buildings

Article
Adoption of Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies in the
Construction Sector: Evidence from a Questionnaire Survey
Julia Menegon Lopes * and Luiz Carlos Pinto da Silva Filho

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Civil: Construção e Infraestrutura (PPGCI), Universidade Federal do

Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre 90035-190, Brazil; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) can significantly benefit the construction sector,
improving productivity, efficiency, collaborative efforts, and product quality while promoting safety
and sustainability. However, research on applying 4IR technologies in construction is scarce in
developing countries. It is crucial to understand the ability of construction companies to adopt
new technologies and identify factors influencing the success of technology implementation. In this
study, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted with construction professionals to evaluate the
level of technological development of the construction market in an emerging economy, assess the
potential for innovation implementation, and identify factors that might influence technological
development. The results showed that most innovations are in the early stages of implementation in
the construction sector, and their adoption tends to occur differently, depending on the size of the
company and the stage of the construction lifecycle in which they operate. Furthermore, technologies
tend to be progressively adopted and driven by virtualization technologies. This article presents
a framework to assist in decision-making regarding the adoption of 4IR technologies at different
phases of the lifecycle of construction projects and identifies the potential barriers and promoters of
this adoption in the analyzed context.

Keywords: Industry 4.0; Construction 4.0; new technology; digital transformation; developing country

Citation: Menegon Lopes, J.; Silva

Filho, L.C.P.d. Adoption of Fourth 1. Introduction
Industrial Revolution Technologies in
Contemporary society is in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR), opening
the Construction Sector: Evidence
new avenues for industrial relations [1]. Based on the digital revolution and the Internet of
from a Questionnaire Survey.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132. https://
Things (IoT), 4IR, which started at the beginning of the 21st century in the manufacturing
doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072132
industry under the name of Industry 4.0, has since spread to several other fields [2,3].
Focused on creating smart processes, procedures, and products [3], 4IR, once consolidated,
Academic Editor: Tengfei Wang has the potential to generate diverse economic, environmental, and social benefits [4]. Like
Received: 19 April 2024 many other fields, the construction industry can benefit significantly from 4IR technologies,
Revised: 30 June 2024 which allow process integration and automation along the entire value chain, increasing
Accepted: 3 July 2024 productivity, efficiency, collaboration, and final product quality while improving key
Published: 11 July 2024 parameters of the sector, such as safety and sustainability [5].
Given the benefits associated with 4IR technologies, researchers have expressed a
growing interest in the topic. Most studies, however, were conducted in developed coun-
tries [6], whose socioeconomic panorama differs significantly from that of developing
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. countries. Findings [6–8] indicate that research efforts dedicated to understanding 4IR
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. technology adoption are scarce in Brazil, particularly in construction. A report from the
This article is an open access article National Confederation of Industry (CNI) [9] revealed that, although considered a subject
distributed under the terms and
of great importance, adopting innovative technologies is scant in most Brazilian industries.
conditions of the Creative Commons
PwC Consulting [10] pointed out that Brazil is lagging behind the global industrial scenario
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
regarding digitization and integration. In agreement with these observations, Brazilian
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
studies [11,12] concluded that the national industry is still transitioning from the second to
4.0/).

Buildings 2024, 14, 2132. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072132 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 2 of 31

the third IR, suggesting that there is still a large technological gap to be bridged. Technolo-
gies that are well consolidated or under consolidation in developed countries are likely
incipient in the Brazilian market. Thus, the Brazilian manufacturing industry is missing
the opportunity to harness the advantages of current technologies [13].
Understanding how prepared construction companies are to adopt existing technolo-
gies and which factors influence technology implementation success is crucial for advancing
research on the topic [5]. In view of this and of the need to achieve the practical consol-
idation of emerging concepts in developing countries, this study sought to examine the
capacity of the local industry to absorb 4IR technologies and understand the perspectives
and objectives of those involved in innovation adoption. The following two-part question
was raised: What is the current state of the Brazilian construction market in terms of 4IR
technologies, and what factors influence technology adoption? To answer this question, we
conducted a quantitative exploratory study using structured questionnaires. The aim was
to describe the current reality of the Brazilian construction market to identify the implemen-
tation potential of 4.0 solutions and examine intervening factors that might influence the
future scenario. Responses of professionals working in the Brazilian construction industry
were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques.
First, this article presents and discusses a literature review exploring 4IR concepts and
technologies, as well as their potential benefits, barriers, and impacts on the construction
sector. The next section provides an analysis of the construction market’s technological
maturity, construction professionals’ knowledge of 4IR, and the expected benefits asso-
ciated with the adoption of novel technologies. The potential for technology adoption
was assessed based on participants’ responses about current technology use, interest in
technology adoption, and perceptions of time, cost, and market readiness for technology
absorption. Cluster analyses were applied to identify patterns in technology use. Finally,
the barriers cited by construction professionals were analyzed, and inferences were made
about critical factors for the adoption of 4IR technology in the local construction industry.
This study provides an overview of the main expectations, concerns, and challenges
for implementing 4IR technologies in the construction sector within the studied context.
We also identify the factors that may influence technology adoption. We categorized the
concepts into four groups: undeveloped, incipient, under development, and consolidated,
based on their average level of adoption. The results indicate that none of the technologies
have fully consolidated within the sample. We identified the lack of qualified personnel,
resistance to change, and perceptions of time and cost as significant barriers to innovation in
the sector. On the other hand, the company’s high technological maturity, market readiness,
widespread 4IR knowledge, and early career professionals tend to be critical drivers of
technological advancement.
Our findings reveal that the adoption of innovative tools occurs progressively among
the respondents. This means those who have already initiated the digitalization process
are more likely to adopt other technologies. Furthermore, we have identified three groups
of technologies, namely, virtualization, automation, and manufacturing technologies, with
distinct usage patterns among respondents. We propose a framework to guide the adoption
of these concepts based on the construction lifecycle phase in which they will be applied,
indicating which group of technologies is most suitable for each application.
This greater understanding of the current scenario can support the development
of further studies and strategies to foster and disseminate current innovations so that
construction industries in developing countries can benefit from the ongoing IR.

2. Industry and Construction 4.0

2.1. Industry 4.0
Coined in Germany, the term Industry 4.0 alludes to a new version of industry and the
ensuing changes in industrial production. This paradigm shift emerged from combining
the so-called futuristic technologies and the widespread use of the internet, empowering
common physical objects with autonomy and “intelligence” [1]. Many of the technologies
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 3 of 31

that form the pillars of the new industrial paradigm have been evolving since the creation of
the first computers and have long been used, in isolation, in manufacturing [4,14]. However,
in the interaction between physical and digital media lies the transformative power of
Industry 4.0 [4,14], as it allows various devices to interact through an internet network [7],
collect information, and assist in decision-making. Thus, existing technologies form an
integrated system that has the potential to revolutionize relations between suppliers,
manufacturers, and customers and improve the efficiency of the production chain [2].
In addition to technology-driven changes, the new industrial scenario also brings
forth a multitude of social, economic, and organizational changes, such as greater focus
on consumers, information integration, decentralized decision-making, and new business
possibilities. Consumers are the greatest beneficiaries of this paradigm shift, as they
are provided with new internet-based products and services that promote efficiency in
everyday activities [2]. Additionally, 4IR is modifying the role of human beings within
productive systems, requiring workers to develop new skills to perform tasks of greater
complexity assisted by novel technologies [15].

2.1.1. Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies and Principles

According to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Industry 4.0 is supported by the fol-
lowing nine pillars [14]: additive manufacturing, augmented reality, autonomous robotics,
big data and analytics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, vertical and horizontal integra-
tion, IoT, and simulation. Additive manufacturing, exemplified by three-dimensional (3D)
printing, is the opposite of subtractive manufacturing. Whereas subtractive manufacturing
removes surplus materials to shape parts and objects, additive manufacturing builds objects
layer-by-layer according to a pre-existing 3D model [7]. Its main advantage lies in the
ability to produce small batches of customized products rapidly and efficiently [13,14].
As for augmented reality, one of its major benefits is the possibility of assisting workers
in their activities. The technology integrates information from computer models into the
real environment, representing a valuable tool to guide teams during the execution of
familiar and unfamiliar tasks. Data, graphics, and virtual images can be reproduced in
a user’s field of view, allowing them to interact with information projected onto their
surroundings [7,16]. A wide variety of activities can be facilitated by augmented reality,
such as maintenance services, wherein workers can receive instructions and remote support
during task execution and stock selection, and virtual training for emergencies, wherein
practitioners can receive specific instructions in a controlled environment [14].
Robotics has long been used in manufacturing, having evolved and becoming in-
creasingly useful over the years [14]. Autonomy, flexibility, and cooperation are some
characteristics attributed to the new generation of autonomous robots [14]. Given their
ability to self-configure and negotiate with each other to adjust to changing needs [4],
autonomous robots are expected to play a key role in smart manufacturing. Collaborative
robots have been developed to interact with humans and provide support during work
activities [17]. Safe and collaborative human–machine interactions have been envisioned
and are expected to become widespread when such equipment costs decrease [14].
As a result of the various data acquisition and storage technologies that emerged with
the ubiquitous use of the internet, big data and analytics became important pillars of Indus-
try 4.0. This comes as no surprise, given that the capacity to analyze large amounts of data is
essential for the digital transformation of companies [7]. Big data technologies can be used
to process and select data quickly and efficiently, separating relevant from less important
information [18] amidst the gigantic realm of available data—a task beyond the capacity
of any other method, especially human processing. Algorithms based on correlations and
probabilities can mine the data, evaluate patterns, and generate information for knowledge
building [4]. Big data-derived knowledge has the potential to improve production quality,
reduce energy consumption, assist in rapid decision-making, and improve equipment
operation [14].
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 4 of 31

