composite reliability (rho-c), fall in the range of 0.719 to
0.922 and 0.851 to 0.927, respectively. These numbers point to the fact that each construct
has items that measure the same underlying construct, suggesting that the constructs are
consistent with themselves. The AVE values vary from 0.588 to 0.865, reflecting the proportion
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 14 of 27

of measurement
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW error captured by each construct. Each concept shows strong convergent 14 of 28
validity since these values exceed the required cutoff of 0.5. The variation in reliability and
validity statistics is presented in Figure 4. The statistics for the model’s reliability and validity
suggest that the constructs are valid and trustworthy indicators of the measured concepts [42].
as civil engineers, followed by project managers (18%). Understanding the survey’s find-
These findings support
ings in the context theintended
of the hypothesis testingisusing
audience these constructs
facilitated about the challenges
by these demographic findings of
deploying RPA for
about the respondents.safety management in tall buildings.

Figure 3. Demographics.
Figure 3. Demographics.
6.5. Structure Equation Modeling (SEM)
Table 8. Model reliability and validity statistics.
6.5.1. Measurement Model
Composite Composite The Average
Statistics on the
Constructs reliability
Cronbach’s and validity
Alpha of the model areReliability
Reliability shown in Table 8 for the five
Variance
(Rho-a)
components measured in this research. Cronbach’s alpha for(Rho-c)
each constructExtracted (AVE)
ranges from
0.767 to 0.873, suggesting0.873
Economic that the items are 0.873
trustworthy measures0.922of the constructions
0.798 for
which they
Privacy were designed [41].
0.759 Values for internal
0.719 consistency of
0.865 the constructs them-
0.763
selves, as measured
Regulation
by composite
0.806
reliability (rho-a)
0.806
and composite
0.886
reliability (rho-c),
0.721
fall
in the range
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Resource
of 0.719 to 0.922 and 0.851 to 0.927, respectively. These numbers point to the
0.844 0.852 0.927 0.86515 of 28
fact that each construct has items that measure the same underlying construct, suggesting
thatTechnology 0.767
the constructs are consistent 0.774
with themselves. The AVE0.851
values vary from 0.588
0.588 to
0.865, reflecting the proportion of measurement error captured by each construct. Each
concept shows strong convergent validity since these values exceed the required cutoff of
0.5. The variation in reliability and validity statistics is presented in Figure 4. The statistics
for the model’s reliability and validity suggest that the constructs are valid and trustwor-
thy indicators of the measured concepts [42]. These findings support the hypothesis test-
ing using these constructs about the challenges of deploying RPA for safety management
in tall buildings.

Table 8. Model reliability and validity statistics.

Cronbach’s Al‐ Composite Reliability Composite Reliability The Average Variance Extracted
Constructs
pha (Rho‐a) (Rho‐c) (AVE)
Economic 0.873 0.873 0.922 0.798
Privacy 0.759 0.719 0.865 0.763
Regulation 0.806 0.806 0.886 0.721
Resource 0.844 0.852 0.927 0.865
Technology 0.767 0.774 0.851 0.588

Figure 4. Comparison of model reliability and validity statistics.

On the diagonal of Table 9, the square root of AVE is presented, and in the off-diago-
nal columns, we see the correlation coefficients between the various constructs. Values on
the diagonal indicate the average variance retrieved from all measurements for a given
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 15 of 27

On the diagonal of Table 9, the square root of AVE is presented, and in the off-diagonal
columns, we see the correlation coefficients between the various constructs. Values on
the diagonal indicate the average variance retrieved from all measurements for a given
concept. Correlations between constructs are shown by values that are outside the normal
distribution. Discriminant validity is supported by the fact that the diagonal values in
this table are larger than the correlation coefficients between the various constructs. For
instance, the Economic concept has excellent discriminant validity since its AVE is 0.798,
and its correlations with other constructs are low (between 0.147 and 0.251).

Table 9. Fornell-Larker criteria results.

Constructs Regulation Privacy Economic Resource Technology

Regulation 0.893
Privacy 0.087 0.873
Economic 0.251 0.217 0.849
Resource 0.19 0.143 0.147 0.93
Technology 0.147 0.246 0.235 0.179 0.767

Similarly, the correlation between the Resource and Technology constructs is just
0.179, but the AVE for both is 0.588, suggesting considerable overlap [43,46]. The overall
discriminant validity is satisfactory, however, since the diagonal value for technology is still
greater than the correlation with resources. The study’s constructs have strong discriminant
validity, according to the Fornell-Larcker criterion.
The HTMT ratios may be seen in Table 10 for the various types of constructs. The
HTMT ratio evaluates the extent to which a given pair of constructs are correlated more
strongly than each of the individual constructs is correlated with any other construct. If
the value is lower than 0.9, then the discriminant validity may be assumed to be true.
Any HTMT values below 0.9 indicate discriminant validity for the constructs in this table.
It follows that the measures used in this research have sufficient discriminant validity
and that the constructs differ [47,48]. This is crucial because it ensures that the findings
acquired from the measures are not contaminated by overlap across constructs and the
measurements can capture distinctive features.

Table 10. HTMT statistics.

Constructs Regulation Privacy Economic Resource Technology

Regulation
Privacy 0.113
Economic 0.298 0.293
Resource 0.221 0.187 0.176
Technology 0.207 0.342 0.293 0.219

The relative importance of each variable on the various constructs is shown in Table 11.
A greater value for one built close to the others indicates a stronger relationship between
the variable and that construct. The findings show that each variable loads much more on
its target construct than on any other construct. For instance, the Economic construct is
substantially correlated with the C15, C18, and C21 variables (with values of 0.911, 0.863,
and 0.905, respectively). The Privacy construct is also highly loaded by the variables C3
and C7, with values of 0.874 and 0.872, respectively. Most variables indeed have low
loadings on other constructs, but there are a few outliers. For instance, variable C5 has a
high loading (0.25 on the Regulation construct) and a low loading (0.177 on the Privacy
construct), suggesting that it may capture both constructs [40,49]. This indicates that
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 16 of 27

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 28

the items used in the research have strong discriminant validity since they can assess
the targeted characteristics without overlapping considerably with other factors. The
developed structure model is indicated in Figure 5, showing the structure model with
Tablecoefficients.
path 10. HTMT statistics.

