Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Knowledge-based decision support system for prefabricated prefinished T

volumetric construction
⁎
Bon-Gang Hwanga, Ming Shanb, , Kit-Ying Looic
a
Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore
b
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, 68 South Shaoshan Road, Changsha 410004, China
c
Quantity Surveyor, Arcadis Singapore Pte. Ltd., 1 Magazine Road, #05-01 Central Mall, Singapore 059567, Singapore

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) has gained considerable attention worldwide in the
Prefabrication past few years, decision-making for implementing PPVC becomes critical. As a result, this study aims to (1)
Prefabricated prefinished volumetric identify the key decision-making factors (DMFs) for the adoption of PPVC, (2) propose a scoring approach that
construction can assess the feasibility of using PPVC for a given project, and (3) develop a Knowledge-Based Decision Support
Decision-making
System for Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (KBDSS-PPVC) that can facilitate the decision-
Decision support system
making for PPVC implementation. To achieve these goals, a comprehensive literature review and pilot inter-
Singapore
views with industry experts were conducted first, followed by a structured questionnaire administered to 41
construction organizations in Singapore. Results of the questionnaire reported 19 DMFs of PPVC, which were
then used to create the PPVC scoring approach. Subsequently, the KBDSS-PPVC was developed using the created
PPVC scoring approach. Lastly, a panel of industry experts validated the developed KBDSS-PPVC, by utilizing the
tool for their current construction projects. Validation results showed that the developed system could provide
reliable recommendations for the industry practitioners on the decision-making of PPVC. Existing literature has
seldom addressed the decision-making of PPVC, therefore, this study bridges the knowledge gap and contributes
to the current body of knowledge. Furthermore, the developed KBDSS-PPVC would be useful to the industry
practitioners as well, because it can help them achieve a better and easier decision-making of PPVC.

1. Introduction transported to the construction site for installation [4,17,18]. Unlike

Off-site construction refers to a process where building elements,
components, and modules are manufactured and assembled in off-site
factories and then transported to site for installation [1,2]. Compared to
traditional construction approaches, off-site construction is more in-
novative and clean because it can improve the continuity and pro-
ductivity of workflow significantly [3, 4], minimize the construction
wastes [5], reduce the number of on-site trade contractors [6], and
reduce construction durations [7]. Given the numerous benefits, off-site
construction has been highly recognized by the global construction
community in recent years. The process has been widely used by con-
struction industries in many countries and regions, such as Hong Kong
[8], Spain [9], Australia [10], Singapore [11], China [12,13], the
United Kingdom [14], and the United States [15,16].
Prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) is a ty-
pical off-site construction method. It is a production process where
modules complete (nearly 85–90%) with finishes for walls, floors, and
ceilings are built and manufactured in off-site factories first and then
conventional construction methods that are often executed in a con-
secutive manner, PPVC allows works to proceed concurrently. There-
fore, it can reduce the construction schedule significantly. Furthermore,
as PPVC allows the modules to be manufactured in off-site factories, it
can also provide the workers with a pleasant working environment
[19]. This method is particularly suitable for built structures with re-
petitive design features, such as hotels, apartments, student residences,
hospitals, and prisons [4].
In view of its significant benefits, developers and contractors have
become increasingly interested in PPVC and the possibility of its im-
plementation in their projects [20,21]. However, prior to making the
decision, developers and contractors need to examine the compatibility
of PPVC and their projects. This study focuses on the decision-making
for PPVC in building and construction projects. In this context, there are
three questions that warrant consideration. First, what are the key de-
cision-making factors (DMFs) for adopting PPVC in building and con-
struction projects? This study hypothesizes that there are some parti-
cular DMFs for PPVC, which are different from those for general off-site

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bdghbg@nus.edu.sg (B.-G. Hwang), ming.shan@csu.edu.cn (M. Shan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.06.016
Received 8 December 2017; Received in revised form 14 June 2018; Accepted 26 June 2018
Available online 04 July 2018
0926-5805/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B.-G. Hwang et al. Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178

Table 1
Potential DMFs of PPVC.
No. Potential DMF A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

1 Suitability of design for modularization √ √ √

2 Presence of repetitive layout in design √ √ √ √
3 Number of stories √
4 Building exterior type √
5 Structural stability of individual and assembled modules √ √ √
6 Need for inspection/supervision of manufacturing units √ √ √
7 Lead time for fabricated modules √ √ √
8 Module's size √ √ √
9 Site accessibility √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
10 Transportation equipment availability √ √ √ √ √ √
11 Construction equipment availability √ √ √ √ √ √
12 On-site labor availability √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
13 Labor cost at site location √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
14 Availability of production information, skilled workforce and experienced team √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
15 Availability of experienced labor force in factory environment √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
16 Site location √ √ √ √ √
17 Availability of manufacturing plants/facilities within economical transport distance √ √ √ √ √ √
18 Organization's familiarity with PPVC √ √ √ √ √
19 Early involvement of top management √ √ √ √ √
20 Use of information and communication technology (e.g., BIM) √ √
21 Size and type of project √ √ √
22 Need for expediting the schedule √ √ √ √ √ √ √
23 Overall project timescale √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
24 Certainty of project completion date √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
25 Certainty of project cost √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
26 Minimizing labor and plant cost on site √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
27 High standard quality of both internal and external finishes of building √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
28 Reduction in defects of product/facility √ √ √ √ √ √
29 Improved construction safety √ √ √ √ √ √ √
30 Reducing environmental impact through the reduction of site activities √ √ √ √ √ √ √
31 Reducing neighborhood disruption and noise √ √ √ √ √ √
32 Reducing traffic movement to/from site which cause less neighborhood pollution and congestion √ √ √ √ √ √

Note: A = Construction Industry Institute [46]; B = Murtaza, et al. [34]; C = Gibb and Isack [37]; D = Blismas, et al. [47]; E = Pan, et al. [38]; F = Tam, et al. [45];
G = Pan, et al. [39]; H = Scofield, et al. [48]; I = Chen, et al. [35]; J = McGraw Hill [49]; K = Pan and Sidwell [30]; L = Azhar, et al. [41]; M = Rahman [43];
N = Elnaas [50]; O = Zhai, et al. [36]; P = Mao, et al. [12]; Q = Lee and Kim [51]; R = Liu, et al. [52]; S = Wong, et al. [40].