Most of the analyzed data are stored in the cloud, which represents another pillar of
4IR. Possibly one of the most widespread tools nowadays, cloud computing allows the
creation of a network connecting people, data, services, and objects through the internet [7].
With the ability to store data in remote databases [19], cloud services provide easy access to
information [17] and make it financially affordable to store the exponential amount of data
generated over time [4].
This plethora of data-sharing and connectivity technologies explains the importance of
cybersecurity for the diffusion of Industry 4.0. The need to protect industrial systems and
information from cyberattacks is fundamental and expanding [14]. Malicious softwares
can spread through interconnected machines to modify processes, destroy data [7], or steal
inside information. Therefore, technologies that reduce concerns about cyberattacks have
a strong appeal in the new industrial reality. Security requirements vary according to
the needs of each networked system. It should be recognized, however, that the complex
reality of interconnected environments makes it unfeasible to attain complete security [4].
Nevertheless, it is possible to create means for the real-time detection of atypical behaviors
and generate quick responses to keep network-connected equipment and users safe [4].
Another principle of the new IR is production chain integration, both horizontally
and vertically. Vertical integration is defined as the integration of information systems
along the hierarchical levels of a company [3], which results in more flexible and faster
communication between levels [20]. Such an integration model encompasses product devel-
opment and purchase, manufacturing, logistics, and services [10]. Horizontal integration,
on the other hand, refers to the connection between different phases of production and
design processes that involve the exchange of materials, energy, or information between
the different companies participating in a value chain [3]. The purpose of integration is
to connect both ends of the value chain. This represents an important innovation in that
it fully interconnects information technologies, culminating in an extraordinary level of
association between companies, suppliers, and clients, as well as between departments
within companies [14].
At the heart of information exchange and storage lies another key concept of 4IR—IoT.
Objects enriched with sensors and actuators are able to communicate in real-time at high
speeds with each other and with controllers, creating an intelligent and interconnected
environment [4,14]. Ultimately, products will be able to communicate with other products
and systems in a manner that amplifies their performance and offers novel and improved
solutions before and after sales [13], altering the course of business strategies [19]. IoT-based
solutions play a key role in increasing efficiency in the field of logistics and mobility, as
they allow the real-time monitoring of objects and goods in transport and urban mobility
services [4,18]. Three characteristics make IoT a revolutionary technology [18]: (i) context,
whereby objects can provide information on location, weather, and physical conditions;
(ii) ubiquity, i.e., capacity for large-scale communication between objects; and (iii) optimiza-
tion, whereby objects can acquire multiple functionalities. The smart ecosystem formed by
interconnected objects supports decentralized decision-making and real-time responsivity
to changes and needs [14].
Finally, the last pillar is simulation, considered the cornerstone of Industry 4.0 by BCG.
Although its use was common in modeling before the current IR, simulation technology has
gained new uses and applications. Current models are able to mirror the real environment,
including not only geometric but also behavioral characteristics in real time [3,14]. Simula-
tion tests and optimizations carried out using virtual models improve the quality of final
products and the rate of introduction of new products into the market [9]. Logistics and
transport alternatives can be tested, relevant risks associated with production processes
can be assessed, and costs and environmental impacts can be compared between suppliers
through simulations [3].
The different technologies of Industry 4.0 can be classified into two types: frontend
and base technologies [17]. Technologies that connect and smarten existing technologies are
called base and form the foundation upon which Industry 4.0 resides. Examples include IoT,
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 5 of 31

cloud computing, and big data and analytics. Frontend technologies, on the other hand, are
linked to operational activities and market needs and can be divided into four dimensions:
smart manufacturing, smart products, smart working, and smart supply chain. Smart
production technologies are at the core of research on Industry 4.0, whereas smart working
has received less attention [21]. However, it is the implementation of base technologies that
sets apart the new paradigm from previous stages of industrial development, ultimately
transforming a conventional company into a smart one [21].
From a theoretical point of view, the implementation of 4IR technologies can be con-
ducted in one, a few, or all four dimensions, depending on the objectives of digitization.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that, in practice, 4IR technologies are considered comple-
mentary and tend to be implemented progressively, with new technologies being added as
the maturity of the company increases [17]. As stated by Schwab [2], innovations “build
on and amplify each other”, and integration between different dimensions leverages the
benefits of Industry 4.0 [21].
Consumers’ decision to adopt or not innovations was shown to be influenced by the
following five factors [22]: (i) the perception of economic advantage, social prestige, conve-
nience, or increased satisfaction in comparison with the current state; (ii) the perception
of compatible values, experiences, and needs; (iii) the level of complexity of technology
use; (iv) the ability to test or experiment technologies for a period of time; and (v) the
observation of the results of peers who used the innovation. As for organizations, a cautious
attitude and a lack of trained professionals represent structural challenges that may delay
technology adoption in medium-sized and small companies [3]. There are also concerns
related to the high initial financial investment required to implement technologies, which
can be intimidating for smaller companies, especially on a return basis [23]. In line with
these observations, studies conducted in the manufacturing industry indicate that larger
organizations tend to be at more advanced stages of Industry 4.0 implementation [17].

2.1.2. Industry 4.0 Trends in the Construction Sector

Compared to other industrial sectors, the construction industry lags significantly
behind in adopting 4IR technologies, potentially because of its conservative nature [24,25].
Despite this, there is great potential for the digitization of the sector, which can provide
cost and time savings to projects [24], among other benefits. Oesterreich and Teuteberg [5]
identified several Industry 4.0 technologies and concepts that are key to the construction
sector and enable process digitization, automation, and integration. A previous study [6]
classified some of these concepts into five groups according to their similarity of application
in the construction sector, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Industry 4.0 principles and technologies with prevalent applications in construction [6].

Cluster Concept/Technology
Cloud computing
Data intelligence Big data
Product lifecycle management
Robots/drones
Robotics and automation
Automation
Building information modeling
Virtual environments Simulation/modeling
Virtual and augmented reality
Internet of Things
Mobile devices
Smart technologies and objects
Embedded sensors/cyber–physical systems
Digitization
Additive manufacturing
Advanced manufacturing
Prefabrication and modularization
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 6 of 31

Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies can play significant roles in different phases
of the lifecycle of a construction project [25], often serving different purposes in each
of them. Because of the fragmented and dynamic nature of the construction industry,
innovation needs differ between phases. There is a tendency toward a more organic
approach to innovation in the initial phases of a project (e.g., planning and design) and
toward a more systematic approach during subsequent phases, which typically require
greater discipline as a result of stricter deadlines [26]. Such differences in approach may
indicate the need for different technologies. Industry 4.0 concepts have been most explored
in the planning and management phases, during which the main focus of technologies
lies on task execution, smart manufacturing, and smart working [6], that is, dimensions
related to internal processes of companies [21]. Technologies applied to external processes
(smart products and smart supply chain), as well as those based on Industry 4.0, remain
little explored in the construction sector [6].
The potential applications of Industry 4.0 principles and technologies in construction
are summarized in Table 2, which was constructed based on a previous literature review [6].
IoT, sensors, and cyber–physical system (CPS) technologies were grouped under a single
concept, given their similarity and interrelatedness.

Table 2. Application of Industry 4.0 principles and technologies in construction.

Technology Applications
A large amount of data can be stored and accessed from the cloud, facilitating information sharing
Cloud computing between design team members and assisting in the development of designs collaboratively and
simultaneously between individuals in different geographical locations.
This technology assists in the collection and selection of relevant information from the universe of
available data. It has the potential to simplify database searches and assist in choosing between
Big data
different alternatives of engineering designs and evaluating parameters, such as cost and energy
efficiency, for each design alternative in a rapid and automated way.
Product lifecycle Data collected and stored are used to integrate and manage product information from the design to
management the manufacture and use phases until the end of a product’s useful life.
This technology has the potential to replace human labor in everyday tasks. Drones can capture
Robots and drones aerial images that enable and facilitate services such as construction and asset management,
inspection, and maintenance.
Potential applications encompass several areas, such as the quality monitoring of concrete trucks, soil
Automation compaction, parameter control during concreting, design automation, building monitoring in the use
phase, and so on.
Building information Tool for the centralization of the information generated and accumulated at each stage of the
modeling construction process.
Modeling and simulation of reality to foresee behaviors and characteristics of the final product and
Simulation and modeling production stages. It can be used for the simulation of construction processes, conflict identification,
resource allocation, and assessment of energy efficiency and flows of people, among others.
Virtual reality and Virtual environments that mimic reality and allow the interaction and visualization of situations in
augmented reality real dimensions.
Common physical systems equipped with sensors and devices that interact and exchange
Internet of Things, sensors,
information among themselves and/or with an operator. They can be used to automate processes,
and cyber–physical
control inventory, machinery, and human resources, track material transportation, and monitor the
systems
behavior of existing buildings and their facilities.
Use of smartphones, tablets, and applications as tools to support communication and collaboration
Mobile devices
throughout the production cycle.
Three-dimensional Printing of objects in three dimensions, comprising either entire buildings or individual parts for
printing subsequent assemblage.
Prefabrication and Construction industrialization, mass production, and off-site part production for later installation at
modularization the final destination.
Source: adapted from Menegon and Silva Filho [6].
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 7 of 31

2.1.3. Impact of New Technologies

The ongoing technological revolution is expected to have a prominent impact on the
economic, social, and cultural spheres of societies worldwide, particularly on economic
development and the labor market [2]. Current innovations may dramatically affect skill
profiles and workplace activities [3], potentially exerting some negative effects in the short
term owing to the rapid replacement of human labor by computers [2]. Schwab [2] argued
that, in the long term, however, new demands for services and products are likely to catalyze
the emergence of new professions, which eventually absorb the available workforce. With
the new IR, workers tend to be more focused on creative and added-value activities and
dedicate less time to routine and repetitive activities [3], as the latter can be easily replaced
by machines. There is a prospect that there will be an increased supply of high-salary
positions with high cognitive and creative demands, just as there could be a reduced need
for low-paid, fundamentally manual occupations [2].
For the construction sector, connected sensors, smart construction equipment, mobile
devices, and the use of applications can improve productivity, manage complexity, reduce
delays and cost increase, and also ensure quality, safety, and collaboration [6], changing the
way we build and maintain our assets.
The planning and management phase is poised for transformation through new
technologies in the construction lifecycle. Industry 4.0 advancements in data acquisition,
storage, and processing will significantly enhance the planning phase. Nearly all Industry
4.0 technologies are relevant to this stage [6]. They can enhance the production process by
decentralizing decision-making, emphasizing pre-construction phases, and enabling real-
time progress monitoring through integrated information. Furthermore, the construction
stage is significantly influenced by the emergence of automated construction processes,
gradually replacing conventional manual labor. Indeed, the industry can enormously
benefit from data acquisition, storage, and processing [6].
The expected benefits of 4IR can be classified into three main categories [13]: (i) product-
related benefits, including those directly linked to the performance, quality, and release
timing of final products; (ii) operation-related benefits, which refer to improvements in
internal production activities, such as increased yields and reduced operating costs; and
(iii) side benefits, which are not directly linked to products or productivity but can be
equally advantageous to companies [13]. Table 3 describes some of the benefits that new
technologies can provide to the construction industry, stratified into categories.

Table 3. Expected benefits of the adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies.

Product Benefits Operational Benefits Side Benefits

Increased productivity
[31,39,43,44]
Reduced rework [32]
Improved final product Reduced cost [33,41,43,45,46]
New business opportunities
quality [27–37] Improved communication and
[28,31,43]
Reduced release time information exchange
Labor reallocation [38,39]
[34,38–41] [27,28,32,47–50]
Increased employee safety
Preventive maintenance Reduction in repetitive work
[31,41,46]
support [31,42–45] [29,32,39,40,46]
Reduction in manual labor
and physical exertion
[36,37,39,44–46,51]

In the context of Brazilian manufacturing, certain 4IR technologies can be associated

with different benefits; that is, by adopting a certain technology, there is a greater probability
of achieving the benefits related to it [13]. Such an association, if well established, could
allow users to direct technology adoption efforts according to the desired goals.
Despite the countless gains that can be achieved with the Industry 4.0 model, many
difficulties still have to be addressed for the full development of this industrial age. Some
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 8 of 31

of the barriers that may hamper the progress of 4IR include a lack of regulations and
standards [9,12,52–55], job cuts [2,12], information security risk [9,12,23], insufficient in-
frastructure [9,12], a lack of customer demand [23,53,55], a limited clarity of returns and
benefits [9,12,53], the difficulty and lack of time for implementation [9,12,53], a lack of
knowledge or insufficient information [12,53,55,56], a lack of trained professionals [9,12,53],
resistance to change [9,12,52,53,55], and high implementation costs [9,12,23,53,54].
Consideration should also be given to the structural challenges that emerging economies
need to overcome to achieve a satisfactory level of technological implementation [13].
Many emerging countries differ greatly from developed countries in terms of technological,
scientific, and social barriers and market peculiarities that interfere with the acceptance
of innovations [57]. For this reason, in order for adaptation to occur in a satisfactory
manner, it is “important to understand the results of the 4IR in the context of each specific
industry and country” [2]. It is expected that, with the satisfactory implementation of
Industry 4.0, Brazilian companies will experience renewed growth, increased efficiency,
and reduced costs [10]. Such results may stem from new products and services that
generate additional revenue, as well as from the improvement of operational factors, such
as process digitization, real-time quality control, inventory management, and production
flexibility [10].