Constructs Regulation Privacy Economic Resource Technology

Table 11. Cross ladings.
Regulation
Privacy
Variables 0.113
Economic Privacy Regulation Resource Technology
Economic
C15 0.298
0.911 0.293
−0.082 0.241 0.14 0.134
Resource
C18
0.221
0.863
0.187
−0.046
0.176
0.238 0.197 0.112
Technology 0.207 0.342 0.293 0.219
C21 0.905 −0.106 0.192 0.172 0.15

The −0.076
C3 relative importance 0.874
of each 0.173various constructs
variable on the 0.13 is shown0.231
in Table
greater value−for
11. A C7 one built close
0.076 0.872 to the others indicates a stronger
0.207 0.12 relationship
0.2 be-
tweenC1 the variable 0.234
and that construct.
0.127 The findings show that each
0.873 0.161 variable loads
0.216 much
more on its target construct than on any other construct. For instance, the Economic con-
C19 0.165 0.214 0.869 0.102 0.167
struct is substantially correlated with the C15, C18, and C21 variables (with values of 0.911,
0.863,C1 0.234
and 0.905, respectively). The0.127 0.873
Privacy construct 0.161
is also highly loaded by the0.216
variables
C3 andC6C7, with values
0.18 of 0.874 and
0.141 0.152
0.872, respectively. 0.938
Most variables indeed0.206
have low
loadings
C17 on other constructs,
0.174 but there
0.124 are a few 0.119
outliers. For instance,
0.922 variable C5 has a
0.122
high loading
C5 (0.25 on
0.202the Regulation construct)
0.177 and
0.25 a low loading
0.18(0.177 on the Privacy
0.791
construct), suggesting that it may capture both constructs [40,49]. This indicates that the
C11 0.025 0.219 0.143 0.034 0.73
items used in the research have strong discriminant validity since they can assess the tar-
getedC4characteristics0.15 0.179
without overlapping 0.116 with other
considerably 0.169 0.782
factors. The developed
structure
C9 model is 0.049
indicated in Figure
0.188 5, showing the structure0.144
0.198 model with path0.762coeffi-
cients.

Figure5.5.PLS
Figure PLSalgorithm
algorithmoutput.
output.

TableBased
11. Cross ladings.
on their VIF, loadings, and construct groupings, the variables are ranked in
Table 12 for their collective influence. The order shows how significantly different variables
Variables Economic Privacy Regulation Resource Technology
C15 0.911 −0.082 0.241 0.14 0.134
C18 0.863 −0.046 0.238 0.197 0.112
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 17 of 27

affect their respective constructs. The most influential concept is the one that correlates most
strongly with the other factors. The largest loadings and VIFs in the Economic construct
are found for the variables C15, C21, and C1, suggesting that these three factors are the
most consequential to this construct. In contrast, variables C17 and C6 have considerable
effects on the Resource framework, while variables C11, C4, and C5 substantially affect the
Technological framework. The biggest loadings and VIFs in the Privacy and Regulatory
frameworks are for variables C3, C7, C13, and C19. The group impact rank may be used
to see which factors contribute the most to explaining the variation of their respective
constructs [54,65]. With this knowledge, efforts may be prioritized to remove the barriers
blocking the use of RPA for managing safety in high-rises. According to the findings, eco-
nomic hurdles are the most pressing to overcome, followed by those involving technology
and resources.

Table 12. Group impact rank.

Variables VIF Loadings Construct Group Impact Rank

C1 2.051 0.873 Regulation Rank 5
C13 1.48 0.804
C19 2.073 0.869
C11 1.442 0.73 Technology Rank 2
C4 1.545 0.782
C5 1.474 0.791
C9 1.486 0.762
C15 2.897 0.911 Economic Rank 1
C18 1.908 0.863
C21 2.826 0.905
C17 2.143 0.922 Resource Rank 3
C6 2.143 0.938
C3 1.381 0.874 Privacy Rank 4
C7 1.381 0.872

Excluded variables (C8, C12, C14, C16, C20, and C10) are described in full in Table 13.
Both the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) parts of
the research kept these factors out. In factor analysis research, it is usual to omit variables that
do not fulfill particular inclusion requirements, such as low factor loadings, poor model fit, or
cross-loadings on several factors, albeit the reasons for removal are not included in the table.
Removing potential points of error and making the remaining elements more transparent and
easily interpretable, excluding variables, improve a model’s validity and reliability.

Table 13. Details of excluded factors.

Variable Status Status

C8 EFA (Pilot) Deleted
C20 EFA (Pilot) Deleted
C12 EFA (Pilot) Deleted
C16 EFA (Pilot) Deleted
C14 SEM (Main) Deleted
C10 SEM (Main) Deleted
C2 SEM (Main) Deleted
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 18 of 27

6.5.2. Structure Path Analysis

The study’s route analysis findings are shown in Table 14. Path analysis is a statistical
method for verifying a model’s hypothesized connections between constituent parts. The data
show a positive and statistically significant relationship between the dependent variable and
each independent factor (regulatory, privacy, economic, resource, and technology) (sustainable
development). The magnitude and direction of the association between the independent and
dependent variables are represented by the beta coefficients (B). The economic aspect was
found to have the highest coefficient (0.402), suggesting the greatest impact on sustainable
development [46,47]. The next most influential aspect was resources (0.328), then regulation
(0.284), then privacy (0.291), and finally technology (0.300). The accuracy of the coefficients is
quantified by the SE, with lower SE signifying more precision. We have high confidence in
the findings since all t-values were significant at the p 0.001 level.

Table 14. Path analysis results.