Table 2 Table 3
DMFs affecting the adoption of PPVC method. Profile of the respondents.
Code Decision-making factors Respondent Profile Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative
Percentage (%)
DMF1 Suitability of design for PPVC
DMF2 Presence of repetitive layout in design Respondent's Institution
DMF3 Number of stories Governmental agency 1 3 3
DMF4 Structural stability of individual and assembled modules Developer 5 12 15
DMF5 Need for inspection/supervision of manufactured units Construction company 21 51 66
DMF6 Lead time for PPVC modules Consultancy 6 15 81
DMF7 PPVC module's size Architectural firm 3 7 88
DMF8 Site layout (e.g. availability of storage space for PPVC modules/ Quantity Surveyor 2 5 93
availability of sufficient space to unload) PPVC Supplier/ 3 7 100
DMF9 Site location Manufacturer
DMF10 Availability of skilled labor and experienced supervising team Respondent's occupation
DMF11 Availability of transportation equipment Architect 4 10 10
DMF12 Availability of construction equipment Engineer 13 32 42
DMF13 Organization's familiarity with PPVC method Project Manager 7 17 59
DMF14 Use of information and communication technology (e.g. BIM) Quantity Surveyor 9 22 81
DMF15 Size and type of the project (i.e. project scope) Facility Manager 8 19 100
DMF16 Shorter construction duration at site Years of experiences in the
DMF17 Improved construction safety construction industry
DMF18 Reducing environmental impact through the reduction of site activities 1–4 years 16 39 39
DMF19 Reducing neighborhood disruption and noise 5–9 years 7 17 56
> 10 years 18 44 100
Years of experiences with
PPVC projects
construction methods. Second, how would these factors affect the de-
< 1 year 27 66 66
cision-making of PPVC? Third, is it possible to develop a convenient, 2 years 9 22 88
computer-aided tool for industry practitioners to facilitate their deci- 3 years 5 12 100
sion-making of PPVC? To answer these questions, this study identified
the key decision-making factors (DMFs) affecting the use of PPVC,
proposed a scoring approach that could assess the feasibility of using (KBDSS-PPVC).
PPVC for a given project, and developed a Knowledge-Based Decision This research study was conducted in the context of Singapore.
Support System for Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction Being a city-state with a limited working age population [22], Singa-
pore gives significant value to production approaches that require less

169
B.-G. Hwang et al. Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178

Table 4
Assessment of the DMFs of PPVC.
Code DMF Rank Mean Shapiro-Wilk test (p-value) Kruskal-Wallis test (p-value)

⁎
DMF2 Presence of repetitive layout in design 1 4.59 0.000 0.179
DMF1 Suitability of design for PPVC 2 4.34 0.000⁎ 0.151
DMF4 Structural stability of individual and assembled modules 3 4.05 0.000⁎ 0.770
DMF6 Lead time for PPVC modules 4 4.05 0.000⁎ 0.712
DMF8 Site layout 5 3.98 0.000⁎ 0.513
DMF7 PPVC module's size 6 3.95 0.000⁎ 0.283
DMF16 Shorter construction duration on site 7 3.95 0.000⁎ 0.588
DMF10 Availability of skilled labor and experienced supervising team 8 3.90 0.000⁎ 0.760
DMF13 Organization's familiarity with PPVC method 8 3.90 0.000⁎ 0.682
DMF19 Reducing neighborhood disruption and noise 10 3.85 0.000⁎ 0.848
DMF3 Number stories 11 3.80 0.000⁎ 0.385
DMF12 Availability of construction equipment 11 3.80 0.000⁎ 0.137
DMF17 Improved construction safety 11 3.80 0.000⁎ 0.195
DMF18 Reducing environmental impact through the reduction of site activities 11 3.80 0.000⁎ 0.779
DMF14 Use of information and communication technology (e.g. BIM) 15 3.76 0.000⁎ 0.504
DMF15 Size and type of the project (i.e. project scope) 15 3.76 0.000⁎ 0.205
DMF5 Need for inspection/supervision of manufactured units 17 3.73 0.000⁎ 0.945
DMF11 Availability of transportation equipment 17 3.73 0.000⁎ 0.919
DMF9 Site location 19 3.56 0.000⁎ 0.935

⁎
The Shapiro-Wilk test was significant at the significance level of 0.05, suggesting the data were not normally distributed.

manpower. PPVC is a lean production approach requiring less work-
force than conventional construction approaches [23] and hence, PPVC
is highly recognized by the Singapore government and has been ac-
tively promoted in the country for the past few years [24,25]. To date,
several PPVC projects have been successfully executed in Singapore.
Examples include but are not limited to the Crown Plaza Changi Airport
Hotel Extension [26], and the North Hill Residential Halls of Nanyang
Technological University [27]. Moreover, as planned by the Singapore
government, more PPVC projects are expected to be implemented in
Singapore in the near future. This is because the local authority has
aimed to construct nearly 35% of the newly launched public housing
projects in Singapore using the PPVC approach by 2019 [28]. As a re-
sult, Singapore is the right and suitable context for conducting this
research.
PPVC is an emerging off-site construction method and in-depth re-
search of this innovative approach in the existing literature is lacking.
Thus, this study can contribute to the current body of knowledge on off-
site construction research through the addition of literature on PPVC.
This study would also be beneficial to the practice, as the study findings
can help industry practitioners enhance their understanding of
PPVC·Furthermore, the KBDSS-PPVC developed in this study can
greatly facilitate the decision-making of PPVC for the industry practi-
tioners.
2. Background
2.1. PPVC
According to the definition of the Building and Construction
Authority (BCA) [24], PPVC is a construction method whereby free-
standing volumetric modules (complete with finishes for walls, floors,
and ceilings) are manufactured and assembled in an accredited fabri-
cation facility in accordance with any accredited fabrication method,
and then transported to site and installed to form a building. In com-
parison with conventional construction methods where design, en-
gineering, and construction activities are consecutive, PPVC allows
works to be done in parallel [24]. Thus, it can expedite the project
implementation significantly and thereby increase productivity [29].
Furthermore, PPVC can bring tangible cost savings through a reduction
in on-site manpower and equipment requirement when compared to
conventional construction methods [30]. Moreover, by carrying out the
majority of the work in a controlled, factory environment, PPVC is also
able to provide a healthier and safer working environment for workers,
which addresses the safety concern of construction projects successfully
[23]. Despite criticism that the overuse of PPVC would result in a loss of
aesthetic value for buildings, the advantages of PPVC make it an at-
tractive proposition for the global construction community [19,31].
2.2. PPVC in Singapore
Since 2010, BCA Singapore has launched two rounds of
Construction Productivity Roadmap (1st in 2010 and 2nd in 2015)
aimed at improving productivity in the local construction industry [32].
Particularly, the 2nd Construction Productivity Roadmap BCA high-
lighted prefabrication as one of the main directions that the local
construction industry should pursue [19]. In recent years, BCA has been
actively promoting the PPVC approach. For example, BCA stipulated
that from 1 November 2014 the adoption of PPVC method would be one
of the land sale conditions for some selected land parcels under the
Government Land Sales Program [24]. In 2015, BCA [33] further re-
quired that, for the developments of these selected land parcels, the
minimum level of use of PPVC should be 65% of the total constructed
floor area (including all floors except the basement and any floor area
built for use as a roof or car park). Moreover, BCA [24] has set up an
acceptance framework recently to certify each PPVC supplier and
manufacturer in order to ensure the reliability and durability of the
different PPVC systems used at mandated development sites. In addi-
tion to BCA, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) of Singapore is
another local authority who has an interest in PPVC. HDB deems PPVC
as a productive and helpful instrument for the development of HDB
apartments [19]. Furthermore, it is reported that HDB has carried out a
series of research initiatives funding the development of an integrated,
automatic PPVC production system [19]. In summary, PPVC is being
actively promoted in Singapore with patronage from the local autho-
rities.
2.3. Decision-making factors for the adoption of PPVC
Given the limited amount of research on PPVC, the decision-making
factors (DMFs) for the adoption of PPVC can hardly be identified from
literature directly. However, there is considerable documentation on
general off-site construction methods, which is highly relevant to PPVC.
As a result, this study conducted a comprehensive literature review of
the research conducted on general off-site construction methods, to
identify the DMFs that may affect the adoption of PPVC.
The literature review showed that several studies had done excellent

170
B.-G. Hwang et al. Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178

Table 6

0.000⁎
0.003⁎
0.031⁎
0.018⁎
0.005⁎
0.032⁎
DMF9

0.136
0.058
0.135
0.256
0.260
0.132
0.349
0.360
0.450
0.464
0.480
0.231
PPVC scores of different DMFs at different assessment levels.