3. Methods
3.1. Hypothesis Formulation
In view of the foregoing and based on a literature review, we developed the following
hypotheses to be tested by this study:

H1. Larger companies make greater use of 4IR technologies.

H2. There is a difference in expected benefits and observed barriers to 4IR implementation between
companies of different sizes.

H3. Professionals working at different stages of the construction lifecycle have a preference for
different technologies.

H4. The type of expected benefits influences the choice of technologies.

To test the above-mentioned hypotheses and understand the perceptions of profession-

als on promising technologies, structured questionnaires were administered to engineers
and architects working at any stage of the construction project lifecycle or developing aca-
demic research in the field of construction. This type of questionnaire, with a strict sequence
of questions and predetermined response options, facilitates the statistical analysis of the
results [58]. The aim was to understand the current state of the Brazilian construction sector,
assess future expectations regarding the adoption of innovations, and evaluate the potential
of the sector to adhere to new technologies. Additionally, critical factors and barriers to the
success of technology adoption were identified. Questionnaire data were analyzed using
descriptive and inferential statistical techniques to identify behavioral patterns among
respondent groups.

3.2. Data Collection Instrument

The structured questionnaire was designed following the recommendations of Man-
zato and Santos [59]. The instrument contained 24 items divided into five sections. Most of
the questions were closed-ended to facilitate data analysis [58,59]. In the first section, ques-
tions assessed the characteristics of construction professionals. Respondents were classified
based on their professional training, experience, and field of expertise within the construc-
tion industry. The second session aimed to characterize the companies where professionals
worked based on size, technological maturity degree, and geographical location.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 9 of 31

After the characterization of respondents and companies, we sought to evaluate

the perceptions of actors in the construction industry about the level of technological
advancement of the construction sector and the anticipated benefits of innovations. So, the
third section comprised four 5-point Likert-scale questions, one multiple-choice question,
and one single-choice question. The first one was related to the role of new technologies in
fostering the development of construction activities. The second and third questions in this
section assessed the current level of technological development of the construction industry
and the perspective for innovation in the next five years, respectively. Responses were
rated on a scale ranging from 1 to 5. We assessed user expectations regarding the adoption
of innovative technologies in construction by asking respondents to select five benefits
they would expect from technology adoption. Additionally, at the end of this section, we
inquired about participants’ knowledge of terms such as Construction 4.0, Fourth Industrial
Revolution, and Industry 4.0. This helped us understand the permeability of 4IR ideas,
concepts, and technologies among stakeholders in the construction industry.
In section four, we sought to investigate the development potential of concepts and
technologies considered promising in the construction industry by understanding the level
of current use and future interest, and assessed the perceptions about the cost and time
involved in their implementation. The concepts described in Table 2 were presented to
the respondents, aiming to provide a brief elucidation of their application in the sector.
Respondents were presented with a list of different concepts and asked to rate the level of
application of each concept within organizations on a 5-point scale (very low/absent, scarce,
reasonable, good, and high). These levels were assigned integer values ranging from 1 to 5
for quantification. The same scale and items were used to measure the respondents’ degree
of interest in adopting the concepts over a 5-year period. Academic professionals were
invited to answer these questions about the use and interest in technologies, considering the
research they carry out in the construction field. With the aim of analyzing the perception
of construction professionals about the cost and time required for adopting technologies,
participants were asked to rank the cost and time needed to apply technologies/concepts
on a 5-point scale (very low, low, reasonable, high, and very high). The items were assigned
scores ranging from 1 to 5 for analytics. The participants’ perception of the preparedness of
companies to adopt technologies was assessed using a 5-point numerical scale, with 1 rep-
resenting unpreparedness to adopt technologies and 5 representing complete preparedness
to adopt technologies.
Finally, the fifth section investigated preferences for innovation adoption and the
main barriers to technology diffusion in construction. In this phase of the research, par-
ticipants were asked to choose three technologies to be adopted in the day-to-day of the
company/organization in which they work. As the final part of the survey, we sought to
identify factors hindering the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction
sector according to the opinions of participants. To this end, participants were invited
to report the three main barriers that prevent or hinder technology adoption in order of
importance. There was also a final open-ended question for additional comments.
After creating the survey instrument, it was pre-tested by 20 volunteers to identify
any issues or ambiguities [59]. The instrument was developed using Google Forms. A link
was sent to participants through social and professional networks and through institutions
such as the Rio Grande do Sul Construction Industry Union (SINDUSCON-RS) and the
Santa Catarina Association of Technology (ACATE). A total of 104 valid responses were
obtained, representing a relevant sample for this exploratory study.

3.3. Data Analysis

The first step of data analysis involved a descriptive statistical approach, which was
used to summarize and describe data both graphically and numerically in an informative
manner [60]. Descriptive analysis examines events and understands trends, identifying
patterns and drawing conclusions based on them. This approach does not intend to predict
outcomes. It focuses on correlations rather than causality, and data interpretation depends
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 10 of 31

on the studied context. Descriptive analysis was applied to all sections of the questionnaire
using tables and graphs. These visual representations primarily described the frequency of
answers for each alternative. Additionally, we compared data from professionals working
at different company sizes to assess differences in perceptions among the groups. In the
fourth part of the survey, which evaluated the use, interest, and perception of cost, time,
and preparedness for adopting innovations, the graphs displayed mean values based on
participant responses. These analytics were conducted using Microsoft Excel tools. We also
analyzed information about the current use of technologies to assess the level of develop-
ment of 4IR innovations in the investigated context. Technologies were classified according
to the following criterion: low technology use (1 ≤ mean < 2), undeveloped; intermediate
technology use (2 ≤ average use < 3), incipient; high technology use (3 ≤ average use < 4),
undergoing development; and very high technology use (4 ≤ average use < 5), consolidated.
Section four comprised, in addition to descriptive ones, some inferential analysis
conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 18 software. Firstly, we conducted a cluster analysis
to group respondents with similar use patterns. For these analytics, we employed a two-
step cluster analysis aiming to identify different groups within our sample, following a
previous research approach [17]. Hair et al. [61] suggest the possibility of combining a
hierarchical approach to select the number and characterize cluster centers, and a non-
hierarchical method, which aggregates all observations using seed points to provide more
accurate allocations.
So, at first, an agglomerative hierarchical method, that combined respondents into clus-
ters based on the similarity of their technology use responses, was applied to determine the
appropriate number of clusters. This method is capable of generating a tree-like structure,
called dendrogram, that captures various consistent partitions at different levels [61]. As
suggested by the dendrogram generated in this step, it was inferred that respondents could
be classified into three groups, thereby avoiding the dispersion of the sample across several
groups with little representativeness or the concentration of heterogeneous respondents
in the same group [61]. Subsequently, the sample was divided into these three groups by
using non-hierarchical K-means clustering. The objective of this approach is to divide the
sample into K (in our case, three) distinct groups, aiming to maximize similarity among
members of the same cluster while identifying dissimilarity between different cluster mem-
bers [61]. This implies that respondents within the same group exhibit similar technology
usage patterns among themselves and differ from the use expressed by respondents of
other groups. Then, we assessed the demographics of group members to understand the
distribution of company sizes within each cluster.
After that, the statistical technique of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was em-
ployed to reduce the number of variables of the dataset [13], aiming to group technologies
with similar patterns of use. PCA is a statistical technique that helps us understand rela-
tionships among many variables. Its goal is to summarize the information from multiple
original variables into a smaller set of factors. These factors represent the common inherent
dimensions in the data [61]. The analysis afforded the categorization of the technologies
into three groups.
To identify the group where the variable will be placed, the factor loading matrix is
analyzed, which indicates the correlation between the variable and the factors. The greater
this factor loading, the more strongly the variable is related to that group. However, to
facilitate the interpretation of values, the rotated factor loading matrix is often used [62]. In
this study, Varimax orthogonal rotation was applied to facilitate data interpretation. Values
greater than 0.50 were considered to place a technology in one of the three groups [61].
The technologies that did not exhibit sufficiently high factor loadings were considered
indeterminate and were not included in any grouping [62]
The adequacy of the sample was tested by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test,
Bartlett’s sphericity test, and measures of sample adequacy (MSA) [61]. The results showed
that the sample was adequate, with a KMO value of 0.852, a significant Bartlett’s test result
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 11 of 31

(p < 0.001), and an MSA greater than 0.50. The internal consistency of the clusters was
measured by Cronbach’s alpha [61].
Finally, by averaging technology use, interest, and preparedness, we assessed the
absorption potential of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction sector within our
study context. Subsequently, we conducted multiple regression analysis to identify factors
influencing the adoption of technology. Regression is a technique in which a variable is
dependent or can be explained by other independent variables (predictors). The objective
is to predict changes in the dependent variable in response to changes in the independent
ones. Two variables are considered correlated when changes in one variable are associated
with changes in the other. This correlation is reflected in the regression coefficients. To
achieve reliable results, multivariate analysis should be conducted using a dataset that
adheres to specific criteria, including normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity. It is crucial
to avoid multicollinearity, which occurs when independent variables are highly correlated
with each other. Multicollinearity can weaken the predictive power of the analysis [61]. In
our study, we assessed these factors using the aforementioned software. The significance of
the relationships was evaluated using ANOVA analysis, which provides a statistical test
for the overall model fit in terms of the F ratio [61].
Each cluster of technologies underwent regression using two models. The first model
included professionals’ characteristics (field of activity, years of experience, and knowledge
of 4IR) as predictors, while the second model also considered company characteristics (size
and technological maturity). Both models yielded significant results in explaining adoption
patterns (p < 0.05) [61], with significance increasing when company characteristics were
included. This analysis helped consolidate the framework linking the 4IR technologies to
different construction lifecycle phases.
Additionally, we applied Poisson regression with robust error variance [63,64] for each
technology to identify factors influencing use and interest in that technology. This method is
suitable for counting data, especially when large counts are rare events [64]. For the analysis,
a binary variable was created for low use and interest and another for high use and interest
(1 = high; 0 = low). We then assessed the proportion of respondents within each option for
potential influencing factors. For instance, within the group exhibiting high technology use,
we evaluated the proportion of professionals working in smaller companies compared to
those in larger companies. Similar analyses were conducted for “low use”, “high interest”,
and “low interest”, considering other factors such as company maturity and sector, as well
as perceptions related to time, cost, and market readiness for technology adoption. To
address the potential overestimation of relative risk errors in Poisson regression due to
binomial data, we employed a robust error variance procedure [63]. Results with p-values
below 0.05 were considered significant, indicating that a factor influences technology use
or interest.
Additionally, to explore the relationship between anticipated benefits and technology
preferences, the standardized Pearson chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests were employed.
These tests evaluate two variables’ independence when comparing independent and uncor-
related groups—benefits and preferences. The first method is suitable for a large sample,
while the second is more appropriate for a small sample [61,65]. When fewer than five
respondents chose a specific technology, we applied Fisher’s test.
In the final sections of this paper, we summarized the results of both descriptive and
inferential analyses, ultimately identifying critical factors for innovation in the studied context.

