Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Overcoming implementation barriers in 3D printing for gaining positive

influence considering PEST environment
Ahsan Waqar a, Idris Othman a, Hamad R. Almujibah b, Muhammad Sajjad c, Ahmed Deifalla d,
Nasir Shafiq a, Marc Azab e, Abdul Hannan Qureshi a, *
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif City 21974, Saudi Arabia
c
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
d
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Future University in Egypt, New Cairo 11845, Egypt
e
College of Engineering and Technology, American University of the Middle East, Egaila 54200, Kuwait

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

Keywords: The transformational potential of 3D printing within the manufacturing industry has been widely recognized.
3D Printing However, its widespread adoption faces significant practical challenges that extend beyond the technology itself,
Barriers in 3D printing encompassing political, economic, social, and technical (PEST) factors. This research investigates the external
External Environment Success
variables impacting the successful implementation of 3D printing and proposes strategies to overcome these
barriers. Through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), we identified key
external factors, including governmental regulations, economic conditions, societal acceptance, and technical
readiness, that significantly influence the success of 3D printing deployment. Notably, addressing technological
barriers emerged as a crucial factor. To address these implementation challenges, we recommend increased
public awareness and stakeholder participation. Our findings indicate that these strategies can enhance the
prospects of 3D printing adoption. These results hold significant implications for policymakers, practitioners, and
researchers in the 3D printing industry. Understanding and mitigating external obstacles are critical for har­
nessing the benefits of 3D printing within a dynamic environment. This research sheds light on the multifaceted
challenges surrounding 3D printing implementation, emphasizing the importance of proactive measures to
overcome these hurdles.

intellectual property laws and regulations may hinder the spread of 3D

1. Introduction
The capacity of 3D printing technology to rapidly and accurately
build complex and individually tailored products has led to a meteoric
rise in the industry’s profile in recent years. Manufacturing, healthcare,
architecture, and education are just some fields that might see dramatic
improvements in efficiency and reduced costs because of this technology
[1,2]. However, despite its promise, 3D printing has yet to be exten­
sively embraced in these sectors due to several operational hurdles
[3,4].
Critical to the success of the widespread adoption of 3D printing is
the external environment, which encompasses political, economic, so­
cial, and technical (PEST) elements [5]. Political considerations like
printing [6,7]. Factors like the price of materials and machinery may
financially influence 3D printing’s widespread adoption. Individual and
institutional interest in adopting 3D printing may be affected by social
variables such as cultural perspectives on technology and the avail­
ability of relevant educational opportunities [8,9]. The rate of techno­
logical advancement and the accessibility of trained experts are two
more elements that might affect 3D printing’s widespread adoption
[10].
While previous research has extensively explored the technical as­
pects of 3D printing, there is a growing recognition that external factors,
often encapsulated by the PEST framework, play a crucial role in
determining the success of 3D printing implementation [6,11,12]. To
unlock the transformative power of 3D printing, it is essential to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahsan_21002791@utp.edu.my (A. Waqar), idris_othman@utp.edu.my (I. Othman), hmujibah@tu.edu.sa (H.R. Almujibah), muhammadsajjad@
mail.com (M. Sajjad), ahmed.deifalla@fue.edu.eg (A. Deifalla), nasirshafiq@utp.edu.my (N. Shafiq), marc.azab@aum.edu.kw (M. Azab), abdul_19000967@utp.edu.
my (A.H. Qureshi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102517
Received 25 March 2023; Received in revised form 19 September 2023; Accepted 25 September 2023
Available online 18 October 2023
2090-4479/© 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Waqar et al.
Nomenclature
SEM Structure Equation Modelling
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
PEST Political, Economic, Social and Technical
3D 3 Dimensional
CART Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Testing
AVE Average Variance Extracted
HTMT Heterotrait-Monotrait
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
SE Standard Error
understand and address these extrinsic barriers comprehensively. In
recent years, several studies have shed light on the multifaceted chal­
lenges of 3D printing adoption, emphasizing the need to consider the
broader external environment [6,7,13]. Studies need to examine the
external environmental factors (PEST variables) influencing the adop­
tion of 3D printing technology in the Pakistan setting to represent a gap
in the study in this area [14]. The impact of external environmental
factors like political, economic, social, and technological factors on the
implementation of 3D printing in Pakistan has been the subject of
relatively little research, even though there have been studies on the
adoption and implementation of 3D printing in Pakistan [15,16]. There
may also be a need for more study on the precise tactics or techniques
businesses might employ to overcome the implementation hurdles of
external environment issues in Pakistan [17,18]. Research might look at
how different types of institutions can employ social elements like ed­
ucation and cultural attitudes to promote 3D printing technology
[11,12].
This study will investigate the external environmental factors (PEST
variables) inhibiting the spread of 3D printing in Pakistan and then
provide actionable tactics and suggestions to help businesses break
through these roadblocks. Further empirical studies are needed in
Pakistan that zero in on the external environmental variables impacting
the adoption of 3D printing technology and provide concrete sugges­
tions on how businesses may overcome these obstacles [16,19].
The necessity of this research stems from the growing recognition
that 3D printing has the potential to revolutionize traditional
manufacturing processes. However, the existing body of knowledge has
primarily focused on the technical aspects of 3D printing, leaving the
extrinsic challenges largely unexplored. These extrinsic factors,
comprising political, economic, social, and technical dimensions, can
significantly impact the success or failure of 3D printing initiatives.
Understanding the necessity of addressing these external variables is
imperative for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers in the 3D
printing domain. Without a comprehensive understanding of these fac­
tors and a clear roadmap for addressing them, the transformative po­
tential of 3D printing may remain unrealized. This research aims to
bridge this knowledge gap and offer practical insights into how to
navigate the external environment and ensure the successful adoption of
3D printing technology.
For several reasons, this research must be carried out in Pakistan.
First, 3D printing technology can transform many sectors and deliver
several advantages, such as reduced costs, increased personalization,
and enhanced production efficiency. Nevertheless, external environ­
mental elements like politics, the economy, society, and technology
have all posed difficulties in adopting 3D printing in Pakistan. Conse­
quently, it is crucial for the effective adoption and usage of 3D printing
technology in Pakistan to understand and overcome these imple­
mentation challenges. Second, Pakistan is a developing nation showing
increasing enthusiasm for cutting-edge fields like 3D printing. As a
result, empirical studies are required that zero in on the challenges
associated with putting 3D printing into practice in Pakistan and provide
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517
concrete suggestions for how businesses may move beyond them. Lastly,
understanding the external environmental variables influencing the
development and usage of 3D printing technology in Pakistan may aid in
policy and regulatory decision-making and give insights to organiza­
tions. The two objectives of the study are: (1) To identify and analyze the
external factors, including governmental regulations, economic cir­
cumstances, societal acceptability, and technical preparedness, that
significantly influence the success of 3D printing deployment. (2) To
assess the validity and reliability of the proposed measurement model
through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation
modeling (SEM).
Overall, research in Pakistan would be beneficial since it would help
spread the word about the potential of 3D printing in the nation and
provide policymakers and businesses with a better idea of how to deal
with the obstacles posed by the external environment. Fig. 1 depicts the
conceptual model generated indicating that overcoming 3d printing
implementation barriers can have significant impact of the political
economic social and technical success in construction projects.
2. Literature review
Due to its many advantages, including personalization, shorter pro­
duction times, and lower overall costs, additive manufacturing, often
known as 3D printing, has been widely embraced by many sectors
[18,20]. Yet, there are difficulties associated with putting 3D printing
into practice. From the available research, we may deduce many ob­
stacles that prevent 3D printing from being widely used. The need for
built-in safety technology is a huge obstacle. Safety precautions should
be considered whenever a new technology is introduced, and 3D printers
are no exception [21,22]. Complex software and systems are needed for
3D printing’s design and manufacturing, which adds to the difficulty of
data architecture [23,24]. Constant monitoring and enough illumination
for efficient operation are other factors that increase the difficulty of 3D
printing. Apart from the difficulty of mass-producing 3D-printed objects,
the high cost of the necessary equipment is another major obstacle to the
widespread use of this technology [10,14]. For smaller businesses, the
price tag of integrating this technology might be too much to bear,
especially if the company has to change its existing procedures [25,26].
Moreover, the potential of 3D printing technology may be constrained
by the restricted extent of technological implementation and the limited
scope of software development and capabilities [27,28].
Problems with data privacy and a lack of service providers also
present substantial barriers to the widespread use of 3D printing
[13,17,29]. Regulatory and legal challenges, a defective administration
structure, and the lack of verifiable proof of additive manufacturing’s
capabilities are among the elements that contribute to the difficulties
[30,31]. Another major barrier to successfully using 3D printing tech­
nology is a need for more knowledge and training among the workforce
and workers [11,12]. Significant obstacles to using 3D printing tech­
nology include shortcomings in onsite data collection, data heteroge­
neity, lengthier production timetables, trust management, lower
efficiency, restricted recyclability, and the lack of in-house additive
manufacturing capabilities [32,33]. Many obstacles have been high­
lighted in the literature that must be overcome before 3D printing will be
widely used [34,35]. Improving safety measures, decreasing
manufacturing and equipment costs, creating cutting-edge software and
systems, and bettering the acquisition and administration of data are all
necessary steps toward overcoming these obstacles [6,7]. Many obsta­
cles in the way of widespread use of 3D printing technology may be
removed with the introduction of suitable rules and regulations [36,37].
Last but not least, a key factor in successfully introducing 3D printing
technology is addressing the shortage of knowledge and training among
the workforce and workers. Table 1 indicates all identified challenges of
3D printing.
The adoption and use of 3D printing technologies are greatly aided
by official encouragement. The government of Pakistan has made
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