–
DMF Mean Maximum Score of PPVC Assessment Levels of DMF
DMF11

0.000⁎
0.006⁎

0.044⁎
0.070

0.153
0.145
0.285
0.353
0.377
0.506
0.860
0.477
0.637
0.593
0.861
0.878
0.987
1 2 3 4 5

–
DMF1 4.34 6 1 2 3 5 6
DMF2 4.59 6 1 2 4 5 6
0.000⁎
0.003⁎
0.035⁎
DMF5

0.051
0.174
0.230
0.349
0.271
0.490
0.527
0.793
0.665
0.785
0.749
0.969
0.873
DMF3 3.80 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF4 4.05 5 1 2 3 4 5

–
DMF5 3.73 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF6 4.05 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF15

0.000⁎
0.005⁎
0.171
0.171
0.202
0.277
0.293
0.404
0.565
0.685
0.748
0.802
0.914
0.834
0.904
DMF7 3.95 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF8 3.98 5 1 2 3 4 5

–
DMF9 3.56 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF10 3.90 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF14

0.000⁎
0.009⁎

DMF11 3.73 5 1 2 3 4 5
0.062
0.119
0.287
0.185
0.469
0.463
0.435
0.541
0.906
0.744
0.692
0.654

DMF12 3.80 5 1 2 3 4 5
–

DMF13 3.76 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF14 3.76 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF18

0.000⁎
0.016⁎

DMF15 4.34 5 1 2 3 4 5
0.135
0.165
0.375
0.378
0.555
0.746
0.678
0.695
0.967
0.905
0.888

DMF16 3.95 5 1 2 3 4 5
–

The Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test was significant at the significance level of 0.05, suggesting the two compared variables were statistically different. DMF17 3.80 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF18 3.80 5 1 2 3 4 5
DMF17

DMF19 3.85 5 1 2 3 4 5
0.000⁎
0.007⁎
0.242
0.114
0.357
0.367
0.448
0.650
0.711
0.770
0.981
1.000

DMF20 3.90 5 1 2 3 4 5
–

Total 100
DMF12

0.000⁎
0.012⁎
0.159
0.094
0.311
0.330
0.513
0.669
0.494
0.707
0.905

work in investigating the factors affecting the adoption of general off-

–

site construction methods. Murtaza, et al. [34] summarized a compre-

hensive list of DMFs regarding the adoption of modular construction
0.000⁎
0.007⁎
DMF3

0.224
0.139
0.388
0.412
0.329
0.519
0.485
0.709

method and categorized them into five groups: plant location, en-
–

vironmental and organizational factors, plant characteristics, labor

consideration, and project risks. Chen, et al. [35] investigated the DMFs
DMF19

0.001⁎
0.026⁎

influencing the use of prefabrication method in concrete buildings and

0.402
0.342
0.537
0.683
0.677
0.892
0.857

grouped them into four types: project characteristics, site conditions,

–

market attributes, and local regulations. Zhai, et al. [36] examined the
factors affecting the off-site production of housing construction in
DMF13

0.000⁎
0.008⁎
0.292
0.330
0.706
0.749
0.768
0.864

China and found that the six principal factors were regarding con-
–

structability implementation, social climate and attitudes, architectural

performance, costing, supply chain, and preparatory work, respectively.
DMF10

0.000⁎
0.018⁎
0.385
0.351
0.646
0.582
0.788

Compared to those particularly looking into the DMFs, much more

research efforts were undertaken to investigate the drivers, constraints,
–

challenges, barriers, and limitations of the general off-site construction

DMF16

methods. As these items can affect the adoption of general off-site

0.000⁎
0.019⁎
0.493
0.569
0.633
0.807

construction methods, they were also included in the literature review

–

to help identify the DMFs of PPVC. Gibb and Isack [37] investigated the
drivers that would affect the use of pre-assembly construction method
0.000⁎
0.016⁎
DMF7

0.275
0.432
0.975

in construction projects, from the perspective of clients. They found

–

these drivers were: less congestion on site, time, cost, quality and
productivity benefits through minimization of on-site operations and
Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test on DMFs of PPVC.

0.001⁎
DMF8

0.065
0.577
0.618

duration, improved construction health and safety, and more pre-

–

dictable construction quality. These drivers were also concurred by Pan,

et al. [38] and Pan, et al. [39] in their studies examining the views of
0.001⁎
0.045⁎
DMF6

0.891

house builders' on using off-site construction method. Wong, et al. [40]

identified a group of drivers for the increased use of prefabrication in
–

construction projects, which included shortened construction period,

0.001⁎

construction cost savings, improvement in construction quality, re-

DMF4

0.096

duced labor inputs, safer work environment, and the reduction of waste
–

and pollution. Azhar et al. [41] identified and assessed the constraints
associated with the adoption of modular construction, and the top six
0.012⁎
DMF1

constraints were revealed as key decisions of construction methods

–

made by designers without the involvement of contractors, the wrong

perception of modular construction from the owner, non-availability of
DMF2

prefabrication unit in the project vicinity, restricted site layout, de-

–

creased flexibility for changes during project implementation, and dif-

ficulty in carrying out onsite modifications. Similarly, Arashpour et al.
DMF16
DMF10
DMF13
DMF19

DMF12
DMF17
DMF18
DMF14
DMF15

DMF11
Table 5

DMF2
DMF1
DMF4
DMF6
DMF8
DMF7

DMF3

DMF5

DMF9

[5] summarized the constraints in using the off-site construction ap-

⁎

proach, which include longer lead times due to a lack of coordination

171
B.-G. Hwang et al. Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178

Knowledge Base Decision Support System

19 DMFs of PPVC The Calculation of PPVC Score

Recommended Provide recommended action plans

Action Plans based on different PPVC Scores

User Interface

Introduction and Instruction of KBDSS-PPVC

Input
Project Profile and Assessment to the 19 DMFs
on the Given Project
Output
PPVC Score for the Given Project

Recommended action plans

Fig. 1. Architecture of KBDSS-PPVC.

Table 7
Proposed recommended action items.
Computed PPVC Score Action Items
< 60 (Basic) Consider the use of conventional construction method
60–80 (Intermediate) Revisit building design and modify accordingly if
needed
Appoint PPVC specialist builders and experts with
relevant experiences
Use past projects (local and/or overseas) as references
> 80 (Advanced) Ensure active participation and commitments of project
stakeholders in early stage
Arrange site visits and factory tours for better
understanding prior to construction and production
Appoint PPVC specialist builders and experts with
relevant experiences
Establish a consistent quality assurance and quality
control system to make sure that the modules
prefabricated overseas are of the required standard and
the predetermined dimensions.
skills and experience, market demands, tools and standards, industry-
related issues, inflexibility, and project-specific issues. Chiang et al. [8]
investigated the barriers that hinder off-site construction method to be
adopted in the public housing construction sector of Hong Kong. These
were identified to be: difficulties in transporting heavy and bulky pre-
fabricated modules, gaining access to buildings for large modules, ad-
ditional labor training, and poor jointing of prefabricated. Jaillon and
Poon [44] surveyed construction professionals in Hong Kong who ex-
pressed that site storage and access, increased time for design, and the
lack of flexibility were the major limitations to the adoption of pre-
fabrication. Tam et al. [45] investigated the hindrances in applying
prefabrication, and the top three hindrances were found to be inflexible
for design changes, lack of research information, and higher initial
construction cost. Based on the comprehensive literature review pre-
sented above, 32 DMFs affecting the adoption of PPVC were identified
as shown in Table 1.