3.4. Sample Characterization

Different phases of the construction industry can be impacted by the use of new
technologies. Thus, this study sought to include individuals with different professional
profiles who participate in different phases of the construction lifecycle. A description of
the sample is shown in Table 4.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 12 of 31

Table 4. Characterization of the sample of construction professionals.

Absolute Relative
Variable Description
Frequency Frequency
Academic degree Architecture/Urban Planning 12 11.5%
Civil Engineering 88 84.6%
Other 4 3.8%
Level of education Doctoral degree 5 4.8%
Undergraduate degree 32 30.8%
Master’s degree 26 25.0%
Specialization (postgraduate degree
41 39.4%
lato sensu)
Field of expertise Academic research/teaching 7 6.7%
Project management 33 31.7%
Budget/planning 22 21.2%
Inspection 14 13.5%
Supervision 20 19.2%
Technical evaluation 2 1.9%
Other 6 5.8%
Professional
1 to 3 years 28 26.9%
experience
4 to 6 years 21 20.2%
7 to 10 years 15 14.4%
11 to 15 years 11 10.6%
16 to 20 years 5 4.8%
More than 20 years 24 23.1%
Sector Private 77 74%
Public 27 26%

Most participants (85%) had a degree in Civil Engineering, and a smaller proportion
(11%) had a degree in Architecture and Urbanism. Only 4% of respondents had training
in other fields of engineering. The question about continuing education showed that 69%
of participants had some graduate degree, either stricto or lato sensu. As for professional
experience, it was found that 53% of respondents had more than seven years of experience
in construction, whereas the other 47% had worked in the field for a shorter time.
Most of the research participants stated that they worked in private companies (74%).
The area with the highest proportion of respondents was that of project management
(32%). The sample also included professionals who worked in academic research and/or
teaching (7%).
Finally, 32% of respondents reported that they worked in areas directly related to the
construction phase, such as inspection and supervision, and 53% of respondents worked in
pre-construction phases, such as project management, budget, and planning.

3.5. Characterization of Construction Companies

The second section of the questionnaire assessed the characteristics of the companies
where participants worked. Most responses were concentrated in one of two extremes:
companies were either micro (37%) or large (40%) in size (Figure 1). This distribution
revealed an interesting comparison of the technology implementation profile of companies
of different sizes. Given the lower frequency of respondents in medium-sized companies,
the results were grouped into two groups for statistical analysis purposes (micro and small
companies were grouped into smaller companies, and medium-sized and large companies
were grouped into larger companies).

Figure 1. Size characterization of construction companies.

Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 13 of 31

In terms of geographical location, respondents from companies across thirteen states

in Brazil participated in the questionnaire. However, half of the answers were from workers
based in Rio Grande do Sul State, the southernmost region of the country. Therefore, it is
important to highlight that, given the large territorial extension of Brazil, the results may
not reflect the reality of the country as a whole.
The last question related to company characterization assessed the degree of techno-
logical maturity in terms of digital transformation. The majority of respondents (56%) rated
the maturity of their organization as “undergoing development”, indicating that they were
at the beginning of the digital journey, with leaders showing an understanding of the im-
portance of digital transformation but without a clear implementation strategy. It should be
noted that 27% of respondents classified their organization as “sophisticated”. This means
that just over a quarter of companies already reap the benefits of digital transformation with
a clear implementation strategy and a high level of employee engagement. On the other
hand, only 5% of companies were classified as “innovative”, which represents the maxi-
mum degree of technological maturity. Furthermore, 12% of companies were described
as “traditional”, with no strategy or plan for digital transformation. Overall, the results
suggest that the construction industry is moving toward digitization, but implementation
strategies have not yet been consolidated (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Level of technological maturity of construction companies. (1) There is no defined digital
strategy. Leaders and teams are not prepared for the required transformations, and most services
are not digital. (2) The institution has embarked on its digital journey by acquiring software and/or
technological equipment, but there is no clear implementation strategy, team training, or evaluation
of results. Nevertheless, leaders understand that digital transformation is essential for the company.
(3) The institution is reaping the fruits of digital transformation, having a clear strategy and employee
engagement. Most processes have been digitized, and there is information integration between
some of them. (4) The institution has achieved an advanced level of digitization, has a well-defined
and structured information management strategy, and performs impact assessment and continuous
improvement. There is the use of disruptive technologies associated with the fourth industrial
revolution, such as the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence.

When comparing technological maturity between company sizes, it was found that
larger companies have a greater level of innovation adoption. Large companies were more
frequently evaluated as sophisticated than micro and small companies and were considered
innovative more than twice as frequently as micro enterprises (Figure 3). It should be noted,
however, that smaller companies are moving toward technological maturity, even if slowly.
Given the low number of respondents from medium-sized companies, the results of this
group were considered unrepresentative.

Figure 3. Technological maturity according to company size.

Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 14 of 31

4. Results
4.1. Characterization of Technological Advancement in Construction
By collecting data from five out of the six questions in Section 3 of the questionnaire,
we were able to characterize technological advancements in the construction industry
according to respondents’ perceptions. The majority of respondents (79%) regarded tech-
nological innovation as extremely important for the construction sector, assigning the
maximum score to the question, and no respondents considered it unimportant.
Although the value of technological innovation was widely recognized by the study
sample, the pace of innovation adoption over the previous five years was perceived as
insufficient, with 39% of respondents reporting a moderate level of innovation adoption
(score 3 out of 5) and 36% reporting a below average level (<3). Only 3% of construction
professionals observed a significant evolution in the construction sector, attributing it a
score of 5. These findings show that there is a growing movement in search of innovation,
but adoption is still slow.
When asked about the level of development expected for the sector in the following
five years, respondents were reasonably optimistic about the future, with 46% of valuations
above the intermediate value, tending toward a “rapid and significant advancement”. As
for the current level of technological development, almost half of the participants (49%)
considered it below average, indicating that the industry is still more focused on traditional
methods (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Level of technological development of the construction industry. (1) Responses range
from 1 (traditional) to 5 (innovative). (2) Responses range from 1 (no advance) to 5 (rapid and
significant advance).

A comparison of the expectations of respondents from companies of different sizes

(Figure 5) revealed a greater degree of optimism about the near future in smaller companies,
with 54% of respondents expecting an above-average pace of advance, compared to 37%
of respondents from larger companies. This expectation may indicate a more optimistic
perspective and greater interest in small and micro enterprises in adopting new technologies
in the coming years.

Figure 5. Level of technological development expected over the next 5 years according to com-
pany size.

As shown in Figure 6, 57% of respondents said that they had no knowledge about
these topics and, of these, 13% reported not even having heard these terms before. Those
with advanced knowledge comprised 6% of the sample, and 37% considered they had only
basic knowledge. These results evidence the need to disseminate knowledge about 4IR
among construction professionals and raise awareness about the current movements of the
industry in general.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 15 of 31

Figure 6. Knowledge of terms related to Industry 4.0.

The analysis of knowledge level according to company size (Table 5) showed, as

expected, that professionals with advanced knowledge about Industry 4.0 terms are more
frequent in large companies (12%) than in microenterprises (3%). Surprisingly, however,
individuals who had never heard of the terms were also more common in large companies.
This may indicate that knowledge in larger companies might be concentrated in some agents
without vertical dissemination. Additionally, it can be inferred that smaller companies are
aware of the new IR but still lag behind in terms of learning and knowledge consolidation.
For medium-sized companies, the number of respondents was not significant to identify
general behavioral trends.

Table 5. Knowledge of Industry 4.0 terms according to company size.

Company Size
Response
Micro Small Medium Large
I have never heard about this topic 11% 11% 0% 19%
I have heard these terms but have no knowledge about the topic 50% 28% 33% 45%
I have heard these terms, and I have some knowledge about the topic 37% 56% 67% 24%
I have heard these terms, and I have advanced knowledge of the topic 3% 6% 0% 12%
Total number of responses 38 18 6 42

4.2. Expected Benefits of Technology Use

The results obtained from the last question in Section 3 of the questionnaire revealed
that gains in productivity (74%) and final product quality (68%) were the most anticipated
benefits, followed by reduced rework (60%) and production costs (59%) (Figure 7). The least
frequent expectation indicated by the respondents was an increase in employee safety. This
perception may be related to the large number of participants who work in pre-construction
phases, where safety concerns are not as evident.

Figure 7. Expected benefits from using new technologies.

It is surprising that preventive maintenance support was one of the least expected
benefits. One of the great advantages of using emerging technologies is the possibility of
the end-to-end integration of production chain information and asset monitoring through
sensors and models, which would greatly benefit the use and maintenance phases. This
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 16 of 31

finding indicates that the potential of new technologies in construction may not be suffi-
ciently clear and that professionals still have little interest in the lifecycle management of
buildings. It underscores, therefore, the need for professionals to be trained and raised
aware of the applications of new technologies.
In comparing the perceptions of professionals from large and small companies about
the benefits of technologies, we found that a reduction in release time was significantly
more expected among workers from small companies (p < 0.05 in the Poisson regression
test). A similar result was observed for private company workers as compared with public
employees (p = 0.05), explained by the fact that release times are usually less rigid in the
public sector. On the other hand, increased productivity and a better allocation of resources
were more important for larger organizations. Cost reduction was more relevant for large
companies than for small ones. Small organizations valued more rework reduction and
final product quality. Small companies also emphasized the reduction in repetitive work.
These differences in perceptions between companies of different sizes are expected,
given that they have different objectives. The results support and validate the second
hypothesis of this study (H2) about the expected benefits of using emerging technologies.
Whereas larger companies seek to optimize processes to reduce production costs and
increase productivity, smaller companies are more focused on growth and market gain.
To do this, smaller companies need to overcome obstacles that, in general, have already
been overcome by larger companies, such as those related to repetitive work, rework, and
release time. Larger companies seek to improve resource allocation, productivity, and the
exchange of information between stakeholders to remain competitive.
Operational benefits, those associated with productivity and efficiency, were the
most expected. The expectation of benefits related to products was, however, somewhat
lower. Although there is strong potential for increasing quality with the introduction
of innovations, the reduction in release time and support for preventive maintenance
remained in the background. On the other hand, side benefits were the least expected
among respondents, which might be related to a lack of interest in these benefits or a limited
understanding of the potential of technologies.
Hierarchical linear regression was performed to identify factors influencing the im-
portance given to the different types of benefits. It was inferred that benefits related to
products increase in importance with increasing experience in the activity. On the other
hand, workers with less experience tend to value the operational and side benefits of
emerging technologies, particularly the latter.