circumstances if they use 3D printing technology. Using 3D printing

Table 1
technology to produce components locally rather than importing them is
Identified challenges of 3D printing.
one strategy to reduce the negative effects of currency rate volatility and
Variables Description References trade tariffs [60,61,63].
F1 The safety and technical integration are not available [38,39] According to the published research, 3D printing technology might
F2 Data architecture difficulties [40–42] be useful in the private building sector in Pakistan. The use of 3D
F3 The need for enough illumination for optimal functioning [43,44]
printing technology has the potential to speed up the building process,
F4 The requirement for continual monitoring [45,46]
F5 Manufacturing costs [47,48]
cut down on material prices, and make it easier to create intricate de­
F6 Equipment costs [45,49,50] signs that would be impossible to build otherwise [56,58,59]. The
F7 Process modifications [46,51] construction business in the private sector may enhance its reputation
F8 Inadequate technology application scope [52,53] for innovation and the quality of its work by using 3D printing tech­
F9 Software development and capabilities [43,44]
nology. Concerns regarding the environmental effect of conventional
F10 Information privacy problems [54,55]
F11 Deficiency of service suppliers [56,57] manufacturing methods, for example, might be mitigated by the wide­
F12 Utilize IS-related expertise. [58,59] spread use of 3D printing technology [54,57]. Due to its potential to
F13 Defects in the data captured onsite [60,61] reduce waste and make use of eco-friendly materials, 3D printing tech­
F14 Data Heterogeneity [62,63]
nology has the potential to be more ecologically friendly than conven­
F15 Longer production timelines [64,65]
F16 Trust Management [66,67]
tional production procedures. Organizations that embrace 3D printing
F17 Reduced productivity [68,69] technology may be seen in a more favourable light as stewards of the
F18 Limited recyclability [70] planet [43,44,55]. According to the available literature, companies in
F19 Lack of proven documentation of additive [71,72] Pakistan may gain from embracing 3D printing technology in fields as
manufacturing’s capabilities
diverse as healthcare, manufacturing, and building. Companies may get
F20 Knowledge administration system is not available [40,73]
F21 Legal and regulatory obligations [41,42] an edge in the market by using 3D printing to cut production costs, in­
F22 Lack of expertise or training among workforce/ [38,39] crease product customization, and shorten product development time­
employees frames [56,63,65].
F23 Lack of in-house additive manufacturing resources [74,75]
There is evidence in the published works that new and improved 3D
printing methods will soon be on the market. The software, hardware,
initiatives to encourage the widespread use of 3D printing, including and printing industries have all seen significant advancements because
introducing the National 3D Printing Strategy Plan and establishing the of these innovations. With these technological advancements, businesses
National 3D Printing Council [40,42]. To hasten the widespread use of can generate higher-quality, more complicated goods more efficiently.
3D printing technology across several sectors, however, greater gov­ According to the research, 3D printing technology in Pakistan might
ernment assistance in legislation, money, and incentives is required benefit from a more favorable external technical environment [33,74].
[71,73]. Pakistan’s 3D printing industry may benefit from working with This encompasses developments in all areas, from software to hardware
foreign groups. According to the published research, Pakistan can to materials. An improved external technical environment may also
advance its 3D printing industry by working with nations like the United result from establishing 3D printing-related infrastructure, such as 3D
States, China, and Germany. Organizations in Pakistan may benefit from printing hubs and training facilities. According to the research, technical
exchanging information, combining resources, and gaining access to policies may help Pakistanis better incorporate 3D printing into their
new technology if they work together [70,72]. Public sector initiatives daily lives [38,42]. Encouragement of 3D printing technology adoption,
that use 3D printing can increase the technology’s broad adoption and particularly among SMEs, may be fostered by policies such as tax in­
public understanding of its many advantages. The government of centives and R&D funding (SMEs). Adopting 3D printing technology
Pakistan is actively encouraging the widespread use of 3D printing for
government-funded initiatives, including creating low-cost homes and
public amenities. Increased use of 3D printing in public sector projects in Table 2
PEST Success factors.
Pakistan may hasten its widespread acceptance and implementation
[68,69]. Category Code Factor References
Setting up 3D printing technology might have a hefty outlay of funds. Political P1 More support from the government [38,41]
Somewhat counterintuitively, the research implies that 3D printing’s P2 International collaboration opportunities [46,51,52]
long-term advantages may eventually exceed its initial investment. Ex­ P3 Projects in the public sectors [68,70,71]
Economical E1 High financial output [45,49,53]
amples of how 3D printing may help save money include its ability to cut
E2 The benefits would be more than the costs [40,72,73]
down on material waste, boost productivity, and enhance personaliza­ E3 Reduced impact of economic conditions [17,18]
tion [64,66,67]. The advantages of 3D printing technology have been Social S1 High recognition in private-sector [19,20,22]
proven to outweigh the disadvantages in some contexts, including the construction
medical and industrial sectors. One use of 3D printing technology in S2 A reduced negative response from society [1–3]
S3 More opportunities to adopt 3D printing [15,16]
medicine is the creation of personalized medical implants, which can Technological T1 Innovative technologies will become [57,59,60]
improve patient outcomes and cut surgical costs [62,65]. The use of 3D available
printing technology in production has the potential to save money by T2 A better external technological [33,74,75]
lowering the price of making complicated components. Industries that environment
T3 Technological policies for better [40,41]
depend on imports or exports may feel less affected by economic
integration

3
A. Waqar et al.
may be aided through education and training programs spearheaded by
the government. Table 2 presents the PEST success factors identified
from the relevant literature.
3. Methodology
This research used rationalist analysis to achieve an empirical ex­
amination of key data collected all through a questionnaire evaluation;
such a technique is well-recognized in the contemporary literature on
construction management [58,61,63]. Positivism was first employed to
analyze existent research, identify key 3d printing implementation
barriers and overcome those barriers with their impact on PEST success
analysis throughout the PL (i.e., model constructs and categorization of
model constructs), and design a conceptual model. Therefore, Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to establish the connections be­
tween components. Fig. 2 depicts the overall epistemological study
strategy.
3.1. Survey administration
Information was acquired from participants utilizing a closed-ended
questionnaire employing a 5-point Likert scale with the range from 1
(extremely low) to 5 (very high). Tables 1 and 2 show the demographic
information and the 5-point Likert scale items about the components
that made up the questionnaire. Islamabad was chosen as the study’s
focal point because it has become Pakistan’s commercial centre and is
home to some of the country’s most impressive new infrastructure
projects, such as Bahria city and Centaurs development. There was a 61
% response rate, with 101 completed surveys returned out of 160 sent
out. Previous research on the present state, obstacles, and success factors
of 3D printing in the Pakistani building sector has used a similar sample
size. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the current study’s
response rate will be similar. The research design should provide cred­
ible information on the elements driving 3D printing’s uptake in Paki­
stan’s building sector.
Fig. 2. Research methodology flowchart.
4
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517
3.2. Data analysis
3.2.1. Reliability test
For assessing the reliability of the questionnaire’s subscales Cron­
bach’s Alpha Reliability Testing (CART) was used on the data. Cron­
bach’s alpha coefficients, which vary from 0 to 1, were utilized to
determine the dependability of the components; 0.90 denotes excellent
reliability, 0.80 suggests moderate reliability, and 0.70 denotes low
reliability [62]. We used the Eq. (1) formula to get CART’s value [71].
n
( ∑
iVi
)
α = 1+ 1− (1)
n− 1 Vt
Where:
n = Quantity of items.
Vt = variance of the scores in total.
Vi = variance of the scores of items.
The constructions’ reliability test indicated a Cronbach’s alpha value
of 0.91, regarded as very dependable.
3.3. Analytical technique
Analyzing the correlations and correlation coefficients between
variables is the goal of structural equation modeling (SEM), a statistical
technique. These causal processes generate several variables. Hence this
method is widely employed to evaluate theoretical models that reflect
them. In addition to its usefulness for multivariate regression analysis,
SEM can deal with latent variables [2,3]. To better comprehend the
theoretical model, SEM uses a graphic to highlight the structural links
between the variables and regression equations to examine the causative
processes. SEM was chosen for this study because it has been success­
fully applied to other studies of 3D printing [76,77]. These studies
include those that explored the effects of 3D printing on the construction
industry, the effects of 3D printing on the acceptance of integrated de­
livery systems, and the effects of the surrounding environment on the
use of 3D printing in renovation projects [43,55].
SmartPLS 4 software was used to analyze variance, take
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

measurements, and evaluate structural models, all standard statistical Table 3

procedures. When the same measurement strategy is applied across all Demographic statistics.
research variables, a common-method variance (CMV) bias may arise, Category Categorization Frequency %
leading to falsely high correlations. The researchers relied on a rigorous,
Occupation Architect 11 10.89
methodical, one-factor approach to detect CMV [46,51]. The indicators Quantity 10 9.9
or measures’ convergent and discriminant validity are evaluated using Surveyor
the measurement model. Comparing how well two different evaluations Civil Engineer 60 59.41
of a notion match up is called convergent validity, in contrast, M&E Engineer 7 6.93
Project Manager 10 9.9
discriminant validity guarantees that the concept being evaluated for Other 3 2.97
every construct is distinct [78,79]. This structural model allows for the Organization Contractor 55 54.46
simultaneous examination of the intricate interplay between the many Consultant 39 38.61
parts [68,72]. The authors of this study used route analysis to develop a Client 7 6.93
Experience in the Pakistani 0–5 Years 26 25.74
structural model that incorporated four structural equations for the 3D
Construction Industry 6–10 Years 27 26.73
printing barrier constructs, each of which revealed a different set of □1-15 Years 35 34.65
relationships between these obstacles and the success of 3D printing 16–20 Years 7 6.93
when measured with PEST analysis. Over 20 Years 6 5.94