Path B SE t-Values p-Values VIF

Economic 0.402 0.026 13.404 <0.001 1.167
Privacy 0.300 0.024 10.784 <0.001 1.145
Regulation 0.284 0.026 14.587 <0.001 1.142
Resource 0.328 0.026 9.341 <0.001 1.084
Technology 0.391 0.031 15.146 <0.001 1.138

Since all VIF values were at most 1.2, multicollinearity was not a major problem
with the model. According to the path analysis, all of the independent variables benefit
sustainable development, although the aspects related to economics and technology have
the most weight [39,66]. The outcomes of bootstrapping analysis provided the significance
values, which are indicated in Figure 6. While Figure 7 presents the t-stat of the constructs
in the model. These results are helpful for governments and groups who are working to
promote sustainable development since they highlight the most critical aspects to focus on.
The study’s five components and their relative performance and relevance ratings are
shown in Table 15. Each construct was given a performance score that shows how well it
predicted the dependent variable and a significance score reflecting its importance to the
model. Based on the findings, Privacy performs the best (63.038), followed by Regulation
(56.881) and Economics (63.03). (55.840). Resource, on the other hand, scores a dismal
39.348 in terms of performance. Technology ranks first because it has a 0.468 correlation
coefficient with the dependent variable, suggesting its significance [40,48]. With a score of
0.259, privacy comes in at number two, behind only economical (0.343), regulatory (0.377),
and resource considerations (0.246). These findings indicate that Technology is the most
critical variable in the model, followed by Privacy and Regulation.

Table 15. Performance and importance.

Construct Performance Importance

Economic 55.840 0.343
Privacy 63.038 0.259
Regulation 56.881 0.377
Resource 39.348 0.246
Technology 52.405 0.468
Buildings 2023,13,
Buildings2023, 13,1663
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27
19 28

Figure6.6.Model
Figure Modelsignificance.
significance.

The study’s
Model five components
predictive and their
relevance (MPR), an relative performance
essential measure ofand the relevance ratings are
model’s capacity to
shown future
foretell in Table 15. Each construct
occurrences, is shownwas given
in Table 16.a There
performance
are valuesscore
for that
SSO,shows how
SSE, and well
Q2. Theit
predicted
model the dependent
accounts variable
for 432,000,000 in and
SSO,awhereas
significance score reflecting
336,000,000 its importance
in SSE remain to the
unaccounted
for. The Based
model. model’s
onpredictive power,
the findings, as shown
Privacy by Q2,
performs theisbest
0.221. Predictive
(63.038), ability
followed byincreases
Regulationas
Q2 rises. Thus, a Q2 score of 0.221 indicates that the model’s predictive
(56.881) and Economics (63.03). (55.840). Resource, on the other hand, scores a dismalpower is modest
but might
39.348 be enhanced
in terms [49]. TheTechnology
of performance. model offers a good
ranks first fit to theitdata
because has and is adequately
a 0.468 correlation
predictive,
coefficient according to the MPR
with the dependent findings.
variable, suggesting its significance [40,48]. With a score of
0.259, privacy comes in at number two, behind only economical (0.343), regulatory (0.377),
Table 16. Modelconsiderations
and resource predictive relevance.
(0.246). These findings indicate that Technology is the most
critical variable in the model, followed by Privacy and Regulation.
SSO SSE Q2
4320.000 and importance.
Table 15. Performance 3365.357 0.221

Construct Performance Importance

6.6. Model Validation and Final Framework
Economic 55.840 0.343
The model’s validity may be determined from the mean values in Table 17 of validation
Privacy 63.038 0.259
findings. With mean values ranging from 4.23 to 4.85 across the board, respondents thought
the modelRegulation
did a good job measuring the 56.881 0.377 Q2 has a
variables of interest. In particular,
Resource 39.348 0.246
comparatively high mean value of 4.62, indicating that the model has significant predictive
potential Technology 52.405
in anticipating future occurrences. Q1, Q3, and Q5 all had high 0.468
mean values,
suggesting that respondents judged the model credible, helpful, and timely. In general, the
mean values indicate that the model performed well in assessing the targeted characteristics
and may serve as a reliable resource for related studies in the future. The final validated
framework is presented in Figure 8.
Buildings 2023,13,
Buildings2023, 13,1663
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of
20 of 27
28

Figure7.7.t-statistics
Figure t-statisticsofofthe
thestructural
structuralmodel.
model.

Model
Table 17. predictive
Validation relevance (MPR), an essential measure of the model’s capacity to
results.
foretell future occurrences, is shown in Table 16. There are values for SSO, SSE, and Q2.
Respondent 1 2 3 The 4model accounts
5 6 for 432,000,000
7 8 in SSO,9 whereas
10 336,000,000
11 in SSE 13
12 remainMean
unac-
Q1 5 5 5 counted
3 for. 5The model’s
4 predictive
4 4 power,4as shown
4 by Q2,4 is 0.221.
4 Predictive
4 ability
4.23
increases as Q2 rises. Thus, a Q2 score of 0.221 indicates that the model’s predictive power
Q2 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.62
is modest but might be enhanced [49]. The model offers a good fit to the data and is ade-
Q3 5 5 5 5 predictive,
quately 4 5
according 5 to the MPR
5 5
findings. 5 5 5 4 4.85
Q4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.85
Table 16. Model predictive relevance.
Q5 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 4.54
SSO SSE Q2
4320.000 3365.357 0.221

6.6. Model Validation and Final Framework

The model’s validity may be determined from the mean values in Table 17 of valida-
tion findings. With mean values ranging from 4.23 to 4.85 across the board, respondents
thought the model did a good job measuring the variables of interest. In particular, Q2 has
a comparatively high mean value of 4.62, indicating that the model has significant predic-
tive potential in anticipating future occurrences. Q1, Q3, and Q5 all had high mean values,
suggesting that respondents judged the model credible, helpful, and timely. In general,
the mean values indicate that the model performed well in assessing the targeted charac-
teristics and may serve as a reliable resource for related studies in the future. The final
validated framework is presented in Figure 8.
 Respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mean
Q1 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.23
Q2 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.62
Q3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.85
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 Q4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.85 21 of 27
Q5 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 4.54

Figure 8. FinalFigure
framework based
8. Final on the structure
framework based on model.
the structure model.