2.4. KBDSS
between on-site demand and off-site construction, higher maintenance
Technically, KBDSS is an integration of an expert system and a de-
costs for end users caused by low utilization of expensive manu-
cision support system [53]. An expert system is a computer program
facturing resources, and inconsistent quality due to high variety of
that includes a knowledge base containing experts' knowledge for a
customized products and inefficient floor control.
particular problem domain and a reasoning mechanism for generating
Kamali and Hewage [42] reviewed the challenges for using the
inferences over the knowledge base, emulating the decision-making
modular construction method and found that the main challenges were
ability of a human expert [54]. In comparison, decision support system
attributable to project planning, transportation restraints, negative
is an interactive, computer-based information system that intended to
perceptions from the public, site constraints, high initial cost, and in-
help decision makers compile useful information from a combination of
creased coordination and communication required. Mao et al. [12]
raw data, documents, and personal knowledge, or business models to
examined the major barriers that impede the use of offsite construction
identify and solve problems and make decisions [55]. Integrating the
method in the Chinese construction industry. They found that the top
expert system with the decision support system, KBDSS is a computer
three major barriers were the absence of government incentives and
information system that provides information and methodological
regulations, the extremely high upfront cost, and practitioners' depen-
knowledge using analytical decision models to support decision makers
dence on conventional construction methods. Similarly, Rahman [43]
in making effective judgements in a complex and ill-structured problem
conducted a critical review to investigate the barriers to the im-
domain [56,57]. KBDSS has considerable merits, for example, it em-
plementation of modern construction methods (mostly are off-site
phasizes flexibility and adaptability to accommodate changes in the
construction methods). This study found that the barriers mainly lie in
environment and the decision-making approach of the user [58]. Fur-
eight perspectives including cost-related issues, motivation and culture,
thermore, it usually has a friendly interactive user interface which