3.3.1. Measurement model

architects, quantity surveyors, M&E engineers, project managers, and
Important to the success of the SEM study is the measurement model.
clients [15,18]. Participants’ average years of experience in the Pak­
It is useful for judging how well the study’s metrics align with its target
istani construction industry ranged from 11 to 15, with the most
constructs. In other words, it seeks to determine whether the measured
seasoned workers having served in the field for over a quarter century
variables capture the desired ideas. Indicative of convergent validity is
(34.6 %), followed by those with 6 to 10 years’ worth of experience
the extent that numerous methods of evaluating the same concept pro­
(26.73 %), and finally those with 0 to 5 years’ worth of experience
vide consistent findings. The level of agreement between two separate
(25.74 %). A tiny percentage of respondents have worked in the field for
evaluations of the same notion is used to conclude [4,8,17]. If there is
16–20 years (6.93 %) or more than 20 years (5.94 %). In general, the
much consensus, the measures do a good job of capturing the notion
demographic data provide light on the educational and occupational
under scrutiny (convergent validity).
backgrounds of the study’s subjects, which aids in deciphering their
On the other hand, discriminant validity looks at whether or not the
viewpoints and opinions [84,85]. Indications of the importance of civil
tests used to evaluate various conceptions measure distinct entities. This
engineers and contractors in Pakistan’s construction industry may be
is crucial for ensuring no overlap between the concepts under investi­
found in the sample’s high proportions of these professions, while the
gation. Examining the relationships between the constructs is a good
wide range of experience levels indicates a rich seam of knowledge and
way to assess their discriminant validity. If the conceptions are empir­
insight from which to draw for this study’s conclusions.
ically distinct, then we would expect moderate or weak correlations
between them [16,18,19]. The measurement model aids in making sure
4.2. EFA analysis
that the ideas intended for the research are measured and that these
concepts are differentiated from one another. The outcomes of the
Table 4 displays the results of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
investigation may then be trusted as legitimate and reliable.
performed on the factors associated with 3D printing roadblocks. Four
components were retrieved using EFA, and they explained 51.19 per­
3.3.2. Structural model
centage points of variation in the data. Cronbach’s alpha values in each
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) relies on the structural model to
component varied from 0.620 to 0.810, showing high levels of internal
test and refine the hypothesized model. Using a structural model, re­
consistency. High loadings on the first factor are seen for variables like
searchers may investigate the correlations between latent and visible
variables. Route analysis, a method that concurrently investigates all the
intricate interplay between the model’s constituent parts, was used to Table 4
Exploratory Factor Analysis output.
build the structural model in this investigation [80,81]. The researchers
used partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Variables Component
investigate how the PEST analysis constructions related to 3D printing 1 2 3 4 Cronbach Alpha
challenges and 3D printing achievements. The PEST analysis assesses the
F1 0.772 0.794
potential influence of political, economic, social, and technical elements F8 0.742
on a firm or project. The researchers formulated four structural equa­ F9 0.670
tions to examine how different factors affect 3D printing’s prospects F14 0.649
[1–3]. These equations demonstrated relationships between the con­ F5 0.636
F11 0.762
cepts and illuminated potential determinants of 3D printing outcomes F13 0.774 0.736
[82,83]. To sum up, the structural model serves as a basis for assessing F7 0.740
the suggested theoretical model and may be used to zero in on specific F4 0.717
areas needing attention or expansion. F2 0.689
F22 0.644
F23 0.619
4. Results F10 0.764 0.810
F16 0.761
4.1. Respondent demographics F21 0.702
F20 0.681
F6 0.742 0.706
Participants were categorized by their role in the construction F15 0.653
business in Pakistan, and the Table 3 shows their demographic infor­ F19 0.620
mation. Civil engineers made up the biggest percentage of respondents Eigenvalue 3.917 3.411 3.389 2.592
(59.41 %), followed by construction industry professionals (54.46 %) %Variance 15.066 13.121 13.034 9.969
F17, F18, F3 and F12 were excluded due to cross-loading or loading less than 0.5
and business advisors (38.51 %). Others who participated included

5
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

F1, F8, F9, F14, F5, F11, F13, F7, F4, F2, F22, and F23. Factors like high Table 5
manufacturing and equipment costs, drawn-out production times, and Barriers along with constructed categories from EFA analysis.
lower efficiency may all be examples of the economic hurdles faced by Safety Phase Assigned Activities
3D printing. The variables F10, F16, F21, and F20 all have high loadings Code
on the second factor, suggesting that they significantly correlate. The Technology T-F1 Technological integration not available
lack of safety technology integration, inadequacies in capturing data Barriers T-F8 Inadequate technology application scope
onsite, and restrictions on the extent of technology implementation are T-F9 Software development and capabilities
all factors that may be seen as technical hurdles to 3D printing [86,87]. T-F14 Data Heterogeneity
T-F5 Manufacturing costs
Significant associations between the third factor and F6 and F15 are Resource R-F11 Deficiency of service suppliers
shown by their significant loadings on this factor [4]. This might stand in Barriers R-F13 Defects in the data captured onsite
for the 3D printing process’s inherent difficulties, such as the difficulty R-F7 Procedure modifications
in organizing large amounts of data, adequate illumination, and R-F4 The requirement for continual monitoring
R-F2 Data architecture difficulties
continual monitoring [88,89]. A high loading for F19 on the fourth
R-F22 Lack of expertise and training among
factor indicates a robust relationship between this variable and the workforce/employees
factor. This might stand in for the organizational challenges of 3D R-F23 Lack of in-house additive manufacturing
printing, such as the absence of a knowledge management system and resources
the stringent legal and regulatory standards that must be adhered to. The Privacy Barriers P-F10 Information privacy problems
P-F16 Trust Management
study did not include four variables (F17, F18, F3, and F12) because of P-F21 Legal and regulatory requirements
low or cross-loadings. Overall, the EFA sheds light on the fundamental P-F20 Knowledge administration system is not
causes of 3D printing roadblocks, which may inform the design of effi­ available
cient solutions. Operational O-F6 Equipment costs
Barriers O-F15 Longer production timelines
Technical hurdles include a need for safety technology integration,
O-F19 Lack of proven documentation of additive
restricted breadth of technology implementation, software development manufacturing’s capabilities
and capabilities, data heterogeneity, and high manufacturing costs
[7,90]. The complexity and expense of the technology, the restricted
breadth of application, and the need for additional development in findings.
software capabilities to allow seamless interaction with other processes
all pose obstacles to the widespread use of 3D printing [15,16,18]. 4.4. Structure Equation Modelling (SEM) and analysis
Inadequate resources can be a hindrance in many situations, such as
when there aren’t enough service providers or enough data isn’t 4.4.1. Measurement model (First oder Construct)
captured onsite when processes must be altered, when constant moni­ Success factors in 3D printing and PEST analysis for the building
toring is required when data architecture is overly complex, when industry were outlined in the previous tables. We used data from EFA
workers and employees lack the necessary skills, and when there aren’t (exploratory factor analysis) and previous studies to classify these var­
any additive manufacturing resources available in-house. Given these iables. Cronbach’s, internal consistency of composite reliability, average
challenges, it’s clear that knowledgeable workers, adequate materials, variance extracted (AVE), and discriminant validity were the four met­
and effective data management systems are crucial to the widespread rics used to assess the validity and reliability of the proposed model
adoption of 3D printing [21,22]. [40,41,73]. If removing items having an outer load from 0.40 to 0.65
Data protection, trust management, legal and regulatory restrictions, significantly improved composite reliability and AVE, those items were
and the lack of a knowledge administration system all hinder the free recommended for elimination from the scale in the measurement anal­
flow of information. These challenges stress the need for a solid data ysis. This is because the reported variance should be greater than the
privacy architecture, trust management strategies, and compliance with error variance, and an indicator’s construct should account for around
legal and regulatory standards when it comes to handling sensitive in­ half of the item’s variation [71,72]. Apart from two items (“R-F13″ and
formation [38,42,75]. ”R-F23″) relating to “3D printing hurdles” during the resource stage, all
Equipment expenses, increased production times, and a need for external loads were permitted. As seen in Table 6, this decreased the
documented capabilities are all factors that slow down additive loading factor to a value of 0.6. Fig. 3 displays the revised model that
manufacturing operations. In light of these challenges, the timely and resulted from removing these variables. Composite reliability (CR) was
efficient production of high-quality goods and access to the requisite tested for internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of the
equipment are crucial to the widespread use of 3D printing technology importance of a given number of items. All constructs have trustworthy
[70,71,73]. and valid Cronbach’s alpha and CR > 0.60 [89,91,92]. With AVE values
Results from the EFA research show several obstacles in integrating more than 0.50, all constructs were found to have sufficient convergent
3D printing technology into current processes, including those related to validity. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the AVE, Cronbach alpha, and CR
technology, resources, privacy, and operations. Table 5 presents all comparative item loading variation. Increases in item loadings were
barriers with their respective construct. associated with gains in the other three metrics.
Fornell-Larcker criteria, used to evaluate discriminant validity in
4.3. Common method bias SEM, are summarized in Table 7. For each construct, the table’s diagonal
square root AVE values demonstrate how much of the construct’s vari­
A common-method bias occurs when data is obtained using a single ation is captured by its indicators. Off-diagonal values show associations
technique, such as a questionnaire or interview, and this approach im­ between variables [33,39,74]. Values in each cell reflect the extent to
pacts the participants’ replies. This may cause unreliable study out­ which the two conceptions share variation, with larger values suggesting
comes and interpretations [32,39]. A univariate analysis was done to more shared variance. All constructs in this table have AVEs larger than
check for methodological bias in these studies. It is presumed that the 0.5, showing sufficient convergent validity. The fact that the off-
common-method bias did not substantially affect the data if the total diagonal values are all lower than the AVE values further demon­
variation explained by the common factor is less than 50 %. The analysis strates the constructs’ empirical uniqueness and discriminant validity.
revealed that the common component accounted for 31.21 % of the To evaluate a model’s ability to discriminate across groups, the
variation, which is less than the 50 % cutoff for statistical significance, Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio is calculated. In Table 8, we can see
suggesting that the common-method bias had little to no impact on the the HTMT comparisons for all the components in the analysis. To what