7. Discussion7. Discussion
The technology
The technology construct
construct includes includes
C11, C11, with
“Problems “Problems with theofefficiency
the efficiency existing of existing
technologies”, C4, “The safety management staff who are responsible for the safety of the
technologies”, C4, “The safety management staff who are responsible for the safety of the
workforce need more technical support so that they can utilize the right equipment”, C9,
workforce need more technical support so that they can utilize the right equipment”, C9,
“Problems with technological development and a lack of education in emerging fields of in-
“Problems with technological development and a lack of education in emerging fields of
novation”, and C5 “Technology that does not conform to the already accepted standards of
innovation”, and C5 “Technology that does not conform to the already accepted standards
safety in the construction business”. The hypothesis “H1: Technology-related barriers have
of safety in the construction business”. The hypothesis “H1: Technology-related barriers
a strong impact on RPA implementation for safety management in tall buildings” is fully
have a strong impact on RPA implementation for safety management in tall buildings” is
validated. Path analysis findings reported in Table 14 lend credence to the verified premise
fully validated. Path analysis findings reported in Table 14 lend credence to the verified
that the technological framework has a salutary effect on using RPAs for managing safety in
premise that the technological framework has a salutary effect on using RPAs for manag-
high-rises. In particular, technical constraints might greatly impede using RPAs in the safety
ing safety in high-rises. In particular, technical constraints might greatly impede using
management of tall structures; the t-value for technology is 15.146, with a standard error
RPAs in the safety management of tall structures; the t-value for technology is 15.146, with
of 0.031. The inefficiency of current technologies, the requirement for technical assistance,
a standard error of 0.031.
and issues Thetoinefficiency
linked of current
new technologies and technologies,
safety norms the requirement
in the construction forsector are all
technical assistance, and issues linked to new technologies and safety norms in the
part of the technological construct that impacts RPA deployment [54]. These considerationscon-
struction sector are all
indicate thepart
needoffor
thea technological
strong technical construct thatand
foundation impacts
ongoingRPAassistance
deployment to use RPAs for
[54]. These considerations indicate the need for a strong technical foundation
safety management. With a VIF of 1.138, the technological architecture and ongoing
is not severely im-
assistance topacted
use RPAs for safety management.
by multicollinearity, making With
route aanalysis
VIF of 1.138,
findingsthemore
technological
trustworthy.ar- The overall
chitecture issignificance
not severelyofimpacted by multicollinearity, making route analysis findings
overcoming technical hurdles in using RPAs to guarantee safe and efficient
more trustworthy. The overall
construction significance
practices of overcoming
is validated by the route technical
analysishurdles
findings,in demonstrating
using RPAs the need
to guaranteetosafe
use and
RPAsefficient construction
for safety management practices is validated by the route analysis
in tall structures.
findings, demonstrating the need
The economic to use RPAs
construct for C15,
includes safety management
“The in tall structures.
financial burden associated with adopting
new technologies”, C18, “It’s possible that training staff could require being cost-effective”,
and C21, “Existing culture of safety in the Construction Industry”. The hypothesis “H2:
Economic-related barriers strongly impact RPA implementation for safety management
in tall buildings” is fully validated. According to the examination of causal relationships,
the economic construct positively and substantially affects using RPA to manage safety
in high-rise structures. For the economic concept in question, the significance level of the
correlation is rather high: the p-value is less than 0.001. The financial framework considers
things like the expense of implementing new technology, value of educating employees,
and standard of safety in the construction sector as it now stands. Based on the tests
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 22 of 27

conducted, there is a significant correlation between the economic hurdles and slow rate of
RPA deployment for safety management in tall buildings [39,65]. This result suggests that
financial considerations are critical to the effective use of RPAs for safety management in
high-rise structures. Significant impediments to using RPAs include the financial burden of
adopting new technology and cost-effectiveness of training people.
The regulation construct includes C19, “There is not enough government support”, C1,
“Absence of norms and restrictions”, and C13, “Robotic process automation and its inherent
complexities”. The hypothesis “H1: Regulation-related barriers strongly impact RPA
implementation for safety management in tall buildings” is fully validated. With a path
coefficient of 0.284, the regulatory construct is also very significant in examining causality
between the independent variables involved in the success or failure of RPA deployment
for safety management. These findings point to the necessity for proactive measures
by politicians and regulatory organizations to establish clear standards, regulations, and
support for RPA deployment in the construction sector. Addressing the challenges of RPA
and providing the requisite training and instruction are also crucial for a successful rollout.
In conclusion, the need for regulatory support and clear instructions for the effective
adoption of RPA for safety management in tall buildings was validated by analyzing the
influence of the regulation construct [33,66].
The privacy construct includes C3, “Concerns concerning legal responsibility have
been raised” and C7, “Lack of leadership and reluctance to take charge”. The hypothesis
“H1: Privacy-related barriers have a strong impact on RPA implementation for safety man-
agement in tall buildings” is fully validated. Validated theory is supported by components
C3 and C7 that privacy-related constraints significantly affects RPA deployment for safety
management in tall buildings. C3 emphasizes worries about legal liability, whereas C7
emphasizes a failure to take initiative and a lack of leadership. These barriers might sig-
nificantly impact the spread of RPA technology in the construction sector, where security
and confidentiality are paramount. With a path coefficient of 0.300 and a p-value of less
than 0.001, the privacy concept was shown to have a statistically significant positive influ-
ence on RPA adoption. This suggests that removing barriers associated with data privacy
might enhance the results of RPA adoption, which in turn can improve safety management
in skyscrapers [69,70]. The results indicate that the construction sector has to consider
privacy-related restrictions when deploying RPA technology and take the necessary steps
to resolve these concerns to guarantee effective deployment and acceptance.
The resource construct included C6, “Owing to the scarcity of online safety manage-
ment resources” and C17, “Purpose of the practice is for safety”. The hypothesis “H1:
Resource-related barriers have a strong impact on RPA implementation for safety man-
agement in tall buildings” is fully validated. This study’s resource construct alludes to
the limited nature and ultimately protective goal of current approaches to online safety
management. According to the findings of the route analysis, this concept significantly
influenced the use of robotic process automation (RPA) in the management of safety in
high-rises. This suggests substantial barriers to adopting RPA for safety management
in tall buildings due to needing more resources and a defined purpose for safety activi-
ties. The resource construct had the lowest mean score of all of the validation survey’s
constructs, at 39.348. This suggests that participants were worried about needing more
resources, underscoring the need for sufficient resources to effectively apply RPA in safety
management [72,73]. To overcome these challenges and effectively deploy RPA in safety
management in tall buildings, enterprises need to give appropriate resources and identify
the aim of safety measures. Doing so may boost an organization’s safety management
standards and make the workplace safer for everyone.
The results of our study regarding the obstacles that impede the adoption of RPA in
safety monitoring carry noteworthy ramifications for both scholarly inquiry and practical
application. The study makes a valuable contribution to the existing body of literature by
shedding light on the obstacles to implementing RPA in the realm of safety monitoring. In
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 23 of 27