172
B.-G. Hwang et al.
Fig. 2. User interface – introduction and instruction of KBDSS-PPVC.
enables easy usage for even non-computer-proficient people [59].
Given these merits, KBDSS has been widely used to tackle a variety of
tasks in the building and construction domain, including the selection
of soil improvement method [60], site selection for residential land
development [61], prequalification of design-builder [62], construction
enterprise risk management [53,56] and urban planning management
[63,64]. Moreover, KBDSS has also found applications in building en-
velop assessment [65], variation order management [58], roadway
safety analysis [66], and also home energy retrofits [67]. As a result,
KBDSS would be a good choice to developing a decision-making tool of
PPVC.
3. Research methodology and data presentation
The research process of this study consisted of the following six
steps. Step 1 was to conduct a comprehensive literature review to
identify the DMFs of PPVC. Step 2 was to carry out pilot interviews with
industry experts to verify the DMFs identified by literature review. Step
3 was to administer a questionnaire to industry practitioners in order to
capture their assessments of the verified DMFs. At Step 4, a PPVC
scoring approach that can assess the feasibility of using PPVC for a
given project was created, using the data collected by the questionnaire.
At Step 5, a KBDSS-PPVC was developed in the platform of Microsoft
Excel, using the programing language of Microsoft Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) and the PPVC scoring approach created at Step 4.
Lastly, at Step 6, validation of the developed KBDSS-PPVC was per-
formed with industry experts. The six research steps are elaborated
further below.
First, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify
the DMFs of PPVC and subsequently 32 DMFs were identified, as pre-
sented in Table 1. Following the literature review, pilot interviews were
conducted with three industry experts having experiences in local PPVC
projects to verify the identified DMFs. According to the results of the
pilot interviews, 19 out of 32 DMFs were found to be relatively more
relevant to the decision-making of PPVC and thus were retained as the
DMFs of PPVC, as presented in Table 2. This result supported the hy-
pothesis of this study, that there are some particular DMFs for PPVC
different from those for general off-site construction methods. Then,
173
Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178
based on the 19 DMFs, a questionnaire consisting of two sections was
developed. The first section was to record the respondents' background
information including their employer types and their years of experi-
ence in the construction industry and the PPVC area. The second section
asked the respondents to assess the significance of the DMFs in deciding
the use of PPVC method, using a five-point rating scale (i.e., 1 = very
insignificant, 2 = insignificant, 3 = slightly significant, 4 = significant,
and 5 = very significant).
The potential respondents for the questionnaire are 100 institutions
(identified from the BCA Contractor Registration Systems) having ex-
perience in prefabrication projects in Singapore [68]. Soft copies of the
questionnaire were sent to these institutions via email in January 2017.
To ensure a high response number, phone calls and email reminders
were sent every week if the dispatched questionnaires were not re-
turned before the due date of the submission (31 January 2017). Fi-
nally, 41 responses were received, representing a response rate of 41%.
It is noteworthy that this response rate is relatively high as the normal
response rate for surveys in the construction industry is between 20 and
30% [69]. The profiles of the respondents and their institutions were
presented in Table 3. It is noteworthy that the respondents were from
different types of institutions such as governmental agencies, devel-
opers, construction companies, consultancies, architectural firms,
quantity surveyors, and PPVC supplier/manufacturers. In addition, the
respondents were from different occupational backgrounds including
project manager, architect, quantity surveyor, engineer, and facility
manager. The diversity and heterogeneity of the respondent panel can
ensure the quality and reliability of the collected data and thereby yield
some findings that are more reliable and convincing [70]. Although it
could be found from Table 3 that the majority of the respondents had
limited years of experience in PPVC projects, this could be explained by
the fact that PPVC was not introduced to Singapore until very recently
[24].
Using the data collected by the questionnaire, this study created a
PPVC scoring approach that can assess the feasibility of using PPVC for
a given project. Based on the PPVC scoring approach created, this study
then developed a KBDSS-PPVC in the platform of Microsoft Excel using
the programing language of Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications
(VBA). The combined use of Microsoft Excel and Microsoft VBA were
B.-G. Hwang et al.
Fig. 3. Input interface – assessment of DMFs for PPVC method.
due to the following considerations. First, Microsoft Excel is a basic and
essential office software widely available to the public and can thereby
make the Microsoft Excel-based KBDSS-PPVC easily accessible to mass
users [53]. Second, Microsoft VBA is a powerful programing language
that has been highly optimized to support rapid application develop-
ment, and most importantly, it is the programing language unique to
Microsoft Excel and other Office programs [71]. Furthermore, the Mi-
crosoft Excel-based KBDSS-PPVC will update automatically whenever
Microsoft updates its Excel software, which can save programmers from
the monotonous work of maintaining and upgrading the software [72].
After the KBDSS-PPVC was developed, four industry experts from
the Building Innovation Panel of Singapore were invited for system
validation. The Building Innovation Panel is a local government orga-
nization established to seek improvement in construction productivity
through various innovative technologies including PPVC [73].
174
Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178
Therefore, the four industry experts were familiar with PPVC and thus
were qualified for the validation. During the validation, the four experts
were first asked to rate the 19 DMFs on a scale of 1 to 5 for their current
projects using the developed KBDSS-PPVC. Then, they were requested
to comment on the results provided by the KBDSS-PPVC. Apart from
that, the experts were also requested to provide suggestions for possible
enhancements to the KBDSS-PPVC.
4. Key DMFs for PPVC and development of PPVC score
4.1. Key DMFs for PPVC
In construction engineering and management research, mean score
ranking is a widely used approach to prioritize variables [74,75]. Thus,
this study utilized mean score ranking technique to prioritize DMFs in
B.-G. Hwang et al.
Fig. 4. Output interface – recommended action plans.
Table 8
Validation results of KBDSS-PPVC.
Expert Project Name PPVC Project PPVC Score
A NTU Project Yes 92
B NTU Project Yes 85
C NUS Project No 57
D Condominium Project No 51
this study as presented in Table 4. It was found that DMF2 “presence of
repetitive layout in design”, DMF1 “suitability of design for PPVC”,
DMF4 “structural stability of individual and assembled modules”,
DMF6 “lead time for PPVC modules”, and DMF8 “site layout” were the
top five key DMFs. Furthermore, a series of statistical analysis methods
were employed to analyze the data collected by the questionnaire. As a
large number of statistical analysis tests require data to fall in a normal
distribution, Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted first to check the nor-
mality of the data, following the suggestions of Chou, et al. [76] and
Gel, et al. [77]. According to the test results presented in Table 4, the
data were not normally distributed, implying that only non-parametric
statistical methods could be used for data analysis. As the respondents
of the questionnaire had different backgrounds, it is necessary to con-
duct an inter-group comparison to check whether significant differences
exist among the respondents. As a result, Kruskal-Wallis test, a rank-
based non-parametric statistical test method widely used to compare
the differences between two or more groups [78,79], was conducted.
According to the test results in Table 4, no significant differences were
found among the respondents, suggesting that the data could be treated
as a whole for further analysis [78]. Furthermore, following the re-
commendation of Roberts, et al. [80], Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was
175
Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178
conducted to identify the most influential DMFs of PPVC. Wilcoxon
Signed-Rank test is also a non-parametric statistical test method and has
been widely used to compare two matched variables [81,82]. According
to the test results shown in Table 5, DMF2 “presence of repetitive layout
in design” and DMF1 “suitability of design for PPVC” were statistically
different from the rest DMFs, indicating they were the most influential
DMFs affecting the adoption of PPVC.
4.2. Development of the PPVC scoring approach
Following Caldas, et al. [83] who proposed a method to assess the
implementation level of the best productivity practices in industry
projects, the research team developed a PPVC scoring approach that can
assess the feasibility of using PPVC for a given project. The PPVC score
was generated from the assessments of the 19 DMFs given to a specific
project. The maximum attainable PPVC score for the project was set to
100, representing the project best suited for the adoption of PPVC
method (i.e., all DMFs have an assessment of 5); while the lowest score
was set to 19 (i.e., all DMFs have an assessment of 1), representing the
project completely unsuitable for PPVC.
As indicated in Table 4 earlier, the 19 DMFs were perceived dif-
ferently by the respondents in terms of importance, suggesting that
each of the DMFs influenced the adoption of PPVC differently. Thus, the
research team calculated the maximum PPVC scores of different DMFs