6
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

Table 6 0.867 points away. Because of this, future research may need to further
Model reliability and validity findings. analyze the link between these two items, even though the constructs
Safety Phase Assigned Loadings Cronbach Composite AVE fulfil the requirements for discriminant validity. The HTMT ratios sup­
Code Alpha Reliability port the model’s discriminant validity, indicating that the individual
Technology T-F1 0.928 0.896 0.924 0.71 components can be reliably distinguished in practice.
Barriers T-F14 0.815 Cross-loadings, or the extent to which a given item correlates with a
T-F5 0.906 component other than the one it is designed to assess, are shown in
T-F8 0.778 Table 9 for the items used in the research. The difficulty with cross-
T-F9 0.773
Resource R-F11 0.772 0.821 0.875 0.584
loadings is that they may lower the validity of the scales and compro­
Barriers R-F2 0.810 mise the trustworthiness of the factor analysis conclusions [71,73]. It is
R-F22 0.795 clear from the table that certain items may not be reliable measurements
R-F4 0.738 of the targeted constructs since they have substantial cross-loadings. An
R-F7 0.700
example of this is how item T1 has a significant cross-loading on both the
R-F13 Deleted
R-F23 Deleted Technical Success and Operational Barriers components, which suggests
Privacy P-F10 0.893 0.91 0.936 0.785 it is not a reliable indicator of Technical Success. Item P1 has a similar
Barriers P-F16 0.886 problem since it has a large cross-loading on Economic Success and
P-F20 0.882 Resource Barriers, suggesting it may not be a reliable indicator of Po­
P-F21 0.883
Operational O-F15 0.850 0.806 0.884 0.718
litical success.
O-F19 0.863 Nonetheless, some items have minimal cross-loadings, which sug­
O-F6 0.830 gests they are reliable gauges of the concepts they were designed to
Political P1 0.933 0.834 0.898 0.747 assess [38,42]. Item R-F7, for instance, is an accurate gauge of Resource
Success P2 0.828
Barriers since it has a low cross-loading on all aspects other than this
P3 0.913
Social S1 0.705 0.701 0.829 0.619 one. From Table 9, the items used in the research may not be reliable
Success S2 0.857 measures of the constructs for which they were designed. To guarantee
S3 0.792 the reliability and validity of the measures in the research, conducting a
Technical T1 0.968 0.884 0.929 0.814 thorough analysis of the cross-loadings and making any required mod­
Success T2 0.953
ifications is essential.
T3 0.773
Economic E1 0.916 0.873 0.921 0.796
Success E2 0.849 4.4.2. Measurement model (second order construct)
E3 0.825 The findings of the formative constructs’ route analysis in terms of
addressing implementation constraints in 3D printing are shown in
Table 10. The standard error (SE), t-values, and p-values represent the
degree a construct is more strongly connected to its measurements than
statistical significance of the coefficients, while the path coefficients (β)
other constructs in the model is evaluated using the HTMT ratio [93]. As
illustrate the strength and direction of the correlations between the
a rule of thumb, a value of 0.85 or below is regarded to be indicative of
components. The degree of multicollinearity between the predictor
discriminant validity. This table shows that all constructs in the inves­
variables is quantified by the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Positive
tigation had a criterion validity score over 0.85, suggesting a high de­
route coefficients (β) indicate a substantial positive association between
gree of discriminant validity [41,75]. Although “Social Success” and
the four formative factors (operational hurdles, privacy barriers,
“Technical Success” both fall short of the cutoff, their HTMT ratio is just

Fig. 3. Modified structural model.

7
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

Fig. 4. Item Loadings of formative constructs vs AVE, Cronbach Alpha and CR.

Fig. 5. Item Loadings of reflective constructs vs AVE, Cronbach Alpha and CR.

Table 7
Fornell larker criteria results.
Constructs ES OB PS PB RB SS TS TB

Economic successsuccess = ES 0.892

Operational Barriers = OB 0.251 0.848
Political Success = PS 0.349 0.382 0.864
Privacy Barriers = PB 0.786 0.253 0.323 0.886
Resource Barriers = RB 0.193 0.255 0.433 0.185 0.764
Social Success = SS 0.207 0.258 0.379 0.197 0.746 0.787
Technical Success = TS 0.364 0.357 0.755 0.338 0.421 0.378 0.902
Technology Barriers = TB 0.365 0.38 0.779 0.337 0.448 0.399 0.766 0.842

resource barriers, and technical barriers) and the successful deployment followed by addressing privacy obstacles (β = 0.406), addressing oper­
of 3D printing. In particular, there is a positive link between addressing ational obstacles (β = 0.203), and addressing resource constraints (β =
technological obstacles and addressing other obstacles (β = 0.550), 0.211). The small VIF values show that the predictor variables are not

8
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

Table 8
HTMT analysis results.
Constructs ES OB PS PB RB SS TS TB

Economic successsuccess = ES
Operational Barriers = OB 0.298
Political Success = PS 0.38 0.46
Privacy Barriers = PB 0.107 0.292 0.347
Resource Barriers = RB 0.233 0.308 0.514 0.218
Social Success = SS 0.281 0.33 0.489 0.26 0.266
Technical Success = TS 0.391 0.417 0.103 0.357 0.488 0.477
Technology Barriers = TB 0.39 0.439 0.125 0.355 0.518 0.505 0.078

Table 9
Cross loadings of items.
Economic Success Operational Barriers Political Success Privacy Barriers Resource Barriers Social Success Technical Success Technology Barriers

E1 0.931 0.246 0.36 0.262 0.194 0.196 0.371 0.375

E2 0.819 0.239 0.187 0.195 0.118 0.127 0.212 0.199
E3 0.922 0.198 0.348 0.195 0.189 0.216 0.357 0.364
O-F15 0.231 0.861 0.301 0.255 0.222 0.202 0.284 0.296
O-F19 0.239 0.833 0.382 0.262 0.251 0.285 0.371 0.391
O-F6 0.159 0.849 0.273 0.195 0.164 0.152 0.234 0.375
P1 0.359 0.341 0.919 0.335 0.409 0.372 0.269 0.216
P2 0.286 0.357 0.846 0.264 0.382 0.331 0.287 0.364
P3 0.236 0.297 0.825 0.215 0.325 0.265 0.272 0.261
P-F10 0.261 0.246 0.36 0.893 0.194 0.196 0.371 0.055
P-F16 0.728 0.217 0.21 0.884 0.137 0.143 0.219 0.055
P-F20 0.814 0.198 0.348 0.886 0.189 0.216 0.357 0.375
P-F21 0.778 0.239 0.187 0.88 0.118 0.127 0.212 0.216
R-F11 0.375 0.114 0.435 0.14 0.774 0.216 0.406 0.437
R-F2 0.216 0.255 0.32 0.185 0.732 0.219 0.32 0.334
R-F22 0.364 0.149 0.267 0.244 0.691 0.357 0.278 0.289
R-F4 0.261 0.262 0.31 0.097 0.801 0.212 0.296 0.316
R-F7 0.055 0.195 0.304 0.039 0.816 0.406 0.292 0.317
S1 0.055 0.195 0.304 0.039 0.219 0.733 0.292 0.317
S2 0.196 0.255 0.32 0.185 0.357 0.851 0.32 0.334
S3 0.24 0.149 0.24 0.244 0.212 0.772 0.278 0.289
T1 0.359 0.341 0.102 0.335 0.406 0.372 0.969 0.406
T2 0.369 0.332 0.055 0.343 0.4 0.373 0.953 0.32
T3 0.236 0.297 0.055 0.215 0.325 0.265 0.772 0.278
T-F1 0.359 0.341 0.102 0.335 0.409 0.372 0.406 0.796
T-F14 0.236 0.297 0.055 0.215 0.325 0.265 0.32 0.778
T-F5 0.263 0.272 0.055 0.239 0.367 0.333 0.278 0.772
T-F8 0.286 0.357 0.196 0.264 0.382 0.331 0.296 0.814
T-F9 0.369 0.332 0.24 0.343 0.4 0.373 0.406 0.907

Table 11. Statistical significance is shown by standard errors (SE), t-

Table 10
values, and p-values, while the path coefficients (β) describe the strength
Path analysis results of formative constructs.
and direction of the association between each pair of variables. The
Path β SE t- p- VIF routes between PEST analysis and the various organizational perfor­
values values
mance measures are significant at the p 0.001 level, suggesting that the
Operational Barriers > 0.203 0.029 16.512 <0.001 1.258 suggested model has much ground to stand on [60,62]. The greatest
Overcoming Implementation
path coefficient (β = 0.821) is found between PEST analysis and Eco­
Barriers 3D Printing
Privacy Barriers > Overcoming 0.406 0.03 15.112 <0.001 1.093 nomic Success, indicating that economic considerations are the most
Implementation Barriers 3D essential in predicting organizational performance. Next, the routes
Printing from PEST analysis to Technical Success (β = 0.862) and Political Suc­
Resource Barriers > Overcoming 0.211 0.03 19.412 <0.001 1.049 cess (β = 0.772) also show these elements’ significance. While the path
Implementation Barriers 3D
coefficient from PEST analysis to social success is lower (β = 0.359), it is
Printing
Technology Barriers > 0.550 0.021 30.679 <0.001 1.252 still statistically significant and demonstrates that social aspects
Overcoming Implementation contribute to organizational performance [54,57]. These findings
Barriers 3D Printing