4.3. Potential of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Construction

Drawing on the results obtained from Section 4 of the questionnaire and combining
them with data from previous questions, this section aims to explore the adoption patterns
of concepts and technologies within the construction sector in the investigated context.

4.3.1. Use and Interest

The mean level of use of Industry 4.0 technologies by construction professionals
is shown in Figure 8. Cloud computing was the technology with the highest degree
of implementation. However, in line with what was observed among manufacturing
companies [19], cloud computing is mostly applied in the form of remote servers for
data storage or online software. IoT, sensors, and CPS, which depend on the use of
clouds, were second-to-last in terms of current application. This finding demonstrates that
construction equipment and products are not yet connected to the cloud; this would enable
communication between objects and servers or controllers. In addition to cloud computing,
only mobile devices exceeded the average usage level. Even building information modeling
(BIM), which has shown great impact potential and is a topic of wide visibility in discussions
concerning the construction industry, is not yet consolidated in emerging markets.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 17 of 31

Figure 8. Use of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction sector.

Additive manufacturing, represented by 3D printing, had the lowest level of adoption

among respondents, reflecting its incipient development in the construction sector. This
reality contrasts with the international literature showing vast interest in additive man-
ufacturing [6]. In Brazil, this technology remains at the academic level without practical
application.
No significant differences in the degree of technology use were observed between
small and large companies. Therefore, it was not possible to confirm the first hypothesis
of this study (H1) through descriptive analysis. Among small companies, we observed a
slight trend toward the use of innovations related to virtual environments (BIM, simulation
and modeling, and virtual and augmented reality) and mobile devices. Large companies,
on the other hand, made more use of concepts related to advanced manufacturing, data
intelligence, and automation. The identified pattern might be related to the focus of action of
small companies, that is, pre-construction phases, such as design, planning, and budgeting.
In light of the current level of technology use, we investigated the degree of develop-
ment of innovations among the respondents. As explained in Section 3.3, we classified the
technologies into four categories: undeveloped, incipient, under development, and consoli-
dated, based on their mean level of use (Figure 9). Although Oesterreich and Teutberg [5]
stated that “several digitization and automation technologies for construction have reached
market maturity and thus are currently available”, the vast majority of technologies are not
in an advanced state of use. Furthermore, those that are fundamental to the consolidation
of emerging technologies in construction (base technologies) have not yet been developed.
Our findings indicate that no technology has been fully consolidated in the studied context.

Figure 9. Level of development of 4IR technologies in the construction industry of the studied context.

Upon comparing the level of current usage with the expressed interest in adopting
technology, respondents showed a willingness to expand the use of all concepts in the
coming years (Figure 10). The highest levels of interest were in mobile devices, cloud
computing, and BIM. The industry is closer to achieving the desired development in the
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 18 of 31

first two technologies, as shown by our results. The other technologies are still far from
reaching the desired level of use expressed by the respondents, particularly virtual and
augmented reality, BIM, and automation.

Figure 10. Current use and interest in adopting Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction sector.

Applying the Poisson regression, it was inferred again that the technological maturity
of companies is a fundamental factor for technology use. For all innovations, there was a
significant increase in the level of use with increasing technological maturity. The same
was observed for interest: professionals working in companies that had already begun
the transition to digital technologies showed more interest in new technologies, even if
such technologies were not yet used. The only technologies for which this increase in
interest was not significant were IoT/sensors/CPS and product lifecycle management.
These results indicate that traditional companies, in addition to not having yet started
the digital transformation process, have less interest in adopting technologies in the next
five years.
There was not enough statistical power to identify differences in the use of technologies
between public and private companies. However, the interest of professionals in the public
sector was significantly lower than that of private sector employees. This result denotes
greater disinterest in digitization among public workers.
Regarding the influence of respondents’ areas of expertise, Poisson regression indicates
that the use of robots and drones proved to be superior among professionals working
in phases related to construction. On the other hand, simulation and modeling were
more predominant in the preconstruction phases. The intention to adopt BIM in the
coming years was higher among participants working in project design, planning, and
budgeting. These observations are in line with previous results. This result supports our
third hypothesis (H3).

Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis was performed to identify similarities between respondents and
technologies. First, the sample was grouped according to similarities in technology use
by hierarchical and non-hierarchical clustering [59]. As a result, three different usage
profiles were obtained, namely, (i) high technology use, composed of professionals who
use practically all emerging technologies more frequently than the other groups, except
cloud computing; (ii) moderate technology use, comprising professionals whose average
use of technologies is higher than that of the low group and who frequently use mobile
devices and cloud computing; and (iii) low technology use, comprising professionals who
have a low degree of technology use (mean < 1.5).
Table 6 shows the technology use results (mean and standard deviation) for the
identified groups. It also includes the percentage of respondents in each group and the
representativeness of companies of different sizes. The use of all concepts has statistical
significance in determining the group in which the respondents were classified; that is,
members of each group use all concepts differently from members of the others.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 19 of 31

Table 6. Grouping of construction professionals according to the degree of technology use.

High Use Moderate Use Low Use F-Value

Technology
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Mobile devices 4.19 0.75 4.02 1.06 2.35 1.30 30.64 ***
Cloud computing 3.96 0.96 4.39 0.83 2.49 1.39 31.52 ***
Simulation and modeling 3.96 1.00 3.56 1.21 1.54 1.07 46.91 ***
Building information modeling 3.92 0.80 3.27 1.18 1.59 0.64 55.50 ***
Virtual and augmented reality 3.35 1.06 2.02 0.91 1.22 0.53 49.27 ***
Product lifecycle management 3.27 1.34 2.32 1.06 1.27 0.65 29.85 ***
Automation 3.15 0.73 2.24 1.20 1.16 0.50 39.31 ***
Robots and drones 3.04 1.04 1.85 1.01 1.41 0.76 23.82 ***
Big data 2.73 1.15 2.20 1.03 1.19 0.62 22.46 ***
IoT, sensors, and CPS 3.31 1.05 1.85 0.96 1.08 0.28 57.11 ***
Prefabrication/modularization 3.42 1.03 1.68 0.96 1.86 1.32 21.71 ***
3D printing 2.65 1.02 1.24 0.54 1.05 0.23 57.22 ***
% of respondents in each group 25% 39% 36%
Large and medium companies 42% 44% 51%
Micro and small companies 58% 56% 49%
IoT, Internet of Things; CPS, cyber–physical system; *** p < 0.001.

In agreement with what has been observed in manufacturing [19], construction pro-
fessionals tended to increase technology use in a homogeneous and progressive way. In
other words, professionals who used one technology more frequently tended to adopt
other technologies over time. Therefore, technology use increases with the increase in the
technological maturity of the company. This inference is corroborated by the degree of
technological maturity of professionals from different groups: in the high technology use
group, 54% of professionals reported working in a company with sophisticated or innova-
tive characteristics, whereas, in the low technology use group, this number dropped to 14%.
Furthermore, the group of professionals with high technology use showed greater interest
in the future, demonstrating that those who already adopted innovative technologies intend
to further expand their use in the coming years.
Another interesting result is that there was no proportional relationship between
company size and the adoption of technologies, which is different from that observed in
the manufacturing industry [17]. The cited study found that there were more small and
medium-sized companies in the high technology use group than large and medium-sized
companies. Again, the first hypothesis of the current study (H1) could not be confirmed.
The categorization of technologies into groups, performed through PCA to facilitate
further analysis, is represented in Table 7. As explained earlier, the analysis grouped
variables with similar use patterns among the survey participants and revealed three
clusters, which were labeled as virtualization, automation, and manufacture, based on the
technologies they encompass. IoT/sensors/CPS was not statistically included in any of the
three groups. In Table 7, factor loadings greater than 0.50, considered significant [61], are
highlighted in bold, showing the items that make up each group. The internal consistency
of the first two clusters, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was high. The consistency of
the third group was low, but the cluster was maintained, given the exploratory nature of
the study and the low number of variables involved.
The first cluster (C1, virtualization) comprised mobile devices, cloud computing,
and virtual environment technologies (BIM, simulation and modeling, and virtual and
augmented reality). This cluster had the highest mean utilization score among respondents.
It is understood, therefore, that this cluster represents the first innovations absorbed by
the market, either because they are more consolidated or because they are perceived to
provide more benefits. The second cluster (C2, automation) had intermediate adoption
among respondents. This cluster includes technologies related to data intelligence, such as
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 20 of 31

big data and product lifecycle management, as well as automation technologies, robots,
and drones.

Table 7. Grouping of similar technologies.

Factor Commonality
Technology
Virtualization Automation Manufacture
Cloud computing 0.629 0.475 −0.361 0.751
Big data 0.143 0.756 0.243 0.651
PLM 0.312 0.543 0.402 0.554
Robots and drones 0.053 0.721 0.217 0.570
Automation 0.383 0.608 0.199 0.556
BIM 0.861 0.137 0.234 0.815
Simulation and modeling 0.843 0.114 0.221 0.772
VR and AR 0.642 0.210 0.491 0.697
IoT, sensors, CPS 0.492 0.446 0.354 0.566
Mobile devices 0.540 0.489 −0.117 0.544
3D printing 0.205 0.279 0.686 0.591
Prefabrication and
0.065 0.173 0.761 0.613
modularization
Eigenvalue 5.29 1.37 1.02
Cumulative variance (%) 44.09 55.52 64.00
Cronbach’s alpha 0.76 0.86 0.54
PLM, product lifecycle management; IoT, Internet of Things; CPS, cyber–physical system.

Cluster 3 (C3, manufacture) includes prefabrication/modularization and 3D printing,

both related to the advancement of construction techniques. This cluster had the lowest
degree of use among research participants. However, prefabrication was more applied
than 3D printing, particularly among high technology use professionals, who have greater
technological maturity. This result shows that most companies still adopt traditional
construction techniques, although prefabrication has been gaining ground in companies
with greater technological maturity.

4.3.2. Perception of Cost, Time, and Preparedness of Companies to Adopt

Emerging Technologies
In this section, we analyze construction professionals’ perceptions regarding the
costs and time associated with technology adoption, as well as the market’s readiness
to embrace it. As shown in Figure 11, robots and drones were perceived to have the
highest implementation costs, followed by automation and 3D printing. The perception
of cost seems to be strongly linked to the acquisition of technologies, not to the actual
implementation process. It should be noted that practically all technologies exceeded the
average value in terms of cost, with the exception of mobile devices and cloud computing,
explaining their high degree of use.
The same pattern was observed for implementation time: mobile devices and cloud
computing were perceived to have the shortest time of implementation. Automation and
IoT/sensors/CPS, by contrast, were perceived to require more time for implementation,
probably because these technologies are believed to have greater complexity. In general, the
perception of implementation time was lower than that of implementation costs, indicating
that the latter might be more important in the decision to adopt technologies.
Nevertheless, the Poisson regression inferred that a perception of longer implementa-
tion time is strongly associated with reduced interest in adopting technologies. In several
cases, respondents who perceived a technology as more time-consuming to implement also
showed a low use intention in the coming years.
Also, according to the respondents, the industry is unprepared to adopt the vast
majority of technologies. The technologies with scores higher than the average were mobile
devices and cloud computing, followed by prefabrication and modularization (intermediate
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 21 of 31

scores). This finding suggests a market that is still insecure and has a low capacity to
modernize itself. In this scenario, there is a greater need for qualified professionals to assist
in the transition to modernization and technological maturity.