in accordance with their mean scores in Table 4, following the approach
of Caldas, et al. [83]. Specifically, the maximum PPVC score for the ith
DMF (i.e., Si5, the score corresponding to the assessment of 5) was
calculated with its mean score (i.e., Mi) using Eq. (1).
B.-G. Hwang et al.
Mi
Si5 = 19
× 100
∑i = 1 Mi (1)
Then, a score of 1 was given to the assessment of 1 for all the DMFs.
After that, the scores for the assessments of 2, 3, and 4 were calculated
using Eqs. (2) to (4) successively. Lastly, the PPVC score of the given
project was calculated using Eq. (5), i.e., by summing the scores of all
the 19 DMFs. To facilitate readers' understanding of the PPVC scoring
approach, Table 6 presented the PPVC scores of different DMFs at all
assessment levels.
Si5 − 1
Si2 = +1
4 (2)
Si5 − 1
Si3 = + Si2
4 (3)
Si5 − 1
Si 4 = + Si3
4 (4)
19
PPVC Score = ∑ Si
i=1 (5)
5. KBDSS-PPVC
5.1. Objectives of the KBDSS-PPVC
The specific objectives of the KBDSS-PPVC were to provide an op-
portunity for a project team to assess the feasibility of using PPVC for a
given project and provide the project team with some corresponding
recommendations based on the assessment results. It is expected that
this KBDSS-PPVC would aid the project team in obtaining a firm un-
derstanding of the suitability of their project for PPVC, thereby facil-
itating their decision-making on the adoption of PPVC. Furthermore, if
the project team decides to use PPVC, it is also expected that the re-
commendations provided by the KBDSS-PPVC could also help the
project team achieve a better implementation of PPVC in their project.
5.2. Architecture of the KBDSS-PPVC
The developed KBDSS-PPVC consisted of three main components: a
knowledge base, a decision support system, and a user interface, as
shown in Fig. 1.
5.2.1. Knowledge base
The knowledge base was a repository of the knowledge and ex-
perience of experts about the PPVC method. It included the 19 DMFs
identified by the literature review and pilot interviews. It also included
a group of recommended action items identified from existing litera-
ture. Furthermore, some recommendations obtained during the sub-
sequent system validation exercise were also included in the knowledge
base.
5.2.2. Decision support system
Based on the project team's inputs to the 19 DMFs, the decision
support system would calculate the PPVC score for the given project
using the scales listed in Table 6. It would also provide corresponding
action plans based on the computed PPVC score. The computed PPVC
score was categorized into three levels by the decision support system
as shown in Table 7. If the computed PPVC score was < 60, the decision
support system would recommend the project to use conventional
construction method instead of PPVC method. If the computed PPVC
score was between 60 and 80, the decision support system would re-
commend the project team: to revisit and modify the building design,
making it more suitable for PPVC method; to refer more to the similar
past projects using PPVC method; and to appoint PPVC specialists to
help the implementation of PPVC method. If the computed PPVC score
176
Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178
was > 80, the decision support system would recommend some actions
that could improve the implementation of PPVC method, such as en-
suring active participation and commitments of various project stake-
holders, arranging manufacturing plant tours and site visits, and ap-
pointing PPVC specialists. In this study, the majority of these
recommended actions were identified from existing off-site construc-
tion research (e.g., [41,43,45,84–86]) and then modified to suit the
context of the PPVC method. Apart from that, some actions were ob-
tained from the validations of the KBDSS-PPVC after it was developed.
5.2.3. User interface
The user interface allowed users to interact with the KBDSS-PPVC. It
was Excel-based and consisted of two sections. The first section pro-
vided a brief introduction of the KBDSS-PPVC as well as a concise user
guide. In addition, it allowed users to key in the project profile in-
formation as shown in Fig. 2. The second section allowed the users to
assess the 19 DMFs in the context of their project using a five-point
Likert rating scale. It also reported the computed PPVC score for the
project as shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, the second section contained a
dialogue message box that displayed the different recommended action
items for the users based on the computed PPVC score, as shown in
Fig. 4.
5.3. Validation
As introduced earlier, four experts from the Building Innovation
Panel of Singapore were invited to validate the developed KBDSS-PPVC.
The experts were working on three different building construction
projects at the time of validation. Specifically, Experts A and B were
working on a residential building construction project at the Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore (NTU Project for short thereafter),
which had adopted the PPVC method. Expert C was working on a multi-
purpose sports hall construction project at the National University of
Singapore (NUS Project for short thereafter) which did not adopt PPVC
method. Expert D was working on a condominium construction project
(Condominium Project for short thereafter) which did not adopt PPVC
either. The experts were requested to rate their projects using the de-
veloped KBDSS-PPVC. Table 8 presented the PPVC scores computed by
the KBDSS-PPVC. It was noted that the scores obtained from Experts A
and B were > 80, indicating the suitability of PPVC and the readiness of
the project team to embrace the method. Conversely, the scores ob-
tained from Experts C and D were < 60, suggesting the inappropriate-
ness of using PPVC method and the preference for the conventional
construction method. It was noted that the assessment results were in
line with the project teams' choices in reality, indicating that the de-
veloped KBDSS-PPVC was able to provide reliable recommendations for
the users in the industry.
Besides, the experts' opinion was elicited on the design of KBDSS-
PPVC, alongside a request for their suggestions for further enhance-
ments. All the experts recognized the developed KBDSS-PPVC and said
it did help them develop a better understanding of what they lack for
the implementation of PPVC and what can be done before the im-
plementation. The experts also agreed with the proposed re-
commendations in Table 7, especially the active participation among
project teams and factory tours. In addition to the compliment, the
experts also provided some comments and suggestions. Expert A em-
phasized the importance of appointing manufacturers with capability,
and Expert B suggested that a consistent quality assurance and quality
control system should be established to ensure modules prefabricated
overseas are of the required standard and predetermined dimensions.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
This study addressed the decision-making of PPVC, a typical type of
off-site construction method. Based on a comprehensive literature re-
view and pilot interviews with three experienced experts in the
B.-G. Hwang et al.
construction industry of Singapore, this study first identified 19 DMFs
that could affect the adoption of PPVC in building and construction
projects. Then, relying on the data collected by a questionnaire formed
by the 19 DMFs, this study created a PPVC scoring approach that could
assess the feasibility of using PPVC for some given project. After that,
utilizing the developed PPVC scoring approach, this study developed
KBDSS-PPVC, a knowledge-based decision support system that could
assist industry practitioners in making decisions of PPVC. Lastly, the
developed KBDSS-PPVC was validated by industry experts who re-
cognized it as a convenient and useful tool for the decision-making of
PPVC in building and construction projects.
Despite the fulfilment of the objectives, there are some limitations to
the conclusions drawn from the results. First, the sample size of the
questionnaire survey was relatively small. Thus, caution should be ex-
ercised when analysis results are interpreted and generalized. Second,
the DMFs and recommendations included in the developed KBDSS-
PPVC might not be exhaustive, even though close attention was paid in
the research methodology of the study to circumvent this problem.
The first contribution of this study is the provision of 19 DMFs of
PPVC that can be used to check the compatibility of PPVC with a given
project. These DMFs are arguably the first to be presented for the
construction industry and therefore add to the existing knowledge. In
addition, the KBDSS-PPVC is also the first computerized decision sup-
port tool developed for the decision-making of PPVC. Using the KBDSS-
PPVC, the management can clearly learn whether their project is sui-
table for PPVC and meanwhile, obtain some corresponding action plans
recommended by the KBDSS-PPVC, helping them make better decisions
relating to the adoption of PPVC. Hence, this study contributes to the
industrial practice as well. Although the findings from this study were
primarily derived from the context of Singapore, they are also applic-
able to other countries. This is because the DMFs identified in this study
relate more to the technical aspects of PPVC that are largely same in
other countries and regions. Nonetheless, while using the KBDSS-PPVC
in other countries, it should be noted that the weights of the DMFs need
to be recalculated using the approach proposed in this study, as those
DMFs might be differently perceived from Singapore.
For future research, it would be necessary to work on the best
practices in implementing PPVC projects. Furthermore, it would also be
interesting to examine the performances of the PPVC projects that have
been completed.
References
[1] C. Goodier, A. Gibb, Future opportunities for offsite in the UK, Constr. Manag. Econ.
25 (6) (2007) 585–595, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190601071821.
[2] W. Pan, C. Goodier, House-building business models and off-site construction take-
up, J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2) (2012) 84–93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.
1943-5568.0000058.