Table 11
very multicollinear with one another. These results suggest that different Path analysis for reflective constructs.
formative constructs influence the ability to overcome implementation
Path β SE t-values p-values
barriers in 3D printing, and they highlight the importance of addressing
these barriers in order to promote the successful adoption and execution PEST Analysis > Political Success 0.772 0.061 24.941 <0.001
PEST Analysis > Economic 0.821 0.006 26.594
of 3D printing within construction industry [58,61].
<0.001
Success
The reflecting components associated with PEST analysis and orga­ PEST Analysis > Social 0.359 0.055 8.771 <0.001
nizational effectiveness were analyzed using path analysis, a statistical Success
technique for examining numerous variables in a model, as indicated in PEST Analysis > Technical Success 0.862 0.002 30.508 <0.001

9
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

support the idea that PEST analysis is a valuable method for businesses Table 12
to analyze and forecast their environment. Organizations have a higher Structure model path analysis.
chance of succeeding and achieving their objectives when considering Path β SE t- p-
political, economic, social, and technological issues. values values

Overcoming Implementation Barriers 3D 0.9 0.029 29.344 <0.001

printing > PEST Analysis
4.5. Structural model path analysis

4.5.2. Analysis of model predictive relevance

When the fitting operation for the measurement model was
The capacity to assess the predictive validity of a structural model is
completed, the structural model analysis could commence. The links
one of the most essential properties of this kind of model. In this
between variables are rationalized in depth in the structural model. This
research, blindfolded participants rated the redundancy measures for
investigation illustrates the connection between exogenous and endog­
each dependent construct that had been cross-validated. The Q2 values,
enous constructs. The hypothesized parameter assessments serve as the
presented in Table 14, all of the indicators for the pest analysis had
basic foundation for evaluating structural models, followed by the
values that were greater than zero, which is evidence that the construct
amount, direction, and significance of variables. Analyzing the study
(PEST) had predictive value for the constructs that were dependent on it.
hypothesis using the SEM approach. Using PLS-SEM, the effect of
overcoming 3D printing implementation barriers on 3D printing PEST
4.5.3. Importance and performance
success analysis four phases (political success, economic success, social
With a significance score of 1.121, “Overcoming Implementation
success, and technical success was investigated. The bootstrap approach
Barriers 3D Printing” is a strong indicator of future success for this
was used to test the significance of the model hypothesis, the reliability
endeavour. One predictor’s high relevance score indicates the extent to
of the data, and, therefore, the accuracy of the calculated route co­
which that predictor is essential to the project’s ultimate success, as
efficients evaluated using bootstrap. Fig. 6 and Table 12 demonstrate
indicated in Table 15. With a score of 42.890, the project could be doing
that the effect of overcoming 3D printing implementation barriers on 3D
better regarding this predictor. The worse the project performs on the
printing PEST success analysis was positive and statistically significant.
predictor, the lower the performance score. Based on the findings of this
research, “Overcoming Implementation Barriers 3D Printing” has been
4.5.1. Explanatory power of structural model
identified as a key area of the project that requires attention. With this
R2 is the overall variation shown by the independent factor demon­
information, the project team may zero in on enhancing the predictor’s
strate the dependent factor REF. The greater the R2 value, the more
performance for optimal results.
precisely structural model predictions may be made; conversely, the
lower the value, the less dependable the model. In general, an R2 value
of 0.7 or above is regarded as extraordinary, with ranges between 1 and
1. In addition, the Author describes values between 0.02 and 0.12 as
Table 13
low, values between 0.13 and 0.25 as moderate, and values over 0.26 as
Explanatory power of the model.
high. Throughout the course of this enquiry, the PLS algorithm arrived
at the conclusion that R2 is equivalent to the standard regression Endogenous variable (Latent) R2 Adj R2 Explained

method, and that the same criteria should be used. Table 13 shows the Pest Analysis Success indicators 0.79 0.80 Highly Predictive
adjusted R2 for the Pest Analysis Success indicators.

Fig. 6. Model indicating significance after bootstrapping analysis.