Figure 11. Perception about the cost and time to adopt Industry 4.0 technologies.

The perception of market preparedness was directly related to interest in adopting

technologies, as indicated by the Poisson regression analysis. Professionals who perceived
the market as well prepared to receive innovations tended to express greater interest in
adopting new technologies. Such a factor might be related to confidence in technologies
that have already been tested and approved by peers, as noted by Rogers [22].

4.3.3. Technology Absorption Potential

By analyzing the results for technology use, interest, and preparedness, it can be con-
cluded that the technologies with the highest potential for absorption in the studied context
are mobile devices and cloud computing, followed by BIM, simulation and modeling, and
prefabrication and modularization (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Absorption potential of Industry 4.0 technologies in the studied context.

Table 8 presents the results of multiple regression performed to identify what can
influence the absorption potential of 4IR technologies. The values of the table indicate
the correlation between dependent and independent variables. The negative sign indi-
cates a negative influence. In regard to the area of expertise, greater values represent
more advanced phases in the construction lifecycle. For manufacturing technologies and
IoT/sensors/CPS, significance was only observed for the model that included company
characteristics—maturity and size (p < 0.001). It is clear that the adoption of these two
concepts is primarily dependent on company maturity.
The adoption potential of virtualization (C1) technologies, besides being greater than
the other clusters, was also statistically higher among smaller companies than among larger
companies. C3, composed of smart manufacturing technologies, had higher adoption
potential among large companies, but this difference was not statistically significant. The
adoption potential of automation (C2) technologies was significantly higher among profes-
sionals working in the most advanced lifecycle phases, such as supervision, inspection, and
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 22 of 31

the preparation of technical and building evaluation reports, as well as among professionals
with a greater knowledge of Industry 4.0.

Table 8. Factors influencing the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction sector.

Factor Virtualization Automation Manufacture IoT

Area 0.075 0.072 0.285 *** 0.302 * 0.088 0.050 0.109 0.119
Experience −0.104 ** −0.092 ** −0.046 −0.061 * −0.044 −0.037 −0.004 −0.012
Knowledge 0.138 0.109 0.152 * 0.113 0.056 0.061 −0.050 −0.091
Maturity 0.538 *** 0.392 *** 0.283 *** 0.440 ***
Size −0.151 *** −0.070 0.037 −0.099
F-value 2.711 ** 8.518 *** 4.069 *** 5.919 *** 0.659 2.142 * 0.328 2.547 **
* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

For all technology clusters, there was a positive correlation between absorption poten-
tial and the technological maturity of companies, further corroborating that companies that
are more mature are more likely to absorb any Industry 4.0 concept. The experience of pro-
fessionals was inversely proportional to technology absorption potential, with significant
differences in C1 and C2. This finding suggests that more experienced professionals have
greater skepticism toward emerging technologies.
On the basis of the results, it can be inferred again that there is a relationship between
the lifecycle phase of construction projects and the choice of certain technologies, confirming
the third hypothesis (H3) of this study. The framework presented in Figure 13 illustrates
which concepts are more interesting for each lifecycle stage and the likely order of adoption
by practitioners in the construction industry. The design phase can make use of technologies
related to virtualization. Inspection and technical reports and building evaluation phases
may benefit from technologies related to both virtualization and automation. Manufacture
technologies are applied mainly in the construction phase, which may also benefit from
automation concepts and the use of IoT/sensors/CPS. The budget and planning phase
could benefit from all concepts analyzed here. IoT, sensors, and CPS, which were not
included in any cluster, are depicted to lie across all three groups, as they provide integration
between emerging technologies.

Figure 13. Adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in different lifecycle phases of construction.

4.4. Preference of Respondents

In the fifth section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to express their
preferences among the presented technologies. The most chosen technology was BIM,
reported by 63% of respondents (Figure 14). The second most chosen technology was cloud
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 23 of 31

computing (52%). Simulation and modeling were chosen by 27% of professionals. Less
than a quarter of the participants selected the remaining technologies.

Figure 14. Choice of Industry 4.0 technologies among construction professionals.

It is noteworthy that mobile devices, which had great adoption interest in the previous
survey, were chosen by only 22% of respondents. This finding shows that, although there
is interest in this technology, it is not considered a priority or that respondents already
feel satisfied with the current level of use of the technology, in agreement with the results
presented in Figure 10. IoT/sensors/CPS and 3D printing ranked last, being selected by
only 8% of participants. The dissociation between IoT and cloud computing, as previously
mentioned, corroborates the focus on file storage and use of cloud software and not on
integration between objects via devices and sensors. The finding also highlights the distance
between construction and 4IR, given that the basis of the revolution is the connectivity
promoted by sensors.
We did not identify statistically significant relationships between respondents’ choice
of technologies and the objectives they indicated. Thus, the fourth hypothesis (H4) of this
research was rejected, and it can be inferred that professionals are not yet able to associate
the available innovations with the objectives they are aiming for.

4.5. Barriers to Technology Adoption

Finally, we assessed the potential barriers to the adoption of 4IR technologies in the
studied context. Figure 15 shows that the most chosen barrier, regardless of priority, was
the high cost of implementation (56%), followed by resistance to change (53%), which is
characteristic of the sector. The third most cited factor (45%) was the lack of qualified
professionals to lead the necessary changes, underscoring the need for training. The factors
considered less important were a lack of regulation and standards, a reduction in jobs, and
risks to information security.

Figure 15. Barriers to the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction sector.

We stratified results according to company size. Implementation cost was cited

as a major barrier by medium and large companies. For smaller companies, however,
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 24 of 31

the biggest difficulty to overcome was the culture of resistance to change. High costs
were also perceived as a barrier. Larger companies showed more concern about data
security, available infrastructure, and a lack of regulations, although these factors were not
considered of great relevance. Professionals from small and micro companies have lower
demands from customers and, therefore, may feel less inclined to adopt new technologies.
The results indicate that organizations of different sizes encounter different barriers to
the adoption of emerging technologies, supporting the second hypothesis of this study (H2).
Larger companies are more concerned about operational factors, such as costs and benefits,
data security, infrastructure, and regulation, whereas smaller companies are concerned
about initial barriers, such as resistance to change, the difficulty of implementation, and
low customer demand.
Barriers differed according to the degree of technology use, grouped in Table 6
(Figure 16). A lack of clarity of benefits and the difficulty of implementation were less
important for professionals who already made use of innovative technologies, whereas
resistance to change and a lack of customer demand gained prominence. For respon-
dents who were in the low technology use group, ignorance or lack of information about
innovations was evident, appearing as the third most important barrier. This finding
indicates that knowledge dissemination may contribute to introducing innovations in
traditional companies.

Figure 16. Important barriers according to the degree of innovation use.

Understanding the obstacles perceived by construction professionals is crucial for

guiding the development of actions in research and development.

4.6. Overview
The questionnaire administered to engineers and architects working in the Brazilian
construction industry allowed us to test the hypotheses formulated and gain insights into
the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in this context.
Section 4.1 of the present study provided an overview of respondents’ perceptions
regarding the importance of technologies for the construction sector’s evolution, as well as
perceptions about technological advancements observed in this context. It also assessed
participants’ knowledge of the topic. In turn, Section 4.2 addressed the expected benefits
associated with the introduction of technologies in construction activities and the factors
influencing those expectations. In this section, we tested hypothesis H2 concerning the
differences in expected benefits for companies of different sizes.
Section 4.3 presented data on technology usage and interest among participants, high-
lighting factors that influence these aspects. These data allowed us to classify technologies
into different development levels within the studied context and test the first and third
hypotheses (H1 and H3). Additionally, we conducted clustering analyses, grouping re-
spondents with similar usage profiles and identifying technologies with similar adoption
patterns. We identified three respondent groups with varying technology usage levels
(high, medium, and low) and three technology groups (virtualization, automation, and
manufacturing) used similarly by participants. In Section 4.3, we also evaluated perceptions
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 25 of 31

related to time, cost, and market readiness for technology adoption, identifying the poten-
tial for technology absorption among respondents and the factors affecting that potential.
The analyses led to the creation of a framework identifying the likely order of technology
adoption by professionals and the lifecycle phases to which these concepts best apply.
Section 4.4 analyzed the respondents’ hypothetical choices among various observed
technologies, assessing participant preferences and testing the fourth hypothesis (H4).
Finally, in Section 4.5, we evaluated barriers to technology adoption within the studied
context. We also investigated potential differences in the barriers identified by professionals
from larger versus smaller companies, as well as variations among professionals with
different technology usage levels. This analysis concluded the testing of hypothesis H2.
Figure 17 summarizes significant results, listing factors identified as barriers or promoters
of innovation in the construction industry of the studied context.

Figure 17. Critical factors for innovation in the construction sector of studied context.

Table 9 summarizes the tests conducted for hypothesis validation, the bibliographic
sources from which they originated, the data collection source in the applied questionnaire,
the location where the hypothesis results were presented in the text, and the test outcomes.
Hypotheses H2 and H3 were supported by the analyses performed, while hypotheses H1
and H4 could not be confirmed in this study.

Table 9. Summary of the hypothesis tests and results.

Source of Data Evidence in the

Hypothesis Reference Statistical Test Result
(Questionnaire) Text
Section 4.3.1
Descriptive analysis
H1 [3,17,23] Section 4 Table 6 Rejected
Linear regression
Table 8
Poisson regression Section 3 Section 4.2
H2 [3,23] Supported
Descriptive analysis Section 5 Section 4.5
Poisson regression Section 4.3.1
H3 [6,25,26] Section 4 Supported
Linear regression Table 8
Descriptive analysis
Section 3
H4 [13] Chi-square Section 4.4 Rejected
Section 5
Fisher test