[3] C.Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G.Q. Shen, X. Xu, L. Luo, SWOT analysis and Internet of
things-enabled platform for prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong,
Habitat Int. 57 (2016) 74–87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.07.002.
[4] C. Mao, F. Xie, L. Hou, P. Wu, J. Wang, X. Wang, Cost analysis for sustainable off-
site construction based on a multiple-case study in China, Habitat Int. 57 (2016)
215–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.08.002.
[5] M. Arashpour, R. Wakefield, B. Abbasi, E.W.M. Lee, J. Minas, Off-site construction
optimization: sequencing multiple job classes with time constraints, Autom. Constr.
71 (Part 2) (2016) 262–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.001.
[6] L. Jaillon, C.S. Poon, Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in
dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study, Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (9)
(2008) 953–966, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190802259043.
[7] M. Arashpour, R. Wakefield, N. Blismas, J. Minas, Optimization of process in-
tegration and multi-skilled resource utilization in off-site construction, Autom.
Constr. 50 (2015) 72–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.12.002.
[8] Y.-H. Chiang, E.H.-W. Chan, L.K.-L. Lok, Prefabrication and barriers to entry—a
case study of public housing and institutional buildings in Hong Kong, Habitat Int.
30 (3) (2006) 482–499, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.12.004.
[9] O. Pons, G. Wadel, Environmental impacts of prefabricated school buildings in
Catalonia, Habitat Int. 35 (4) (2011) 553–563, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2011.03.005.
[10] S. Mostafa, N. Chileshe, Application of discrete-event simulation to investigate ef-
fects of client order behaviour on off-site manufacturing performance in Australia,
Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. (2017) 1–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2017.
177
Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178
1301367.
[11] P. Wu, S.P. Low, Lean management and low carbon emissions in precast concrete
factories in Singapore, J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2) (2012) 176–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000053.
[12] C. Mao, Q. Shen, W. Pan, K. Ye, Major barriers to off-site construction: the devel-
oper's perspective in China, J. Manag. Eng. 31 (3) (2015) 04014043, , http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000246.
[13] H. Xue, S. Zhang, Y. Su, Z. Wu, Factors affecting the capital cost of pre-
fabrication—a case study of China, Sustain. For. 9 (9) (2017) 1512, http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/su9091512.
[14] M.D. Taylor, A definition and valuation of the UK offsite construction sector, Constr.
Manag. Econ. 28 (8) (2010) 885–896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.
480976.
[15] J.T. O'Connor, W.J. O'Brien, J.O. Choi, Critical success factors and enablers for
optimum and maximum industrial modularization, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (6)
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000842.
[16] J. Song, W.R. Fagerlund, C.T. Haas, C.B. Tatum, J.A. Vanegas, Considering prework
on industrial projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131 (6) (2005) 723–733, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:6(723.
[17] M. Arif, C. Egbu, Making a case for offsite construction in China, Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manag. 17 (6) (2010) 536–548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
09699981011090170.
[18] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, Development of performance criteria for sustainability
evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods, J. Clean. Prod.
142 (Part 4) (2017) 3592–3606, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108.
[19] P.J. Lim, Industry practices need to change to benefit from advanced pre-fab
techniques: experts, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/industry-
practices-need-to-change-to-benefit-from-advanced-pre-f-8160454, (2016) ,
Accessed date: 12 May 2017.
[20] A. Australia Trade and Investment Commission, Prefab pods – Australia solution to
more efficient, less wasteful buildings!, https://www.austrade.gov.au/local-sites/
singapore/news/prefab-pods-australia-solution-to-more-efficient-less-wasteful-
buildings, (2018) , Accessed date: 23 March 2018.
[21] K. Ingram, Modular construction cast in leading 2017 role, https://www.
constructionnews.co.uk/analysis/expert-opinion/modular-construction-cast-in-
leading-2017-role/10015841.article, (2017) , Accessed date: 23 March 2018.
[22] S. Gao, S.P. Low, Lean Construction Management: The Toyota Way, (2014) ISBN:
9789812870131.
[23] B.-G. Hwang, M. Shan, K.-Y. Looi, Key constraints and mitigation strategies for
prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction, J. Clean. Prod. 183 (2018)
183–193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.136.
[24] S. BCA, Prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction, https://www.bca.gov.
sg/BuildableDesign/ppvc.html, (2017) , Accessed date: 30 March 2017.
[25] S. Ministry of National Development, Revolutionising the way we build with PPVC,
http://www.mnd.gov.sg/mndlink/2016/2016_Mar-Apr/revolutionising-the-way-
we-build-with-ppvc.htm, (2016) , Accessed date: 11 May 2017.
[26] S. Lim, Lego-like building method to speed up Crown Plaza Changi Airport hotel
extension, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/extension-crowne-plaza-
changi-airport-slated-completion-june, (2016) , Accessed date: 11 May 2017.
[27] S. Nanyang Technological University, NTU builds Singapore's first “Lego-style”
high-rise residences, http://media.ntu.edu.sg/NewsReleases/Pages/newsdetail.
aspx?news=a4153518-de12-41bd-93f8-c124800b5791, (2016) , Accessed date: 13
May 2017.
[28] S. Channel NewsAsia, HDB to expand use of prefabrication building methods in BTO
projects, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hdb-to-expand-use-
of-prefabrication-building-methods-in-bto-9189786, (2017) , Accessed date: 23
March 2018.
[29] I. Saad, BCA to expand buildability appraisal framework later this year, http://
www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bca-to-expand-buildability-appraisal-
framework-later-this-year-8205356, (2016) , Accessed date: 12 May 2017.
[30] W. Pan, R. Sidwell, Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK,
Constr. Manag. Econ. 29 (11) (2011) 1081–1099, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01446193.2011.637938.
[31] S. The Business Times, Balancing growth and change, http://www.businesstimes.
com.sg/hub/bt-salutes-enterprise-2016/balancing-growth-and-change, (2016) ,
Accessed date: 12 May 2017.
[32] R. Navaratnarajah, BCA's new roadmap to raise construction productivity, http://
www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-management-news/2016/10/138553/bcas-
new-roadmap-to-raise-construction-productivity, (2016) , Accessed date: 13 May
2017.
[33] S. BCA, Amendments to Building Control (Buildability and Productivity)
Regulations to Further Raise Productivity in the Built Environment Sector, https://
www.corenet.gov.sg/media/1588692/circular-on-amendments-to-buildability-
productivity-regs_30-nov-15.pdf, (2015) , Accessed date: 13 May 2017.
[34] M.B. Murtaza, D.J. Fisher, M.J. Skibniewski, Knowledge-based approach to modular
construction decision support, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 119 (1) (1993) 115–130,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:1(115.
[35] Y. Chen, G.E. Okudan, D.R. Riley, Decision support for construction method se-
lection in concrete buildings: prefabrication adoption and optimization, Autom.
Constr. 19 (6) (2010) 665–675, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.011.
[36] X. Zhai, R. Reed, A. Mills, Factors impeding the offsite production of housing
construction in China: an investigation of current practice, Constr. Manag. Econ. 32
(1–2) (2014) 40–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.787491.
[37] A. Gibb, F. Isack, Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client expectations and
drivers, Build. Res. Inf. 31 (2) (2003) 146–160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09613210302000.
B.-G. Hwang et al.
[38] W. Pan, A.G. Gibb, A.R. Dainty, Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of
offsite modern methods of construction, Constr. Manag. Econ. 25 (2) (2007)
183–194, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827058.
[39] W. Pan, A.G. Gibb, A.R. Dainty, Leading UK housebuilders' utilization of offsite
construction methods, Build. Res. Inf. 36 (1) (2008) 56–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/09613210701204013.
[40] P.S.P. Wong, C. Zwar, E. Gharaie, Examining the drivers and states of organizational
change for greater use of prefabrication in construction projects, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 143 (7) (2017) 04017020, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001309.
[41] S. Azhar, M.Y. Lukkad, I. Ahmad, An investigation of critical factors and constraints
for selecting modular construction over conventional stick-built technique, Int. J.
Constr. Educ. Res. 9 (3) (2013) 203–225, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578771.
2012.723115.
[42] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical re-
view, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 62 (2016) 1171–1183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.05.031.
[43] M.M. Rahman, Barriers of implementing modern methods of construction, J.
Manag. Eng. 30 (1) (2013) 69–77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000173.
[44] L. Jaillon, C.S. Poon, Design issues of using prefabrication in Hong Kong building
construction, Constr. Manag. Econ. 28 (10) (2010) 1025–1042, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01446193.2010.498481.
[45] V.W.Y. Tam, C.M. Tam, S.X. Zeng, W.C.Y. Ng, Towards adoption of prefabrication
in construction, Build. Environ. 42 (10) (2007) 3642–3654, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.003.
[46] U. Construction Industry, Institute, MODEX, Automated decision support system for