this particular context, we have identified distinct barriers that contribute to the current
understanding of impediments to the implementation of RPA.
The results are in line with prior studies regarding obstacles to the adoption of RPA
in various domains, including but not limited to the financial and healthcare sectors.
Furthermore, it enhances comprehension of obstacles to the implementation of RPA in the
context of safety monitoring and presents pragmatic suggestions for entities to overcome
these hindrances. Subsequent investigations may expand on our discoveries by examining
the influence of these hindrances on the triumph of RPA implementation and ascertaining
efficacious approaches to surmount them.

7.1. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions

This research provides important theoretical and empirical insights into using RPA in
tall-building safety management. The findings of this research give practical insights into
the issues construction firms and regulatory authorities may encounter when employing
RPA for safety management in tall structures. Several technological, monetary, regulatory,
privacy, and resource-related challenges to RPA application for safety management in
tall buildings are also identified. The research also verifies the validity of the suggested
model and demonstrates that it can foresee the use of RPA in the management of safety in
high-rises. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in the development of a unified
model that takes into account the many factors (such as cost, regulation, privacy concerns,
and availability of resources) that impede the use of robotic process automation (RPA) in the
context of safety management in tall buildings. By verifying the model and displaying its
value in forecasting RPA deployment for safety management in tall buildings, the research
contributes to the current literature by expanding on it. The study also shows how several
barriers to RPA adoption are interconnected and may influence one another. The research
gives a complete model that may advise construction businesses and regulatory agencies
about the issues they may encounter when using RPA, as well as significant insights into
the hurdles to RPA deployment for safety management in tall buildings. In addition to
confirming the suggested model, the research adds to the literature by emphasizing the
significance of evaluating different barriers to RPA deployment.

7.2. Managerial Suggestions

Many managerial recommendations may be made to further the effective application
of RPA for safety management in tall buildings based on the results of this research.
• Initially, it is suggested that the industry focuses on removing economic, regulatory,
privacy, technological, and resource constraints. This may be achieved by creating
all-encompassing plans that account for the unique challenges faced by the company.
If, for instance, a business needs help financially, it may look into grants from the
government or try to create training programs that don’t break the bank.
• Second, construction firms should work to foster a culture of safety that values and
encourages the use of RPA tools. This may be done by giving workers a voice in RPA
decisions, educating them on the advantages of the technology, and incentivizing
their adoption.
• Businesses should look into partnering with other groups to pool resources and
expertise. Collaboration with schools, trade groups, and IT companies is all possible.
• The next piece of advice for improving tall building safety management is for busi-
nesses to set concrete objectives and performance indicators for RPA adoption. One
example is keeping tabs on the time and money saved from using RPA. Another is
keeping tabs on the number of safety incidents that have been avoided or decreased.
• Last but not least, it is suggested that building businesses conduct continual learning
and improvement to keep up with the latest developments and best practices in RPA
technology. One way to do this is to network by participating in training programs,
conferences, or joint ventures with other businesses.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 24 of 27

7.3. Limitations and Future Implications

This research only applies to the high-rise construction sector. Thus, its findings may
need to be more generalizable. As a second caveat, the data were gathered via a cross-
sectional survey, which might make it harder to draw conclusions about cause and effect.
Longitudinal designs and exploring RPA application in more sectors and building types
are ways that future research might overcome these restrictions. This study’s results have
various implications for further investigation. To begin, more research may look at ways to
remove the barriers to RPA adoption, especially as they pertain to the high-rise building
sector. Second, the advantages of RPA adoption for safety management in the construction
sector might be investigated in future research. Finally, more research may look at how
company culture affects RPA deployment. Lastly, alternative research approaches, such
as case studies or experiments, might be used in future studies to learn more about the
challenges and opportunities associated with using RPA in the construction sector for
tall structures.