5. Discussion
The results of this study allowed for the identification of trends in the current interest
of adopting innovative solutions by the construction sector. First, it was found that con-
struction professionals perceive the importance of emerging technologies and show interest
in expanding their use, acknowledging the value of digital transformation in the sector.
However, construction companies still have little knowledge about the characteristics, ap-
plicability, and potential of technological solutions and have a low degree of technological
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 26 of 31

maturity. These factors, combined with a lack of qualified workers and high implementation
costs, hinder, delay, or prevent the incorporation and use of innovative technologies.
A large part of respondents, when asked about the degree of technological maturity of
their organizations, stated that companies are evolving, with a growing perception of the
need for transformation. Nevertheless, professionals stated that companies do not have
clear strategies for the acquisition, training, or implementation of new technologies and
innovative solutions. The majority of respondents claimed to have no knowledge about
4IR concepts.
These observations indicate that the most important step in promoting the adoption
of innovations in the construction sector involves the dissemination of knowledge and
the development of strategies to support acculturation and the incorporation of new
technologies and processes. Companies with greater technological maturity showed greater
potential for the adoption of new technologies. This finding was corroborated by the
participants’ perceptions of barriers to technological development, mainly a culture of
resistance to change, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of qualification. Companies and
associations should seek to train construction professionals, for instance, in partnerships
with academic institutions, to reduce resistance to change, facilitate implementation, and
accelerate the consolidation of innovative technologies. The exchange of experiences
between peers can also foster the adoption of innovations, as the decision may be influenced
by communication and discussions with companies and professionals in the sector who
have already opted for the adoption or rejection of innovations [22].
Our findings show that the gains in productivity and final product quality are the most
anticipated benefits among respondents. The least frequent expectation was an increase in
employee safety. Furthermore, we observed differences in the expected benefits between
companies of different sizes, given their different goals and needs. The outcomes also
indicate that companies of different sizes face different challenges. These findings support
our second hypothesis.
Technologies considered the base for the implementation of Industry 4.0 by Frank
et al. [17], namely, cloud computing, big data, and IoT, seem to be not yet consolidated in the
construction industry, similar to what occurs in other sectors of the Brazilian industry [13,17].
Cloud computing was the most used technology by the professionals interviewed, but
IoT, sensors, and CPS had low applications. This indicates that cloud computing is likely
directed toward data storage only, without real-time analysis for decision-making support.
In other words, the technology is adopted in its most basic form, constituting an alternative
form of remote data archiving. The low maturity of these base technologies places the
construction industry of the studied context still far from 4IR. Another technology with
a low level of adoption among the respondents was 3D printing, which seems to be very
incipient in the studied context. Although the interest and importance of Construction 4.0
is growing, the level of maturity and ability to incorporate and promote changes in this
direction is still limited.
Larger companies usually take the lead in digitization initiatives, given their greater in-
vestment capacity. The findings of this study, however, do not corroborate this assumption
in the context of the construction industry. So, our first hypothesis could not be supported
by our results. Within the studied context, larger companies did not tend to adopt new
technologies more than smaller companies or, at least, not in such a way that engineers and
architects were aware of the strategy. Technologies with greater application in the sector
(e.g., mobile devices, cloud computing, simulation and modeling, BIM, and virtual and
augmented reality) were more applied in smaller companies.
To categorize technologies according to their average adoption, we classified them
into four categories: undeveloped, incipient, under development, and consolidated. The
result indicates that none of the technologies are fully consolidated in the studied context.
Based on statistical clustering, we identified three groups of respondents: those with high
technology use, medium technology use, and low technology use. With this analysis, we
inferred that the respondents tend to adopt technology in a homogeneous and progressive
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 27 of 31

way. Additionally, three technology groups were established based on the respondents’
patterns of use: virtualization, automation, and manufacture. The first seems to be adopted
earlier than the other two.
Statistical tests reveal a significant relationship between respondents’ technology
usage levels and the construction lifecycle phases they engage in, supporting our third
hypothesis. In this way, to assist decision-making, we propose a framework that outlines
the preferred order of adoption of the different groups of technologies. It also illustrates
which concepts can be more suitable for each lifecycle phase of the construction industry. In
the context of design, virtualization technologies can be utilized. Inspection and technical
reports and building evaluation may benefit from both virtualization and automation tech-
nologies. Manufacturing technologies primarily find application during the construction
phase, which can also benefit from automation concepts and the use of IoT/sensors/CPS.
Additionally, the budget and planning phase could benefit from all the concepts analyzed.
Notably, IoT, sensors, and CPS are positioned to bridge across all three technology clusters,
facilitating integration between emerging technologies.
One important factor possibly hindering the adoption of innovative solutions in
the construction sector is the perception of implementation and training costs, and the
acquisition of technologies seems to be the main concern among respondents when it
comes to cost. The lack of clarity about the returns associated with new technologies
hinders cost–benefit assessment, contributing to a sense of risk in investing in innovations.
Furthermore, investments are often made errantly, given the lack of a clear strategy for
the adoption and use of new technologies and solutions. Many companies, for example,
invest first in the acquisition of software and equipment. However, without adequate
training and acculturation, the return of isolated investments in technological acquisition
will be scarce and limited, and the overall results of changes may not meet expectations [66].
Investment in technology must, therefore, take place after objectives have been defined and
strategies outlined.
In the present study, no statistical relationship was found between professionals’
interest in certain technologies and the expected benefits, so the fourth hypothesis was
rejected. This finding may indicate that professionals are not yet able to identify which of
the innovations can best help them achieve the results they are seeking. It would be a good
practice to conduct initial pilot projects with reduced investments and expectations to help
understand the results, implications, demands, and costs associated with the adoption of
Industry 4.0 solutions. This strategy could also promote experimentation with technologies,
which tends to facilitate their adoption [22]. The practical visualization of the benefits and
costs of technologies could reduce uncertainties, allowing the adjustment of plans and
expectations and encouraging a more directed and effective financial investment, both
internally and by third parties. PwC Consulting [10] suggested starting discreet pilot
projects and selecting a specific and accurate scope. In this way, the first positive results
obtained can generate confidence for larger and more complex projects. Technologies with
greater consolidation and maturity in the academic environment might represent safer
starting points.
It is crucial for the construction industry to maintain a broad and holistic view of the
possibilities emerging from new technologies and understand that innovation may impact
not only production activities but also relationships and ways of working, the integration of
the supply chain, and the products offered by the sector [17]. Otherwise, it is possible that
the focus of technological development in the construction industry remains centered on
smart manufacturing, leaving aside the other equally important dimensions of 4IR, as has
occurred in other sectors [21]. It is precisely innovations in products and services that may
be the key for companies to remain competitive in the face of new industrial paradigms [2].
For the rapid development of technologies, a sectoral effort and the involvement of
several actors are necessary. This is a fundamental issue that requires attention to prevent
companies from falling behind in the rapidly advancing technological landscape. The
acculturation, adoption, and use of new solutions within the field of construction 4.0 are
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 28 of 31

fundamental to ensure the competitiveness of companies. Those who adapt more quickly
can make use of this competitive advantage in important ways in the coming years.

6. Conclusions
This study aimed to evaluate the implementation potential of Industry 4.0 solutions
in the construction market of an emerging country by mapping the current reality of the
sector. The factors influencing the adoption of innovations were identified. Construction
professionals recognized the value of emerging technologies and express interest in their
adoption. However, limited knowledge, low technological maturity, a scarcity of skilled
workers, and high costs hinder the widespread use of innovative solutions in the industry.
Many respondents recognized their organizations’ evolving technological maturity and the
need for transformation. However, results highlight a lack of clear strategies for technology
implementation. Surprisingly, most respondents were unfamiliar with 4IR concepts. To
promote innovation adoption in construction, knowledge dissemination and strategic
support are crucial, mainly because companies with higher technological maturity exhibit
greater potential for adopting new technologies.
When asked about the anticipated benefits, respondents prioritized productivity gains
and final product quality, with less emphasis on employee safety. Also, it was possible
to observe that most Industry 4.0 innovations are poorly developed in the construction
sector of emerging countries, especially some technologies that are fundamental for the
consolidation of 4IR in the sector.
Based on clustering analysis, three groups of technologies with a similar level of use
among professionals were observed: virtualization, automation, and manufacture. Virtual-
ization technologies showed a higher level of use among professionals, and, therefore, there
is a tendency for these to be adopted first. Manufacture technologies, on the other hand,
had lower use and will likely take longer to be absorbed by the industry. Furthermore, it
was observed that professionals and companies tend to absorb innovations progressively;
that is, the adoption of one innovation leads to the adoption of others over time.
Two of our hypotheses were confirmed, and two were rejected. The benefits and barri-
ers to technology use differed according to company size, demonstrating that companies
face distinct challenges in innovation. These factors should be taken into account during
implementation. However, it was not possible to associate company size with the level of
technology use. Thus, smaller companies are also attentive to the industrial transformation
process. It was not possible to identify a relationship between the benefits expected by
professionals and the technologies they chose either, which may indicate that there are still
considerable uncertainties among agents of the sector regarding the benefits of innovations.
Professionals working at different stages of the building lifecycle had different pref-
erences for technologies. Some innovations are more useful at certain phases than others.
We developed a framework relating the different stages of the construction lifecycle to the
types of technologies available, which may assist in decision-making. Finally, we identified
the critical barriers and promoters of 4IR technology adoption in developing countries.
This analysis is important to enhance the absorption capacity of these technologies by the
local industry, as it allows actions to be conducted in a targeted manner. A key obstacle
to adopting innovative solutions in construction is the perceived implementation and
training costs. Respondents expressed significant concern about technology acquisition
expenses. The lack of clarity regarding returns from new technologies fosters a sense of
risk in innovation investments.
It should be noted that the results of the current study are limited by the sample,
which comprises a restricted portion of agents working in the Brazilian construction sector,
especially in the southernmost region of the country. The extrapolation of results to other
developing countries should be performed with caution, given the peculiarities of local
markets. Moreover, there must be other aspects, benefits, concepts, and factors involved
in the adoption of new technologies that were not addressed by the research. Additional
studies are needed to validate the findings and the proposed framework. Nevertheless,
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 29 of 31

in line with its exploratory purpose, this study was able to elucidate several relevant
points for the progress of research in the area, representing a starting point to expand the
knowledge of the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction sector of
emerging countries.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.M.L.; Formal analysis, J.M.L.; Investigation, J.M.L.;