10
A. Waqar et al.
Table 14
Predictive relevance of the model.
Endogenous variable (Latent) SSO SSE Q2
Pest Analysis Success indicators 214.000 14.829 0.931
Table 15
Importance and performance analysis results.
Predictor Importance Performance
Overcoming Implementation Barriers 3D Printing 1.121 42.890
5. Discussion
The technology barriers formative construct includes T-F1, “The
absence of technological integration”, T-F8 “Limited technology
implementation scope”, T-F9 “Software development and capabilities”,
T-F14 “Data Heterogeneity”, and T-F5 “Manufacturing costs”. This
disjointedness may lead to wasted time and muddled messages across
various parts of the company’s infrastructure. Under the scope of this
concept is the possibility that 3D printing technology is not being used
universally across all appropriate organizational domains. The possi­
bility that the software has insufficient features or cannot deal with
complicated designs is included in this sub-construct. Included in this
sub-construct is the assumption that disparate information management
and storage infrastructures provide challenges to the widespread
adoption of 3D printing [56,58,61]. The premise included by this sub-
construct is that the high upfront and continuing expenses of 3D print­
ing technology may be a major barrier to its widespread adoption inside
a business. Organizations may improve their chances of effectively
deploying and reaping the benefits of 3D printing technology by
recognizing and resolving these obstacles.
The resource barriers formative construct includes, R-F11, “Defi­
ciency of service suppliers”, R-F7 “Process modifications”, R-F4 “The
need for constant surveillance”, R-F2 “Complexity of data architecture”,
and R-F22 “Lack of expertise and/or training among workforce/em­
ployees”. This metric describes the need for more qualified service
providers, such as technicians or consultants, who can aid in the intro­
duction and upkeep of 3D printing systems. Also, it alludes to the
requirement for alterations to preexisting procedures, such as
manufacturing or quality control systems, to fit the 3D printing tech­
nology [46,49,51]. It’s related to the fact that the 3D printing technol­
ogy has to be constantly monitored and supervised to guarantee its
smooth operation and locate and fix any problems that may arise.
Furthermore, it’s a term for the intricate nature of the data architecture
necessary to back up cutting-edge 3D printing technology, which in­
cludes the development of specialized applications as well as the
deployment of novel pieces of hardware and software [45,47,50]. It also
alludes to the fact that the workforce needs to gain the necessary skills
and experience to run and maintain 3D printing machines since they
have yet to be given the proper education and training.
The privacy barriers formative construct includes, P-F10, “Informa­
tion privacy problems”, P-F16 “Trust Management”, P-F21 “Legal and
regulatory requirements”, and P-F20 “Absence of a Knowledge admin­
istration system”. Because of the sensitive nature of the data gathered
and processed in sectors like healthcare, banking, and e-commerce, this
barrier is especially important in these areas. A company’s reputation
for protecting customer information is one potential source of resistance,
as they are concerned about the safety of new technology. Legal
frameworks may include statutes like the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). If a company doesn’t follow these rules, it might
face fines and lose customer credibility. This may result from informa­
tion theft, intellectual property loss, and other security events [45,48].
As a whole, the privacy barriers formative construct stresses the
11
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517
significance of addressing data privacy concerns during the introduction
of new technologies. This includes meeting all necessary regulatory re­
quirements, gaining key stakeholders’ confidence, and implementing
efficient knowledge management systems.
The operational barriers to formative construct include O-F6,
“Equipment costs”, O-F15 “Longer production timelines”, and O-F19
“Lack of proven documentation of additive manufacturing’s capabil­
ities”. In particular, small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) with
limited financial resources may find the high equipment cost to impede
the adoption of this technology. Additive manufacturing is less widely
used because of the lengthier production durations, which may be
problematic for applications that demand fast turnarounds. It also al­
ludes to the fact that there needs to be more proof of the capabilities of
additive manufacturing, which might raise questions about the dura­
bility and dependability of the components made using this method. In
sectors where safety and dependability are paramount, such as aero­
space and medicine, a lack of documentation might significantly impede
the widespread use of additive manufacturing [49,51]. The operational
barriers formative construct as a whole sheds light on the problems
arising from additive manufacturing’s operations and emphasizes the
need for further study to find solutions to these problems and increase
the technology’s widespread acceptance.
The political reflective construct includes P1, “More support from the
government”, P2 “International collaboration opportunities”, and P3
“Projects in public sectors”. This shows that government backing is
crucial for the widespread use of 3D printing. Financial backing, tax
breaks, and other policy measures fall under this category. In addition, it
alludes to the potential gains from coordinated international efforts in
terms of information exchange, technical assistance, and the pooling of
resources. It stresses the significance of government programs that may
function as pilots and prove the technology’s viability. Researchers may
evaluate the effect of political variables on the effectiveness of 3D
printing deployment by adding these reflecting indicators in the political
construct. Implementation challenges and opportunities that might
benefit from more government assistance can be highlighted [54,55].
The framework may also be useful in advising policymakers on how best
to promote the widespread use of 3D printing across industries.
The economical reflective construct includes E1, “High financial
output”, E2 “, Benefits would be more than costs”, and E3 “Reduced
impact of economic conditions”. This suggests that businesses anticipate
large profits from using 3D printing. That’s encouraging since ROI is a
major factor for businesses in deciding whether or not to embrace new
technologies. This suggests that businesses anticipate being better
equipped to adapt to a changing economic climate and handle the risks
associated with such shifts due to the advent of 3D printing technology
[46,53].
The social reflective construct includes S1, “High recognition in
private sector construction”, S2 “, Reduced negative response from so­
ciety”, and S3 “More opportunities to adopt 3D printing”. The trend
mirrors the belief that the construction industry’s private sector may
benefit from more visibility if it adopts 3D printing technology. A
business using cutting-edge tech may boost its image and attract more
consumers. As this study reveals, society may become more receptive to
the use of novel technologies in building if 3D printing is widely used. It
shows that the construction business has more chances to utilize 3D
printing technology, which might give it an edge in the market [49,51].
Positive social consequences, such as improved recognition, less nega­
tive societal reaction, and enhanced prospects for adoption, are sug­
gested by the social reflective construct in this research about using 3D
printing technology in the construction business.
The technological reflective construct includes T1, “Innovative
technologies will become available”, T2 “, A better external technolog­
ical environment”, and T3 “Technological policies for better integra­
tion”. The first signal shows that respondents expect the availability of
cutting-edge technology to increase, which might pave the way for the
widespread use of 3D printing in the building sector. Improvements in
A. Waqar et al.
materials science and robotics are two examples that come to mind, but
there might also be developments in the 3D printing industry. As the
second sign of change, this one implies that people are hopeful that a
more favorable external technical environment will develop, which
would help spread the use of 3D printing. For example, improvements in
the capacity to store and analyze data may be part of this trend. The
third reflecting indication implies that people think technical policies
may be implemented to improve the use of 3D printing in the building
sector [39,42]. According to the technological reflective construct, most
respondents are optimistic that future innovations and regulatory shifts
will pave the way for the widespread use of 3D printing in the building
sector. These are only assumptions and hopes, and variables like a
shortage of funding for R&D or obstacles posed by regulators might
make it impossible for them to come true.
5.1. Empirical and theoretical contributions
Technological, resource, privacy, and operational challenges are all
highlighted in the report as impediments to the widespread use of 3D
printing in the construction sector. What this means for construction
companies and politicians is an invaluable insight into the obstacles that
must be addressed for 3D printing to be widely used in the industry.
Also, an importance-performance analysis is carried out in the research
to determine which elements impact the construction industry’s readi­
ness to embrace 3D printing. The results of this research may guide
construction companies in focusing their efforts on removing the most
pressing impediments to adoption. This research uses a route analysis to
explore the connections between adoption hurdles and the conceptual
reflections of political, economic, social, and technical issues. This
investigation offers hard data on how these elements affect adoption
hurdles. The research suggests that formative structures be used to
assess the challenges of implementing 3D printing in the building sector.
Since the concept’s dimensions are not always associated, this method is
effective when dealing with multidimensional constructs. Research also
suggests using reflecting constructions to quantify the elements that
affect the spread of 3D printing. Constructs of obstacles to adoption are
combined with political, economic, social, and technical constructs to
produce an integrated model in this research. This model illustrates the
interconnectedness of the many elements that affect the uptake of 3D
printing in the building sector. The study’s findings on the benefits and
drawbacks of 3D printing in the construction industry are useful for
businesses and politicians. The research results may be used to create
plans and regulations that boost the usage of 3D printing in buildings.
5.2. Managerial suggestions
The following management recommendations are made based on
this research’s outcomes for businesses considering using 3D printing in
building projects.
• Business efforts should be directed at removing the technical hurdles
that prevent the widespread use of 3D printing in building projects.
Technologies need to be integrated, the software has to be devel­
oped, and data needs to be managed in a heterogeneous manner.
• Inadequate service providers, inflexible processes, and a lack of in-
house knowledge are all issues businesses should try to overcome.
To that end, comprehensive preparation and educational initiatives
are required.
• Compliance with current legal and regulatory standards and the
usage of a knowledge management system are required for the
preservation of public confidence in businesses and the security of
sensitive customer data.
• Assessing the cost-benefit ratio of 3D printing technology and
refining the manufacturing process may help overcome operational
constraints like high equipment costs and extended production
times.
12
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517
• Companies may target initiatives in the public sector, seek additional
government backing, and engage in international cooperation to
overcome political hurdles.
• The costs and advantages of using 3D printing technology in building
projects should be analyzed financially before any company decides
to use it. This will assist in guaranteeing that the project is financially
viable and that its benefits exceed its expenditures.
• Businesses need to do more to educate the general public about 3D
printing and its role in building projects. If society’s negative re­
actions can be mitigated in this way, more people will be open to
adopting. The benefits of 3D printing technology in building projects,
such as lower costs, increased efficiency, and greater sustainability,
may be realized if these obstacles are overcome, and these man­
agement recommendations are implemented.
5.3. Limitations and future implications
Its recognized caveats temper the study’s noteworthy results. To
begin, this research has limitations that limit its generalizability,
including its small sample size. The validity of the results depends on
being able to reproduce the study with a bigger sample size in future
studies. A second limitation is that, as a cross-sectional research, it
cannot provide strong evidence for or against a cause and effect. Lon­
gitudinal study designs are recommended for future research on
adopting 3D printing in the construction sector to evaluate the causal
link between obstacles and success factors. Finally, the results may not
be transferable to nations with various political, economic, social, and
technical settings since the data were obtained from the building sector
in a single country. The results of this study should be replicated in other
nations to draw international comparisons.
This study suggests several directions for further study and practice.
First, an additional study has to be done to determine how various el­
ements, such as the presence or absence of certain hurdles and success
factors, influence the adoption of 3D printing in the construction busi­
ness. Second, the link between hurdles and success factors in imple­
menting 3D printing in the construction sector should be studied in the
context of many contextual elements such as the organization’s size,
kind, and location. Insights into the adoption process will be richer as a
result of this. Finally, the study’s results may inform construction firms
and regulators about potential roadblocks to the widespread use of 3D
printing in the sector.
This study, originally conducted in the Pakistani context, offers
valuable insights and strategies that can be particularly relevant to
countries sharing similar development potential and challenges. Nations
in various regions, including South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle
East, and parts of Africa, often encounter analogous economic, social,
and technological landscapes.
Countries with comparable development potential often grapple
with similar regulatory and policy challenges. The study’s analysis of
governmental regulations can serve as a reference point for policy­
makers in these nations. By tailoring policies that encourage innovation,
streamline regulations, and foster a supportive environment for 3D
printing, governments can stimulate economic growth in their respec­
tive regions.
The economic success of 3D printing is a universal concern. Coun­
tries aiming to harness the potential of this technology can draw from
the economic insights provided in this study. Understanding cost-
effectiveness, resource utilization, and market dynamics can assist
decision-makers in evaluating the feasibility of integrating 3D printing
into their manufacturing sectors.
Building societal acceptance of 3D printing is a challenge faced by
countries at various stages of development. The strategies outlined in
this study for increasing public awareness and stakeholder engagement
can be adapted to engage communities and industries in similar con­
texts. Raising awareness and fostering acceptance are essential steps in
ensuring the successful integration of 3D printing technology. Technical
A. Waqar et al.
preparedness is a universal consideration for countries embarking on 3D
printing initiatives. The study’s findings regarding addressing technical
barriers and ensuring technical readiness offer valuable insights. These
findings can guide countries with similar development potential in
aligning their technological infrastructure and workforce capabilities
with the demands of 3D printing. Researchers and practitioners in these
countries can conduct cross-regional comparative analyses. By bench­
marking their external environments against the PEST factors identified
in this study, they can develop targeted strategies to overcome specific
barriers and leverage favorable conditions for 3D printing adoption.
Further study is needed to determine the best ways to increase the
likelihood of widespread adoption of 3D printing technology in the
building sector and to identify and remove any remaining obstacles.
Overall, this research adds to the current literature by stressing the need
for a multidimensional approach to understanding the adoption process
of 3D printing technology in the construction sector by identifying the
hurdles and success factors in adopting this technology. Future research
that expands on the results of this study and offers practical suggestions
to industry practitioners and policymakers may be guided by the limits
and implications addressed here.
6. Conclusion
This study involved an in-depth examination of the challenges hin­
dering the widespread adoption of 3D printing within the Pakistani
building sector. Our research identified several significant barriers,
including technological constraints, resource limitations, privacy con­
cerns, and operational challenges. These findings were substantiated by
quantitative analyses that provided concrete insights into the magnitude
of these obstacles. Specifically, the path analysis revealed strong positive
associations between addressing various implementation barriers and
the successful deployment of 3D printing. The data showed that over­
coming technological barriers had the most substantial impact (β =
0.550), closely followed by addressing privacy barriers (β = 0.406),
operational hurdles (β = 0.203), and resource constraints (β = 0.211).