8. Conclusions
In conclusion, this research aimed to examine the economic, technological, regulatory,
privacy, and resource constraints that prevent RPA from being used for safety management
in tall buildings. The research concluded that all factors, except resources, significantly
affected RPA adoption. According to the findings of the path analysis, legislation was
shown to be the most influential factor, followed by concerns about privacy, technological
advancements, and economic factors. This research adds to the existing literature by
demonstrating the challenges of using RPA for safety management in high-rise structures.
Understanding the interplay of regulatory, privacy, technological, economic, and resource
constructs is a major theoretical contribution to RPA deployment for safety monitoring in
tall buildings. This study’s managerial implications include that, when deploying RPA
for safety management in tall buildings, enterprises should prioritize government rules
and support, privacy issues, technology improvements, and fiscal restraints. Regulatory
organizations may be partnered with to guarantee compliance, privacy protection measures
can be invested in, staff can be trained, and cost-effective technology can be explored as
possible solutions. To get a fuller picture of RPA’s potential, future studies might investigate
the highlighted barriers in other contexts and sectors. Research into the future may also
look at ways to overcome these barriers and make RPA more accessible for use in the
management of safety in tall structures.
The prevalence of tall structures is on the rise, which in turn poses an elevated likeli-
hood of incidents and safety perils. Hence, it is imperative to investigate novel approaches
such as RPA to enhance safety management in such edifices. The present study’s results
provide insight into the possible hindrances to the implementation of RPA for safety
management in high-rise structures. This information can assist stakeholders within the
construction sector in making well-informed choices regarding the adoption of RPA. In
general, the present study makes a scholarly contribution to the development of construc-
tion safety management theory and underscores the significance of taking into account
technological innovations such as RPA to enhance safety management in hazardous sectors.
Despite the study’s useful contributions, there are certain caveats to keep in mind.
Safety managers were the only participants in the research; workers and building owners
were not surveyed. Also, the study was limited to a single place, thus extrapolating the
results to other areas would not be prudent. Future research should consider including
diverse views and boosting the sample size to increase the generalizability of the results.
The findings of this research are invaluable for businesses considering using RPA for safety
management in skyscrapers.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 25 of 27

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.W. and H.R.A.; methodology, A.W. and H.R.A.; soft-
ware, A.W. and O.B.; validation, I.I.F.; formal analysis, I.I.F.; investigation, I.I.F.; resources, I.O.; data
curation, A.M.A.; writing—original draft, A.W. and I.O.; writing—review & editing, I.O., O.B. and
S.H.A.; visualization, H.R.A.; project administration, A.M.A. and S.H.A.; funding acquisition, A.M.A.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid Uni-
versity (KKU) for funding this work through the Research Group Program Under the grant code
RGP2/551/44.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at
King Khalid University (KKU) for funding this work through the Research Group Program Under
the grant code RGP2/551/44.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pan, M.; Linner, T.; Pan, W.; Cheng, H.; Bock, T. A framework of indicators for assessing construction automation and robotics in
the sustainability context. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 82–95. [CrossRef]
2. Bowmaster, J.; Rankin, J. A Research Roadmap for Off-Site Construction: Automation and Robotics. Modul. Offsite Constr. Summit
Proc. 2019, 173–180. [CrossRef]
3. Nath, A.S. A Review of Advancements in Robotic and Sensor-based Technologies in Construction Sector. Eur. J. Eng. Technol. Res.
2022, 7, 85–89. [CrossRef]
4. Akinradewo, O.I.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Okafor, C.C.; Oke, A.E.; Thwala, D.W. A Review of the Impact of Construction Automation
and Robotics on Project Delivery. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1107, 012011. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, N.; Liu, B. Alignment of business in robotic process automation. Int. J. Crowd Sci. 2019, 3, 26–35. [CrossRef]
6. Strukova, Z.; Liska, M. Application of Automation and Robotics in Construction Work Execution. Ad Alta J. Interdiscip. Res. 2012,
2, 121–125.
7. Naveen Reddy, K.P.; Harichandana, U.; Alekhya, T.; Rajesh, S.M. A Study of Robotic Process Automation Among Artificial
Intelligence. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. (IJSRP) 2019, 9, 392–397. [CrossRef]
8. Hamidi, F.; Aslani, F. Additive manufacturing of cementitious composites: Materials, methods, potentials, and challenges. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2019, 218, 582–609. [CrossRef]
9. Paolini, A.; Kollmannsberger, S.; Rank, E. Additive manufacturing in construction: A review on processes, applications, and
digital planning methods. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 30, 100894. [CrossRef]
10. Luhar, S.; Luhar, I. Additive Manufacturing in the Geopolymer Construction Technology: A Review. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J.
2020, 14, 150–161. [CrossRef]
11. Neythalath, N.; Søndergaard, A.; Bærentzen, J.A. Adaptive robotic manufacturing using higher order knowledge systems. Autom.
Constr. 2021, 127, 103702. [CrossRef]
12. Casini, M. Advanced Building Construction Methods. In Construction 4.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128217979000064?via%3Dihub (accessed on 2 April 2023). [CrossRef]
13. Chea, C.P.; Bai, Y.; Pan, X.; Arashpour, M.; Xie, Y. An integrated review of automation and robotic technologies for structural
prefabrication and construction. Transp. Saf. Environ. 2020, 2, 81–96. [CrossRef]
14. Huang, F.; Vasarhelyi, M.A. Applying robotic process automation (RPA) in auditing: A framework. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2019,
35, 100433. [CrossRef]
15. Zavadskas, E.K. Automation and robotics in construction: International research and achievements. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19,
286–290. [CrossRef]
16. Rashid, M.N.A.; Abdullah, M.R.; Ismail, D.; Saberi, M.H. Automation and Robotics in Industrialized Building System (IBS): The
Potential Criteria for Measurement. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2019, 9, 1020–1034. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Trujillo, D.; Holt, E. Barriers to Automation and Robotics in Construction. EPiC Ser. Built Environ. 2020, 1, 257–265. [CrossRef]
18. Oke, A.; Akinradewo, O.; Aigbavboa, C.; Akinradewo, O. Benefits of Construction Automation and Robotics in the South African
Construction Industry. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 385, 012063. [CrossRef]
19. Choi, D.; R’bigui, H.; Cho, C. Candidate Digital Tasks Selection Methodology for Automation with Robotic Process Automation.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 8980. [CrossRef]
20. Ghita, M.; Neckebroek, M.; Muresan, C.; Copot, D. Closed-Loop Control of Anesthesia: Survey on Actual Trends, Challenges and
Perspectives. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 206264–206279. [CrossRef]
21. Singh, R.; Gehlot, A.; Akram, S.V.; Gupta, L.R.; Jena, M.K.; Prakash, C.; Singh, S.; Kumar, R. Cloud Manufacturing, Internet of
Things-Assisted Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technology: Reliable Tools for Sustainable Construction. Sustainability 2021, 13,
7327. [CrossRef]
22. Galin, R.; Meshcheryakov, R.; Kamesheva, S.; Samoshina, A. Cobots and the Benefits of Their Implementation in Intelligent
Manufacturing. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 862, 032075. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 26 of 27