modular construction, https://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/
more/29_1_more.cfm, (1992) , Accessed date: 10 May 2018.
[47] N. Blismas, M. Pendlebury, A. Gibb, C.L. Pasquire, Constraints to the use of off-site
production on construction projects, Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 1 (3) (2005)
153–162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2005.9684590.
[48] R. Scofield, S. Wilkinson, R. Potangaroa, F. Rotimi, Driving Innovative Offsite
Construction Techniques in New Zealand, http://12219-portal.memberconnex.
com/PDFs/CSA/Driving%20Innovative%20Offsite%20Construction
%20Techniques%20in%20NZ.pdf, (2009) , Accessed date: 10 May 2018.
[49] C. McGraw Hill, Prefabrication and Modularization: Increasing Productivity in the
Construction Industry, https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/
economics/Prefabrication-Modularization-in-the-Construction-Industry-SMR-
2011R.pdf, (2011) , Accessed date: 10 May 2018.
[50] E. Elnaas, The Decision to Use Off-Site Manufacturing (OSM) Systems for House
Building Projects in the UK, http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/14673/, (2014) ,
Accessed date: 10 May 2018.
[51] J.-S. Lee, Y.-S. Kim, Analysis of cost-increasing risk factors in modular construction
in Korea using FMEA, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (6) (2017) 1999–2010 https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s12205-016-0194-1.
[52] G. Liu, K. Li, D. Zhao, C. Mao, Business model innovation and its drivers in the
Chinese construction industry during the shift to modular prefabrication, J. Manag.
Eng. 33 (3) (2017) 04016051, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.
0000501.
[53] X. Zhao, B.-G. Hwang, S.P. Low, An enterprise risk management knowledge-based
decision support system for construction firms, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 23 (3)
(2016) 369–384, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2015-0042.
[54] S.-H. Liao, Expert system methodologies and applications—a decade review from
1995 to 2004, Expert Syst. Appl. 28 (1) (2005) 93–103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.eswa.2004.08.003.
[55] H. Guler, Decision support system for railway track maintenance and renewal
management, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 27 (3) (2013) 292–306, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000221.
[56] J.Y. Liu, S.P. Low, Developing an organizational learning-based model for risk
management in Chinese construction firms: a research agenda, Disaster Prev Manag
18 (2) (2009) 170–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653560910953243.
[57] C. Zopounidis, M. Doumpos, N.F. Matsatsinis, On the use of knowledge-based de-
cision support systems in financial management: a survey, Decis. Support. Syst. 20
(3) (1997) 259–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(97)00002-X.
[58] F.M. Arain, L.S. Pheng, Knowledge-based decision support system for management
of variation orders for institutional building projects, Autom. Constr. 15 (3) (2006)
272–291, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.005.
[59] G. Alexouda, A user-friendly marketing decision support system for the product line
design using evolutionary algorithms, Decis. Support. Syst. 38 (4) (2005) 495–509,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2003.09.002.
[60] J.L. Chameau, J.C. Santamarina, Knowledge-based system for soil improvement, J.
Comput. Civ. Eng. 3 (3) (1989) 253–267, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-
3801(1989)3:3(253.
[61] C. McIntyre, M.K. Parfitt, Decision support system for residential land development
site selection process, J. Archit. Eng. 4 (4) (1998) 125–131, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(1998)4:4(125.
[62] E. Palaneeswaran, M. Kumaraswamy Mohan, Web-based client advisory decision
support system for design–builder prequalification, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 19 (1)
(2005) 69–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2005)19:1(69.
178
Automation in Construction 94 (2018) 168–178
[63] H.M. Osman, T.E. El-Diraby, Knowledge-enabled decision support system for
routing Urban Utilities, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (3) (2011) 198–213, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000269.
[64] Y. Wang, Z. Zou, Spatial decision support system for urban planning: case study of
Harbin City in China, J. Urban Plann. Dev. 136 (2) (2010) 147–153, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2010)136:2(147.
[65] N. Singhaputtangkul, S.P. Low, A.L. Teo, B.-G. Hwang, Knowledge-based decision
support system quality function deployment (KBDSS-QFD) tool for assessment of
building envelopes, Autom. Constr. 35 (Supplement C) (2013) 314–328, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.017.
[66] J.-H. Jo, J.-S. Lee, Y. Ouyang, F. Peng, Integrated decision support for roadway
safety analysis, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 25 (1) (2010) 50–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000066.
[67] M. Syal, D. Duah, S. Samuel, M. Mazor, Y. Mo, T. Cyr, Information framework for
intelligent decision support system for home energy retrofits, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
140 (1) (2014) 04013030, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0000773.
[68] S. BCA, BCA Contractors Registration System (CRS), https://www.bca.gov.sg/
ContractorsRegistry/others/CRS_FAQ.pdf, (2017) , Accessed date: 5 December
2017.
[69] R. Jia, Q. Li, X. Deng, X. Zhao, J. Yuan, Entry mode taxonomy and choice of Chinese
international construction companies, J. Manag. Eng. (2016) 04016058, , http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000506.
[70] D. Cao, H. Li, G. Wang, X. Luo, X. Yang, D. Tan, Dynamics of project-based colla-
borative networks for BIM implementation: analysis based on stochastic actor-or-
iented models, J. Manag. Eng. (2016) 04016055, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000503.
[71] Z. Zhou, Q. Li, W. Wu, Developing a versatile subway construction incident data-
base for safety management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (10) (2012) 1169–1180,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000518.
[72] P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, M. de la Garza Jesus, B. Austin Robert, Readiness assessment for
flash tracking, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (12) (2016) 06016005, , http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001190.
[73] S. BCA, Building Innovation Panel, https://www.bca.gov.sg/cpc/BIP.html, (2017) ,
Accessed date: 27 March 2017.
[74] C.K. Hon, A.P. Chan, M.C. Yam, Empirical study to investigate the difficulties of
implementing safety practices in the repair and maintenance sector in Hong Kong,
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (7) (2011) 877–884, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000497.
[75] Y. Ke, S. Wang, A.P. Chan, E. Cheung, Understanding the risks in China's PPP
projects: ranking of their probability and consequence, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
18 (5) (2011) 481–496, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699981111165176.
[76] Y.M. Chou, A.M. Polansky, R.L. Mason, Transforming non-normal data to normality
in statistical process control, J. Qual. Technol. 30 (2) (1998) 133–141, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1998.11979832.
[77] Y.R. Gel, W. Miao, J.L. Gastwirth, Robust directed tests of normality against heavy-
tailed alternatives, Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 51 (5) (2007) 2734–2746, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.08.022.
[78] E.E. Ameyaw, Y. Hu, M. Shan, A.P. Chan, Y. Le, Application of Delphi method in
construction engineering and management research: a quantitative perspective, J.
Civ. Eng. Manag. 22 (8) (2016) 991–1000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.
2014.945953.
[79] A. Tixier, M. Hallowell, A. Albert, L. van Boven, B. Kleiner, Psychological ante-
cedents of risk-taking behavior in construction, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (11)
(2014) 04014052, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000894.
[80] A.C. Roberts, G.I. Christopoulos, J. Car, C.-K. Soh, M. Lu, Psycho-biological factors
associated with underground spaces: what can the new era of cognitive neu-
roscience offer to their study? Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 55 (2016) 118–134,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.12.016.
[81] L. Lund Research, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test using SPSS Statistics, https://
statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/wilcoxon-signed-rank-test-using-spss-statistics.
php, (2013) , Accessed date: 8 July 2017.
[82] P. Wu, S.P. Low, J.Y. Liu, J. Pienaar, B. Xia, Critical success factors in distance
learning construction programs at Central Queensland University: students' per-
spective, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 141 (1) (2014) 05014003, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000217.
[83] C.H. Caldas, J.-Y. Kim, C.T. Haas, P.M. Goodrum, D. Zhang, Method to assess the
level of implementation of productivity practices on industrial projects, J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 141 (1) (2014) 04014061, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.
1943-7862.0000919.
[84] A.S. Hanna, G. Mikhail, K.A. Iskandar, State of prefab practice in the electrical
construction industry: qualitative assessment, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143 (2)
(2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001236.
[85] H. Said, Prefabrication best practices and improvement opportunities for electrical
construction, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 141 (12) (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001018.
[86] T. Wang, Y. Li, L. Zhang, G. Li, Case study of integrated prefab accommodations
system for migrant on-site construction Workers in China, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ.
Pract. 142 (4) (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000288.