These coefficients signify the critical role of addressing these barriers in
promoting the effective utilization of 3D printing within the construc­
tion industry. Furthermore, the research demonstrated that PEST anal­
ysis significantly influences the attainment of 3D printing deployment
objectives. Notably, economic considerations emerged as the most
influential factor (β = 0.821), closely followed by technical success (β =
0.862) and political success (β = 0.772). Even social factors, although
having a relatively lower impact (β = 0.359), still played a significant
role in organizational performance within the context of 3D printing
implementation. The importance and performance analysis underscored
the vital significance of “Overcoming Implementation Barriers 3D
Printing” as a predictor of future success, with a strong importance score
of 1.121. However, the performance score of 42.890 indicated that there
is room for improvement in this area. This data highlights a specific
focus area for project teams seeking to optimize results in 3D printing
implementation. Overall, this study contributes substantially to the
existing literature on the challenges associated with 3D printing
implementation, offering empirical evidence from the Pakistani building
sector. It emphasizes the critical necessity of addressing implementation
hurdles as a precursor to successful 3D printing integration. As a prac­
tical contribution, this research provides valuable insights for manage­
ment professionals looking to incorporate 3D printing technology into
their construction businesses.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
13
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517
Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific
Research, Taif University, for funding this work.
References
[1] Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 2014;32
(8):773–85.
[2] Derakhshanfar S, Mbeleck R, Xu K, Zhang X, Zhong W, Xing M. 3D bioprinting for
biomedical devices and tissue engineering: A review of recent trends and advances.
Bioact Mater 2018;3(2):144–56.
[3] Ratheesh G, Venugopal JR, Chinappan A, Ezhilarasu H, Sadiq A, Ramakrishna S.
3D fabrication of polymeric scaffolds for regenerative therapy. ACS Biomater Sci
Eng 2017;3(7):1175–94.
[4] Furet B, Poullain P, Garnier S. 3D printing for construction based on a complex wall
of polymer-foam and concrete. Addit Manuf 2019;28:58–64.
[5] Ning X, Liu T, Wu C, Wang C, Zhang Z. 3D printing in construction: Current status,
implementation hindrances, and development agenda. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021;2021:
1–12.
[6] Teixeira J, Schaefer CO, Rangel B, Maia L, Alves JL. A road map to find in 3D
printing a new design plasticity for construction – The state of art. Front Archit Res
2023;12(2):337–60.
[7] Waqar A, Othman I, Pomares JC. Impact of 3D printing on the overall project
success of residential construction projects using structural equation modelling. Int
J Environ Res Public Health 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053800.
[8] Nadal A, Pavón J, Liébana O. 3D printing for construction: A procedural and
material-based approach. Inf La Constr 2017. https://doi.org/10.3989/ic.16.066.
[9] Romdhane L. 3D printing in construction: benefits and challenges. Int J Struct Civ
Eng Res 2020. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijscer.9.4.314-317.
[10] Ter Haar B, Kruger J, van Zijl G. Off-site construction with 3D concrete printing.
Autom Constr 2023;152:104906.
[11] Rehman AU, Birru BM, Kim J-H. Set-on-demand 3D Concrete Printing (3DCP)
construction and potential outcome of shotcrete accelerators on its hardened
properties. Case Stud Constr Mater 2023;18:e01955.
[12] Nebrida JA, Oliveros O. Artificial intelligence utilized in 3D printing construction
technology. Asian J Adv Res Reports 2023;17(4):20–5.
[13] Khosravani MR, Reinicke T. On the environmental impacts of 3D printing
technology. Appl Mater Today 2020;20:100689.
[14] Khan SA, Jassim M, Ilcan H, Sahin O, Bayer İR, Sahmaran M, et al. 3D printing of
circular materials: Comparative environmental analysis of materials and
construction techniques. Case Stud Constr Mater 2023;18:e02059.
[15] Pan Y, Zhang Y, Zhang D, Song Y. 3D printing in construction: state of the art and
applications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2021;115(5-6):1329–48.
[16] Tay YWD, Panda B, Paul SC, Noor Mohamed NA, Tan MJ, Leong KF. 3D printing
trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2017;
12(3):261–76.
[17] Sakin M, Kiroglu YC. 3D printing of buildings: construction of the sustainable
houses of the future by BIM. Energy Proc 2017;134:702–11.
[18] Sargent JF, Schwartz RX. 3D printing: Overview, impacts, and the federal role. Key
Congr Reports August 2019 Part VII. 2020.
[19] Ng JS, Hashimoto M. 3d-pad: Paper-based analytical devices with integrated three-
dimensional features. Biosensors 2021;11(3):84.
[20] Siddika A, Mamun MAA, Ferdous W, Saha AK, Alyousef R. 3D-printed concrete:
applications, performance, and challenges. J Sustain Cem Mater 2020;9(3):127–64.
[21] Yi H. 4D-printed parametric façade in architecture: prototyping a self-shaping skin
using programmable two-way shape memory composite (TWSMC). Eng Constr
Archit Manag 2022;29(10):4132–52.
[22] Ali MH, Issayev G, Shehab E, Sarfraz S. A critical review of 3D printing and digital
manufacturing in construction engineering. Rapid Prototyp J 2022;28(7):1312–24.
[23] El-Sayegh S, Romdhane L, Manjikian S. A critical review of 3D printing in
construction: benefits, challenges, and risks. Arch Civ Mech Eng 2020;20(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-020-00038-w.
[24] Hossain MA, Zhumabekova A, Paul SC, Kim JR. A review of 3D printing in
construction and its impact on the labor market. Sustain 2020;12(20):8492.
[25] Nguyen-Van Sy, Gwak K-W. A two-nozzle cable-driven parallel robot for 3D
printing building construction: path optimization and vibration analysis. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2022;120(5-6):3325–38.
[26] Al Tartoor Y, Khalaf A, Awadallah M. Adaptive framework for resilient supply
chain using 3D printing in oil and gas industry. In: Soc. Pet. Eng. - Abu Dhabi Int.
Pet. Exhib. Conf. 2020, ADIP 2020, 2020, doi: 10.2118/203089-ms.
[27] Luhar S, Luhar I. Additive manufacturing in the geopolymer construction
technology: A review. Open Constr Build Technol J 2020;14(1):150–61.
[28] Hamidi F, Aslani F. Additive manufacturing of cementitious composites: Materials,
methods, potentials, and challenges. Constr Build Mater 2019;218:582–609.
[29] Umezu S, Sato H. Best of both worlds: A novel, environment-friendly approach to
3D printing metal–plastic hybrid structures. Reinf Plast 2021;65(1):53–5.
[30] Al Rashid A, Khan SA, Al-Ghamdi SG, Koç M. Additive manufacturing of polymer
nanocomposites: Needs and challenges in materials, processes, and applications.
J Mater Res Technol 2021;14:910–41.
[31] Bos F, Wolfs R, Ahmed Z, Salet T. Additive manufacturing of concrete in
construction: potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing. Virtual Phys
Prototyp 2016;11(3):209–25.
A. Waqar et al.
[32] Shahrubudin N, Koshy P, Alipal J, Kadir MHA, Lee TC. Challenges of 3D printing
technology for manufacturing biomedical products: A case study of Malaysian
manufacturing firms. Heliyon 2020;6(4):e03734.
[33] Singh R, Gehlot A, Akram SV, Gupta LR, Jena MK, Prakash C, et al. Cloud
manufacturing, internet of things-assisted manufacturing and 3D printing
technology: Reliable tools for sustainable construction. Sustain 2021;13(13):7327.
[34] Wang Q, Zhang S, Wei D, Ding Z. Additive Manufacturing: A Revolutionized Power
for Construction Industrialization. In: ICCREM 2018 Innov. Technol. Intell. Constr.
- Proc. Int. Conf. Constr. Real Estate Manag. 2018, 2018, doi: 10.1061/
9780784481721.010.
[35] Weisson EH, Fittipaldi M, Concepcion CA, Pelaez D, Grace L, Tse DT. Automated
noncontact facial topography mapping, 3-dimensional printing, and silicone
casting of orbital prosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 2020;220:27–36.
[36] Oca SD, Ferrante A, Ferrer C, Pernetti R, Gralka A. Challenges in deep building
renovation: integration of lessons learned from the H2020 cluster projects.
Buildings 2018.
[37] Mahajan N, Yoo JJ, Atala A. Bioink materials for translational applications. MRS
Bull 2022;47(1):80–90.
[38] Lanaro M, Skewes J, Spiers L, Yarlagadda PK, Woodruff MA. Design of an open-
source, low-cost bioink and food melt extrusion 3D printer. J Vis Exp 2020. https://
doi.org/10.3791/59834.
[39] Li H, Wu K, Ruan C, Pan J, Wang Y, Long H. Cost-reduction strategies in massive
genomics experiments. Mar Life Sci Technol 2019;1(1):15–21.
[40] Esposito L, Casagrande L, Menna C, Asprone D, Auricchio F. Early-age creep
behaviour of 3D printable mortars: Experimental characterisation and analytical
modelling. Mater Struct Constr 2021;54(6). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-
01800-z.
[41] Berlak J, Hafner S, Kuppelwieser VG. Digitalization’s impacts on productivity: a
model-based approach and evaluation in Germany’s building construction
industry. Prod Plan Control 2021;32(4):335–45.
[42] Wu P, Zhao X, Baller JH, Wang X. Developing a conceptual framework to improve
the implementation of 3D printing technology in the construction industry. Archit
Sci Rev 2018;61(3):133–42.
[43] Ozbolat IT. Roadmap to Organ Printing. In: 3D Bioprinting. Elsevier; 2017.
p. 243–69.
[44] Waryono T. RINGKASAN Puding merah (Gruptophyllum pictum L Griff). J Farm
Galen (galenika J Pharmacy) 2019.
[45] Yang H, Chung JKH, Chen Y, Li Y. The cost calculation method of construction 3D
printing aligned with internet of things. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2018;
2018(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-018-1163-9.
[46] D’Oca S, Ferrante A, Ferrer C, Pernetti R, Gralka A, Sebastian R, opt. Veld P.
Technical, financial, and social barriers and challenges in deep building
renovation: Integration of lessons learned from the H2020 cluster projects.
Buildings 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8120174.
[47] Munaz A, Vadivelu RK, St. John J, Barton M, Kamble H, Nguyen N-T. Three-
dimensional printing of biological matters. J Sci Adv Mater Dev 2016;1(1):1–17.
[48] Lee D, Kim H, Sim J, Lee D, Cho H, Hong D. Trends in 3D printing technology for
construction automation using text mining. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2019;20(5):
871–82.
[49] Joo Y, Shin I, Ham G, Abuzar SM, Hyun S-M, Hwang S-J. The advent of a novel
manufacturing technology in pharmaceutics: superiority of fused deposition
modeling 3D printer. J Pharm Investig 2020;50(2):131–45.
[50] Bosch-Sijtsema P, Claeson-Jonsson C, Johansson M, Roupe M. The hype factor of
digital technologies in AEC. Constr Innov 2021;21(4):899–916.
[51] Suresh D, Manikandan S, Rajashree S. Technology challenges in deep water subsea
well intervention - A focus on equipment design advancements. In: Soc. Pet. Eng. -
SPE Oil Gas India Conf. Exhib.; 2015. https://doi.org/10.2118/178105-ms.
[52] Xu Z, Song T, Guo S, Peng J, Zeng L, Zhu M. Robotics technologies aided for 3D
printing in construction: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2022;118(11-12):
3559–74.
[53] Ma GuoWei, Wang Li, Ju Y. State-of-the-art of 3D printing technology of
cementitious material—An emerging technique for construction. Sci China Technol
Sci 2018;61(4):475–95.
[54] Thompson-Steckel G, Dermutz H, De Lange V, Demkó L, Vörös J. Patterned paper-
based 3D neural cultures to study network dynamics on microelectrode arrays.
MicroTAS 2015–19th Int. Conf. Miniaturized Syst. Chem. Life Sci.. 2015.
[55] Guamán-Rivera R, Martínez-Rocamora A, García-Alvarado R, Muñoz-
Sanguinetti C, González-Böhme LF, Auat-Cheein F. Recent developments and
challenges of 3D-printed construction: A review of research fronts. Buildings 2022;
12(2):229.
[56] Segura LJ, Zhao G, Zhou C, Sun H. Nearest neighbor Gaussian process emulation
for multi-dimensional array responses in freeze nano 3D printing of energy devices.
J Comput Inf Sci Eng 2020. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045795.
[57] Kim J, Torquato S. New tessellation-based procedure to design perfectly
hyperuniform disordered dispersions for materials discovery. Acta Mater 2019;
168:143–51.
[58] Xia M, Sanjayan J. Method of formulating geopolymer for 3D printing for
construction applications. Mater Des 2016;110:382–90.
[59] Preeti, Nanocellulose-based Sustainable Barrier and Antimicrobial Coatings,
Thesis, 2018.
[60] Morris M, Ciardullo C, Lents K, Yashar M, Montes J, Rudakevych O, Sono M, Sono
Y. Martian ice habitats: Approaches to additive manufacturingwith H2O beyond
Mars Ice House. In: AIAA Sp. Astronaut. Forum Expo. Sp. 2016, 2016.
[61] Buchanan C, Gardner L. Metal 3D printing in construction: A review of methods,
research, applications, opportunities and challenges. Eng. Struct. 2019;180:
332–48.
14
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517
[62] Aghimien D, Aigbavboa C, Aghimien L, Thwala WD, Ndlovu L. Making a case for
3D printing for housing delivery in South Africa. Int J Hous Mark Anal 2020;13(4):
565–81.
[63] Morris M, Ciardullo C, Lents K, Montes J, Rudakevych O, Sono M, Sono Y, Yashar
M. Mars Ice House: Using the Physics of Phase Change in 3D Printing a Habitat
with H2O. In: 2016, doi: 10.2514/6.2016-5528.
[64] Portz S, Aurigemma J. Introducing the New Age of Desktop Manufacturing, 2015.
[65] Ellery AA. Lunar in situ resource utilisation the key to human salvation on earth.
In: Earth Sp. 2018 Eng. Extrem. Environ. - Proc. 16th Bienn. Int. Conf. Eng. Sci.
Constr. Oper. Challenging Environ., 2018, doi: 10.1061/9780784481899.038.
[66] Verma S, Gupta M, Shivam. Identification of Barriers in the Implementation of
Additive Manufacturing in Indian Scenario. In: 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-
73495-4_4.
[67] Washenberger KM, Stottrup BL. Integrating DIY and traditional biochemical
laboratory experiences into an undergraduate biophysics course. Biophys. J . 2016;
110(3):173a.
[68] Witkowski K, Durach CF, Kurpjuweit S, Wagner SM, Gartner D, Bowersox, Closs D,
Stank T, Tjahjono B, Esplugues C, Ares E, Pelaez G, Rutner SM, Aviles M, Cox S,
Kshetri N, Segerstedt A, Olofsson T. Gartner 2017 Hype Cycle Digitalization of
Supply Chian, Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 2017.
[69] Ellery A. Geophysiological treatment of an ailing earth from space: Self-replication
technology is essential. Int J Clim Change: Impacts Responses 2018;10(3):25–40.
[70] Li Z, Hojati M, Wu Z, Piasente J, Ashrafi N, Duarte JP, et al. Fresh and hardened
properties of extrusion-based 3D-printed cementitious materials: A review. Sustain
2020;12(14):5628.
[71] Besklubova S, Skibniewski MJ, Zhang X. Factors affecting 3D printing technology
adaptation in construction. J Constr Eng Manag 2021;147(5). https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002034.
[72] Bedarf P, Dutto A, Zanini M, Dillenburger B. Foam 3D printing for construction: A
review of applications, materials, and processes. Autom Constr 2021;130:103861.
[73] Alhumayani H, Gomaa M, Soebarto V, Jabi W. Environmental assessment of large-
scale 3D printing in construction: A comparative study between cob and concrete.
J Clean Prod 2020;270:122463.
[74] Dong T, Li M, Gao F, Wei P, Wang J. Construction and imaging of a neurovascular
unit model. Neural Regen Res 2022;17(8):1685.
[75] Munir Q, Kärki T. Cost analysis of various factors for geopolymer 3d printing of
construction products in factories and on construction sites. Recycling 2021;6(3):
60.
[76] Waqar A, Bheel N, Shafiq N, Othman I, Khan MB, Mansoor MS, et al. Effect of
volcanic pumice powder ash on the properties of cement concrete using response
surface methodology. J Build Pathol Rehabil 2023;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s41024-023-00265-7.
[77] Waqar A, Bheel N, Almujibah HR, Benjeddou O, Alwetaishi M, Ahmad M, et al.
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.
[78] Waqar A, Hannan Qureshi A, Othman I, Saad N, Azab M. Exploration of challenges
to deployment of blockchain in small construction projects. Ain Shams Eng J 2023:
102362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102362.
[79] Waqar A, Khan MB, 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13053340.
[80] Khan M, Shafiq N, Waqar A, Radu D, Cismaș C, Imran M, Almujibah H,
Benjeddou O. Effects of jute fiber on fresh and hardened characteristics of concrete
with environmental assessment. Buildings 2023;13:1691. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings13071691.
[81] Khan M, Waqar A, Bheel N, Shafiq N, Sor N, Radu D, Benjeddou O. Optimization of
Fresh and Mechanical Characteristics of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Composites Using Response Surface Technique, 13 (2023).
[82] Waqar A, Othman I. Challenges to the implementation of BIM for the risk
management of oil and gas construction projects: structural equation modeling
approach sustainability challenges to the implementation of BIM for the risk
management of oil and gas construction project, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15108019.
[83] Waqar A, Othman I, Almujibah H, Khan MB, Alotaibi S, Elhassan AAM. Factors
influencing adoption of digital twin advanced technologies for smart city
development: evidence from Malaysia. Buildings 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings13030775.
[84] Sajjad M, Hu A, Waqar A, Falqi II, Alsulamy SH, Bageis AS, Alshehri AM.
Evaluation of the success of industry 4.0 digitalization practices for sustainable
construction management: Chinese construction industry. Buildings 2023;13:1668.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071668.
[85] H. Tahir, M.B. Khan, N. Shafiq, D. Radu, M.H. Nyarko, A. Waqar, H.R. Almujibah,
O. Benjeddou, Optimisation of Mechanical Characteristics of Alkali-Resistant Glass
Fibre Concrete towards Sustainable Construction, 2023.
[86] Waqar A, Othman I, Falqi I, Almujibah H, Alshehri A, Alsulamy S, 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.
[87] Waqar A, Othman I, Shafiq N, Altan H. Modeling the effect of overcoming the
barriers to passive design implementation on project sustainability building
success: A structural equation modeling perspective sustainability modeling the
effect of overcoming the barriers to passive design impleme, 2023.
[88] Waqar A, Othman I, Shafiq N, Altan H. Sustainability modeling the effect of
overcoming the barriers to passive design implementation on project sustainability
A. Waqar et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15 (2024) 102517