23. Arora, A. Conceptualising Artificial Intelligence as a Digital Healthcare Innovation: An Introductory Review. Med. Devices Evid.
Res. 2020, 13, 223–230. [CrossRef]
24. Waqar, A.; Khan, M.B.; Shafiq, N.; Skrzypkowski, K.; Zagórski, K.; Zagórska, A. Assessment of Challenges to the Adoption of IOT
for the Safety Management of Small Construction Projects in Malaysia: Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Appl. Sci. 2023,
13, 3340. [CrossRef]
25. Khan, M.B.; Waqar, A. Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Composites Using Response. 2023. Available online: https:
//www.researchgate.net/publication/369480847_Optimization_of_Fresh_and_Mechanical_Characteristics_of_Carbon_Fiber-
Reinforced_Concrete_Composites_Using_Response_Surface_Technique (accessed on 2 April 2023).
26. Cai, S.; Ma, Z.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Bao, S. Construction automation and robotics for high-rise buildings over the past decades: A
comprehensive review. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2019, 42, 100989. [CrossRef]
27. Rashid, M.N.A.; Abdullah, M.R.; Ismail, D. Critical Success Factors CSFs to Automation and Robotics in Industrialized Building
System IBS. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2018, 8. [CrossRef]
28. Gotthardt, M.; Koivulaakso, D.; Paksoy, O.; Saramo, C.; Martikainen, M.; Lehner, O. Current State and Challenges in the
Implementation of Smart Robotic Process Automation in Accounting and Auditing. ACRN J. Financ. Risk Perspect. 2020, 9, 90–102.
[CrossRef]
29. Kunic, A.; Naboni, R.; Kramberger, A.; Schlette, C. Design and assembly automation of the Robotic Reversible Timber Beam.
Autom. Constr. 2020, 123, 103531. [CrossRef]
30. Naboni, R.; Kunic, A.; Kramberger, A.; Schlette, C. Design, simulation and robotic assembly of reversible timber structures. Constr.
Robot. 2021, 5, 13–22. [CrossRef]
31. Kontovourkis, O.; Konatzii, P. Environmental and cost assessment of customized modular wall components production based on
an adaptive formwork casting mechanism: An experimental study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 286, 125380. [CrossRef]
32. Kim, T.; Lee, D.; Lim, H.; Lee, U.-K.; Cho, H.; Cho, K. Exploring research trends and network characteristics in construction
automation and robotics based on keyword network analysis. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2020, 20, 442–457. [CrossRef]
33. Repeva, A.M.; Firstov, V.G.; Gura, D.A.; Kondratenko, L.N. Formation of a Hierarchical System of Urban Planning Control
Automation of Architectural Work. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control. Syst. 2020, 12, 1520–1526. [CrossRef]
34. Washington, P.; Samuel-Gama, K.G.; Goyal, S.; Ramaswami, A.; Riedel-Kruse, I.H. Interactive programming paradigm for
real-time experimentation with remote living matter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 5411–5419. [CrossRef]
35. Abd Rashid, M.N.; Abdullah, M.R.; Ismail, D. Key Elements Towards Automation and Robotics in Industrialised Building System
(IBS). In Proceedings of the ASEAN Post Graduate Conference (APGC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15 November 2018.
36. Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oke, A.E.; Thwala, W.D. Mapping out Research Focus for Robotics and Automation Research
in Construction-Related Studies: A Bibliometric Approach. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 18, 1063–1079. [CrossRef]
37. Khan, M.B.; Waqar, A.; Bheel, N.; Shafiq, N.; Sor, N.H.; Radu, D.; Benjeddou, O. Optimization of Fresh and Mechanical
Characteristics of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Composites Using Response Surface Technique. Buildings 2023, 13, 852.
[CrossRef]
38. Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; Shafiq, N.; Mansoor, M.S. Applications of AI in oil and gas projects towards sustainable development: A
systematic literature review. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2023, 1–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Flechsig, C.; Anslinger, F.; Lasch, R. Robotic Process Automation in purchasing and supply management: A multiple case study
on potentials, barriers, and implementation. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2021, 28, 100718. [CrossRef]
40. Choudhary, R.; Karmel, A. Robotic Process Automation. In Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2022.
41. Grešová, E.; Svetlík, J. Mathematical Modeling of the Manufacturing Sector’s Dominant Part as a Base for Automation. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 3295. [CrossRef]
42. Balaguer, C. Nowadays Trends in Robotics and Automation in Construction Industry: Transition from Hard to Soft Robotics. In
Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, 28 June–1 July
2017.
43. Elzomor, M.; Pradhananga, P.; Santi, G.; Vassigh, S. Preparing the Future Workforce of Architecture, Engineering, and Construction
for Robotic Automation Processes. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–24
June 2020.
44. Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; Almujibah, H.; Khan, M.B.; Alotaibi, S.; Elhassan, A.A.M. Factors Influencing Adoption of Digital Twin
Advanced Technologies for Smart City Development: Evidence from Malaysia. Buildings 2023, 13, 775. [CrossRef]
45. Waqar, A.; Qureshi, A.H.; Alaloul, W.S. Barriers to Building Information Modeling (BIM) Deployment in Small Construction
Projects: Malaysian Construction Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2477. [CrossRef]
46. Yan, R.-J.; Kayacan, E.; Chen, I.-M.; Tiong, L.K.; Wu, J. QuicaBot: Quality Inspection and Assessment Robot. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Sci. Eng. 2018, 16, 506–517. [CrossRef]
47. Mikheev, G.V.; Soloveva, E.V.; Yanovskaya, E.D.; Guzhev, A.Y.; Barna, A.R. Research of robotics and automation of construction
processes in Russia. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1103, 012020. [CrossRef]
48. Kramberger, A.; Kunic, A.; Iturrate, I.; Sloth, C.; Naboni, R.; Schlette, C. Robotic Assembly of Timber Structures in a Human-Robot
Collaboration Setup. Front. Robot. AI 2022, 8, 395. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Moffitt, K.C.; Rozario, A.M.; Vasarhelyi, M.A. Robotic Process Automation for Auditing. J. Emerg. Technol. Account. 2018, 15, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 1663 27 of 27

50. Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; Skrzypkowski, K.; Ghumman, A.S.M. Evaluation of Success of Superhydrophobic Coatings in the Oil and
Gas Construction Industry Using Structural Equation Modeling. Coatings 2023, 13, 526. [CrossRef]
51. Waqar, A.; Othman, I.; Pomares, J.C. Impact of 3D Printing on the Overall Project Success of Residential Construction Projects
Using Structural Equation Modelling. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3800. [CrossRef]
52. Waqar, A.; Bheel, N.; Almujibah, H.R.; Benjeddou, O.; Alwetaishi, M.; Ahmad, M.; Sabri, M.M.S. Effect of Coir Fibre Ash
(CFA) on the strengths, modulus of elasticity and embodied carbon of concrete using response surface methodology (RSM) and
optimization. Results Eng. 2023, 17, 100883. [CrossRef]
53. Waqar, A.; Bheel, N.; Shafiq, N.; Othman, I.; Khan, M.B.; Mansoor, M.S.; Benjeddou, O.; Yaseen, G. Effect of volcanic pumice
powder ash on the properties of cement concrete using response surface methodology. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2023, 8, 17.
[CrossRef]
54. Nawaz, N. Robotic Process Automation for Recruitment Process. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Technol. 2019, 10. [CrossRef]
55. Turner, C.J.; Oyekan, J.; Stergioulas, L.; Griffin, D. Utilizing Industry 4.0 on the Construction Site: Challenges and Opportunities.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 17, 746–756. [CrossRef]
56. Akinradewo, O.; Oke, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Mashangoane, M. Willingness to Adopt Robotics and Construction Automation in the
South African Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, Pretoria/Johannesburg, South Africa, 29 October–1 November 2018.
57. Son, H.; Kim, C.; Kim, H.; Han, S.H.; Kim, M.K. Trend analysis of research and development on automation and robotics
technology in the construction industry. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2010, 14, 131–139. [CrossRef]
58. Griffin, A.; Hughes, R.; Freeman, C.; Illingworth, J.; Hodgson, T.; Lewis, M.; Perez, E. Using advanced manufacturing technology
for smarter construction. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2019, 172, 15–21. [CrossRef]
59. Mascaro, R.; Wermelinger, M.; Hutter, M.; Chli, M. Towards automating construction tasks: Large-scale object mapping,
segmentation, and manipulation. J. Field Robot. 2020, 38, 684–699. [CrossRef]
60. Wagner, H.J.; Alvarez, M.; Groenewolt, A.; Menges, A. Towards digital automation flexibility in large-scale timber construction:
Integrative robotic prefabrication and co-design of the BUGA Wood Pavilion. Constr. Robot. 2020, 4, 187–204. [CrossRef]
61. Madakam, S.; Holmukhe, R.M.; Jaiswal, D.K. The Future Digital Work Force: Robotic Process Automation (RPA). JISTEM J. Inf.
Syst. Technol. Manag. 2019, 16, 1–17. [CrossRef]
62. Santos, F.; Pereira, R.; de Vasconcelos, J.B. Toward robotic process automation implementation: An end-to-end perspective. Bus.
Process Manag. J. 2019, 26, 405–420. [CrossRef]
63. Dai, R.; Kerber, E.; Reuter, F.; Stumm, S.; Brell-Cokcan, S. The digitization of the automated steel construction through the
application of microcontrollers and MQTT. Constr. Robot. 2020, 4, 251–259. [CrossRef]
64. Siderska, J. The Adoption of Robotic Process Automation Technology to Ensure Business Processes during the COVID-19
Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8020. [CrossRef]
65. Cooper, L.A.; Holderness, D.K.; Sorensen, T.L.; Wood, D.A. Robotic Process Automation in Public Accounting. Account. Horiz.
2019, 33, 15–35. [CrossRef]
66. Enriquez, J.G.; Jiméinez-Ramírez, A.; Dominguez-Mayo, F.J.; Garcia-Garcia, J.A. Robotic Process Automation: A Scientific and
Industrial Systematic Mapping Study. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 39113–39129. [CrossRef]
67. Syed, R.; Suriadi, S.; Adams, M.; Bandara, W.; Leemans, S.J.; Ouyang, C.; ter Hofstede, A.H.; van de Weerd, I.; Wynn, M.T.; Reijers,
H.A. Robotic Process Automation: Contemporary themes and challenges. Comput. Ind. 2019, 115, 103162. [CrossRef]
68. Siderska, J. Robotic Process Automation—A driver of digital transformation? Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2020, 12, 21–31. [CrossRef]
69. Tankova, T.; da Silva, L.S. Robotics and Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry. Curr. Robot. Rep. 2020, 1, 13–18.
[CrossRef]
70. Aparicio, C.C.; Balzan, A.; Trabucco, D. Robotics in Construction: Framework and Future Directions. Int. J. High-Rise Build. 2020,
9, 105–111. [CrossRef]
71. Pan, Y.; Zhang, L. Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: A critical review and future trends.
Autom. Constr. 2020, 122, 103517. [CrossRef]
72. Yablonina, M.; Ringley, B.; Brugnaro, G.; Menges, A. Soft Office: A human–robot collaborative system for adaptive spatial
configuration. Constr. Robot. 2021, 5, 23–33. [CrossRef]
73. Reichenbach, S.; Kromoser, B. State of practice of automation in precast concrete production. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102527.
[CrossRef]
74. Ranganathan, G.; Smys, S. Survey on robot process automation application in various industries. J. Electr. Eng. Autom. 2019, 1,
113–122. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.