Methodology, L.C.P.d.S.F.; Supervision, L.C.P.d.S.F.; Writing—original draft, J.M.L.; Writing—review
and editing, L.C.P.d.S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Lasi, H.; Fettke, P.; Kemper, H.-G.; Feld, T.; Hoffmann, M. Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 239–242. [CrossRef]
2. Schwab, K. A Quarta Revolução Industrial, 1st ed.; Edipro: Providencia, Chile, 2016.
3. Kagermann, H.; Wahlster, W.; Helbig, J. Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0—Final Report of the In-
dustrie 4.0 Working Group; Forschungsunion, Acatech: Frankfurt, Germany, 2013. Available online: https://en.acatech.de/publication/
recommendations-for-implementing-the-strategic-initiative-industrie-4-0-final-report-of-the-industrie-4-0-working-group/ (ac-
cessed on 2 July 2024).
4. Kagermann, H. Change through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0. In Management of Permanent Change;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 23–45. [CrossRef]
5. Oesterreich, T.D.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: A
triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind. 2016, 83, 121–139. [CrossRef]
6. Menegon, J.; da Silva Filho, L.C.P. The Impact of Industry 4.0 Concepts and Technologies on Different Phases of Construction
Project Lifecycle: A Literature Review. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2022, 47, 1293–1319. [CrossRef]
7. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Gawankar, S.A. Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying
the current trends and future perspectives. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 408–425. [CrossRef]
8. Porto, G.D.B.P.; Kadlec, T.M.D.M. Mapeamento de Estudos Prospectivos de Tecnología na Revolução 4.0: Um Olhar Para a
Indústria da Construção Civil. 2018, 70. Available online: http://repositorio.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/handle/1/8115 (accessed on 2
July 2024).
9. CNI, SPECIAL SURVEY: Industry 4.0. 2016. Available online: https://static.portaldaindustria.com.br/media/filer_public/13/e7/1
3e7e7bd-9b1d-4c16-8099-99b6d844d04e/special_survey_industry_40.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2024).
10. PwC, P.B.L. Indústria 4.0: Digitização como Vantagem Competitiva no Brasi. 2016. Available online: https://www.pwc.com.br/
pt/publicacoes/servicos/assets/consultoria-negocios/2016/pwc-industry-4-survey-16.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2024).
11. Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Panorama da Inovação: Indústria 4.0; FIRJAN, SENAI: Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 2016.
12. Firmino, A.S.; Perles, G.X.; Mendes, J.V.; da Silva, J.E.A.R.; Silva, D.A.L. Towards Industry 4.0: A SWOT-based analysis for
companies located in the Sorocaba Metropolitan Region (São Paulo State, Brazil). GestãoProdução 2020, 27, 1–21. [CrossRef]
13. Dalenogare, L.S.; Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial
performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 383–394. [CrossRef]
14. Rubmann, M.; Lorenz, M.; Gerbert, P.; Waldner, M.; Justus, J.; Engel, P.; Harnisch, M. Industry 4.0: The Future of Productivity and
Growth in Manufacturing Industries. Boston Consult. Group 2015, 9, 54–89.
15. Longo, F.; Nicoletti, L.; Padovano, A. Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human-centered approach to enhance operators’
capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 113, 144–159. [CrossRef]
16. Paelke, V. Augmented Reality in the Smart Factory: Supporting Workers in an Industry 4.0. Environment. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Emerging Technology and Factory Automation (ETFA), Barcelona, Spain, 16–19 September 2014.
17. Frank, A.G.; Dalenogare, L.S.; Ayala, N.F. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2019, 210, 15–26. [CrossRef]
18. Witkowski, K. Internet of Things, Big Data, Industry 4.0—Innovative Solutions in Logistics and Supply Chains Management.
Procedia Eng. 2017, 182, 763–769. [CrossRef]
19. ABIMAQ, NEO, Indústria 4.0: Mapeamento das Tecnologias. Relatório Geral. 2018. Available online: https://www.ufrgs.br/
neo/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Relat%C3%B3rio-Geral-Completo.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2024).
20. Gerber, T.; Bosch, H.; Johnsson, C. Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi Agent Manufacturing and Robotics; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [CrossRef]
21. Meindl, B.; Ayala, N.F.; Mendonça, J.; Frank, A.G. The four smarts of Industry 4.0: Evolution of ten years of research and future
perspectives. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 168, 120784. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 30 of 31

22. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
23. Müller, J.M.; Buliga, O.; Voigt, K.I. Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 2–17. [CrossRef]
24. Barrow, K.; Verzat, P. Construction 4.0: Delivering an infrastructure revolution. Int. Railw. J. 2018, 23–24. Available online:
https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/construction-40-delivering-an-infrastructure-revolution/ (accessed on 2 July 2024).
25. Karmakar, A.; Delhi, V.S.K. Construction 4.0: What we know and where we are headed? J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2021, 26, 526–545.
[CrossRef]
26. Loosemore, M. Construction Innovation: Fifth Generation Perspective. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04015012. [CrossRef]
27. Merschbrock, C.; Munkvold, B.E. Effective digital collaboration in the construction industry—A case study of BIM deployment in
a hospital construction project. Comput. Ind. 2015, 73, 1–7. [CrossRef]
28. Dounas, T.; Lombardi, D.; Jabi, W. Framework for decentralised architectural design BIM and Blockchain integration. Int. J. Archit.
Comput. 2021, 19, 157–173. [CrossRef]
29. Bianconi, F.; Filippucci, M.; Buffi, A. Automated design and modeling for mass-customized housing. A web-based design space
catalog for timber structures. Autom Constr. 2019, 103, 13–25. [CrossRef]
30. Perera, S.; Nanayakkara, S.; Rodrigo, M.N.N.; Senaratne, S.; Weinand, R. Blockchain Technology: Is it Hype or Real in the
Construction Industry? J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020, 17, 100125. [CrossRef]
31. Meng, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Shi, W.; Wang, J.; Sun, Y.; Xu, L.; Wang, X. A review of integrated applications of BIM and related
technologies in whole building life cycle. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1647–1677. [CrossRef]
32. Ma, Z.; Ma, J. Formulating the application functional requirements of a BIM-based collaboration platform to support IPD projects.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 2011–2026. [CrossRef]
33. Hassan, S.M.; Azab, M.; Mokhtar, A. Smart concrete transportation in semi-automated construction sites. In Proceedings of the
2019 IEEE 10th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference, IEMCON 2019, Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 17–19 October 2019; pp. 661–667. [CrossRef]
34. Feucht, T.; Lange, J.; Erven, M.; Costanzi, C.B.; Knaack, U.; Waldschmitt, B. Additive manufacturing by means of parametric
robot programming. Constr. Robot. 2020, 4, 31–48. [CrossRef]
35. Martinez, P.; Al-Hussein, M.; Ahmad, R. Intelligent vision-based online inspection system of screw-fastening operations in
light-gauge steel frame manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 109, 645–657. [CrossRef]
36. Jensen, M.B.; Foged, I.W.; Andersen, H.J. A framework for interactive human–robot design exploration. Int. J. Archit. Comput.
2020, 18, 235–253. [CrossRef]
37. Dai, R.; Kerber, E.; Reuter, F.; Stumm, S.; Brell-Cokcan, S. The digitization of the automated steel construction through the
application of microcontrollers and MQTT. Constr. Robot. 2020, 4, 251–259. [CrossRef]
38. Schimanski, C.P.; Monizza, G.P.; Marcher, C.; Matt, D.T. Pushing digital automation of configure-to-order services in small
and medium enterprises of the construction equipment industry: A design science research approach. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3780.
[CrossRef]
39. Moon, S.; Ham, N.; Kim, S.; Hou, L.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.J. Fourth industrialization-oriented offsite construction: Case study of an
application to an irregular commercial building. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 2271–2286. [CrossRef]
40. Thomsen, M.R.; Nicholas, P.; Tamke, M.; Gatz, S.; Sinke, Y.; Rossi, G. Towards machine learning for architectural fabrication in the
age of industry 4.0. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2020, 18, 335–352. [CrossRef]
41. Bogue, R. What are the prospects for robots in the construction industry? Ind. Robot 2018, 45, 1–6. [CrossRef]
42. Siwiec, J. Comparison of Airborne Laser Scanning of Low and High Above Ground Level for Selected Infrastructure Objects.
J. Appl. Eng. Sci. 2019, 8, 89–96. [CrossRef]
43. Chan, B.; Guan, H.; Hou, L.; Jo, J.; Blumenstein, M.; Wang, J. Defining a conceptual framework for the integration of modelling
and advanced imaging for improving the reliability and efficiency of bridge assessments. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2016, 6,
703–714. [CrossRef]
44. Zhou, Z.; Irizarry, J.; Lu, Y. A Multidimensional Framework for Unmanned Aerial System Applications in Construction Project
Management. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018004. [CrossRef]
45. Heesom, D.; Boden, P.; Hatfield, A.; de Los Santos Melo, A.; Czarska-Chukwurah, F. Implementing a HBIM approach to manage
the translocation of heritage buildings. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 2948–2966. [CrossRef]
46. Reinhardt, D.; Haeusler, M.H.; London, K.; Loke, L.; Feng, Y.; de Oliveira Barata, E.; Firth, C.; Dunn, K.; Khean, N.; Fabbri, A.;
et al. CoBuilt 4.0: Investigating the potential of collaborative robotics for subject matter experts. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2020, 18,
353–370. [CrossRef]
47. Sun, S.; Zheng, X.; Villalba-Díez, J.; Ordieres-Meré, J. Data handling in industry 4.0: Interoperability based on distributed ledger
technology. Sensors 2020, 20, 3046. [CrossRef]
48. Tezel, A.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Yitmen, I.; Hilletofth, P. Preparing construction supply chains for blockchain technology: An
investigation of its potential and future directions. Front. Eng. Manag. 2020, 7, 547–563. [CrossRef]
49. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R. Integrated project delivery with blockchain: An automated financial system. Autom
Constr. 2020, 114, 103182. [CrossRef]
50. Hilal, M.; Maqsood, T.; Abdekhodaee, A. A hybrid conceptual model for BIM in FM. Constr. Innov. 2019, 19, 531–549. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 2132 31 of 31

51. Gao, W.; Su, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xie, H.; Wen, F.; Li, F.; Liu, J. Steel Bridge Construction of Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge. Int. J.
Steel Struct. 2020, 20, 1498–1508. [CrossRef]
52. Chan, D.W.M.; Olawumi, T.O.; Ho, A.M.L. Critical success factors for building information modelling (BIM) implementation in
Hong Kong. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1838–1854. [CrossRef]
53. Marefat, A.; Toosi, H.; Hasankhanlo, R.M. A BIM approach for construction safety: Applications, barriers and solutions. Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1855–1877. [CrossRef]
54. Banawi, A. Barriers to Implement Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Public Projects in Saudi Arabia. In Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 119–125. [CrossRef]
55. Suprun, E.V.; Stewart, R.A. Construction innovation diffusion in the Russian Federation barriers, drivers and coping strategies.
Constr. Innov. 2015, 15, 278–312. [CrossRef]
56. Silverio-Fernandez, M.A.; Renukappa, S.; Suresh, S. Evaluating critical success factors for implementing smart devices in the
construction industry: An empirical study in the Dominican Republic. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1625–1640. [CrossRef]
57. Ramani, S.V.; Thutupalli, A.; Urias, E. High-value hi-tech product introduction in emerging countries: The role and construction
of legitimacy. Qual. Mark. Res. 2017, 20, 208–225. [CrossRef]
58. Bechhofer, F.; Peterson, L. To interview or not to interview. In Principles of Research Design in the Social Sciences, 1st ed.; Routledge:
London, UK, 2012; p. 192.
59. Manzato, A.; Santos, A. A Elaboração de Questionários na Pesquisa Quantitativa; UNESP: São Paulo, Brazil, 2012; Available on-
line: https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~vera.carmo/Ensino_2012_1/ELABORACAO_QUESTIONARIOS_PESQUISA_QUANTITATIVA.
pdf (accessed on 2 July 2024).
60. Green, J.L.; Manski, S.E.; Hansen, T.A.; Broatch, J.E. Descriptive statistics. In International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed.; Tierney,
R.J., Rizvi, F., Ercikan, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 723–733. [CrossRef]
61. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Análise Multivariada de Dados, 6th ed.; Bookman Companhia
Editora Ltda: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2009.
62. Malhotra, N.K. Pesquisa de Marketing-: Uma Orientação Aplicada; Bookman Editora: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2019.
63. Zou, G. A Modified Poisson Regression Approach to Prospective Studies with Binary Data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 159, 702–706.
[CrossRef]
64. Kutner, M.H.; Nachtsheim, C.J.; Neter, J.; Li, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Irwin Series Operations and
Decision Sciences: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
65. Kim, H.Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2017, 42, 152–155.
[CrossRef]
66. Frank, A.G.; Cortimiglia, M.N.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; de Oliveira, L.S. The effect of innovation activities on innovation outputs in the
Brazilian industry: Market-orientation vs. technology-acquisition strategies. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 577–592. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.