building success: A structural equation modeling perspective, 2023, doi: 10.3390/
su15118954.
[89] Waqar A, Othman I, Shafiq N, Mansoor MS. Applications of AI in oil and gas
projects towards sustainable development: a systematic literature review. Artif
Intell Rev 2023;56(11):12771–98.
[90] Khan MB, Waqar A. Carbon fiber-reinforced concrete composites using response,
(2023). Doi: 10.3390/buildings13040852.
[91] Waqar A, Qureshi AH, Alaloul WS. Barriers to building information modeling
(BIM) deployment in small construction projects: Malaysian construction industry.
Sustain 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032477.
[92] Waqar A, Othman I, Skrzypkowski K. Evaluation of Success of Superhydrophobic
Coatings in the Oil and Gas Construction Industry Using Structural, (2023).
[93] Waqar A, Skrzypkowski K, Almujibah H, Zagórski K, Khan MB, Zagórska A,
Benjeddou O. Success of implementing cloud computing for smart development in
small construction projects. Appl Sci 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app13095713.
Idris Othman He completed his bachelor’s from the University
Technology of MARA in 1993. After that, he got his master’s in
project management and Ph.D. in Project Management from the
University Science of Malaysia and University Technology
PETRONAS in 2006 and 2015, respectively. 23 years of expe­
rience in oil and gas, high rise 65-story tower, treatment plants,
infrastructures, bridges, highways, construction, maintenance,
and facilities management. He is currently a Lecturer at the
University Technology PETRONAS and has 85 publications to
his credit.

Ahsan Waqar is a lifelong learner from Pakistan who earned his

bachelor’s degree from Mirpur University of Science and
Technology (MUST) in 2015 and his master’s degree in civil
engineering from the same university in 2017.He is now
working as a Graduate Research Assistant at University Tech­
nology PETRONAS, Malaysia and is pursuing his Ph.D. in
Construction Management and has 18 research papers already
published. He has 6 years of working experience in academia
and industry.

15