Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Project Leadership and Society

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/project-leadership-and-society

Empirical Research Paper

Industry 4.0 in a project context: Introducing 3D printing in

construction projects
Nils O.E. Olsson a, *, Emrah Arica b, Ruth Woods c, d, Javier Alonso Madrid e
a
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
b
SINTEF Digital, Postboks 4760 Torgarden, 7465, Trondheim, Norway
c
SINTEF Community, Postboks 4760 Torgarden, 7465, Trondheim, Norway
d
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
e
ATANGA Arquitectura e Ingeniería, 28692, Madrid, Spain

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

Keywords: As an example of Industry 4.0 in a project context, 3D printing of concrete has the potential to provide a
Industry 4.0 paradigm shift for construction processes with significant implications for project management. This study in­
3D-printing vestigates and reports the enablers and barriers of implementing the innovative 3D printing technology in
Innovation
construction projects, based on a literature review and case study interviews in construction companies. 3D
Construction
Projects
printing can make construction processes more effective, provided that project managers can utilize the po­
tential. The interviews with industry representatives highlighted the issue of cost efficiency of the technology.
There is a need to show practical project examples on cost efficiency of the 3D printing technology. To those who
manage new technologies 3D printing and other aspects of Industry 4.0 represent an opportunity, while those
who struggle to work with and understand new technologies, they represent a challenge or even a threat. Future
project managers better be in the first category.

1. Introduction approach can be adopted when Industry 4.0 principles are used in
projects (Cakmakci et al., 2019; Hofmann and Rüsch, 2017). This affects
Industry 4.0, sometimes referred to as The Fourth Industrial Revo­ both communication in projects, as well as the used technologies.
lution (Buehler et al., 2018), builds upon the established digitalization Implementing such technologies are projects in themselves, that needs
but includes a synthesis of technologies (Schwab, 2015), transforming to be managed, and new managerial styles such as the ones used in
entire systems of production, management and governance. Currently, innovation and new product development seems appropriate (Pajares­
emerging technologies include materials science, quantum computing, Poza et al., 2017). In addition, the new technologies will affect how
artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), autonomous vehi­ construction projects are managed. Olsson (2006) has pointed out that
cles, robotics and 3D printing (Schwab, 2017). 3D printing and other project managers tend to be conservative and avoid flexibility in the
manifestations of Industry 4.0 can change the way projects are managed. execution phase of projects. Project managers tend to focus on execu­
Porter and Heppelmann explain how Industry 4.0 means that connected tion, with a determined management style (Olsson, 2008; Ramos et al.,
products will dramatically change the way firms work (Porter­ 2016).
Heppelmann, 2014). This process is ongoing, and can be expected to Previous studies have identified a number of barriers to innovation in
influence project-based business. Vieira and Romero-Torres (VieiraR­ the construction sector (Besklubova et al., 2021). A general conservative
omero-Torres, 2016) point out that additive manufacturing such as 3D attitude in the sector is frequently mentioned in studies (Olsson et al.,
printing can change project management practices with examples from 2019), to the extent that industry professionals sometimes get annoyed.
the aerospace industry. While a central decision-making approach We have therefore chosen to focus on commercial issues, which are
typically is employed in traditional project management, experiences understood as key barriers to innovation, such as high initial innovation
from manufacturing indicate that a decentralized project management costs, the perceived lack of risk funding, and long pay-back time for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.O.E. Olsson), [email protected] (E. Arica), [email protected] (R. Woods), [email protected]
(J.A. Madrid).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2021.100033
Received 17 September 2020; Received in revised form 29 September 2021; Accepted 29 September 2021
Available online 5 October 2021
2666-7215/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

investments. of technological and organizational innovations. However, there are

Different aspects of digitalization and pressure on improved pro­ indications that some innovations have not been utilized to their full
ductivity and an increased focus on sustainability are key drivers that potential in the construction industry. Several studies document that the
generate the need for new competencies in the construction industry. construction industry has adopted innovations to a lesser extent than
There are also a number of barriers that need to be bridged to appro­ comparable industries (World Economic Forum, 2016) and reports by
priately address these trends. To begin with there are a number of Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) are unfortunately still relevant. Terms
unique characteristics of the construction industry (Vrijhoef and Kos­ such as “adversarial”, “ineffective”, “fragmented” and suggestions that
kela, 2005) such as the one-of-a-kindness of the project, price-oriented the industry is “incapable of delivering for its clients”, are supported in
tendering, the temporary organization and varied production sites. In more recent analyses (World Economic Forum, 2016; KPMG, 2016).
addition, there are distributed and fragmented value chains (Diekmann Innovation is a fashionable and iridescent concept (HauschildtSa­
et al., 2004; Mossman, 2009; Sarhan and Fox, 2013) which means that lomo et al., 2016). During the last decades, there have been
there frequently is poor communication and coordination system in the ground-breaking innovations in means of increasing the use of tech­
project and a heavy reliance on workers with diversified skills and nology and industrialization of products and processes. Nevertheless,
background. the construction industry still underperforms when it comes to both
3D printing and hybrid additive/subtractive manufacturing is one of quality of its products and productivity (World Economic Forum, 2016).
several technologies that offer opportunities for the construction in­ Resistance to innovation is a main challenge to the industry. However,
dustry and offers a new tool for project managers. A key advantage is there are several examples of a willingness to exploit the potential of
that 3D printing can offer increased flexibility in the construction pro­ new technologies in construction context. This paper studies one such
cess. To be able to utilize the advantages of the technology, it is emerging technology for construction; that of additive manufacturing
important to be aware of industry characteristics. Research interest in technologies and in particular 3D printing of concrete.
3D printing for construction has increased significantly in recent years
(Besklubova et al., 2021) and there is a need to investigate and discuss 2.1. 3D printing in relation to industrialization of construction projects
barriers, drivers, enablers, and impacts for construction project inno­
vation (Ghaben and Jaaron, 2017). As a contribution to such research, Technological development of the construction and building sector
this study investigates and reports drivers, enablers and barriers of incorporates innovation within both processes and products. Industri­
implementing the innovative 3D printing technology in construction alization of the construction process denotes the development of pro­
and project management, based on a literature review and interviews cesses. However, the development of the process can be the result of
from a case study with three construction companies. In accordance to innovation in products. Industrialization of the building and construc­
Ghaben and Jaaron (2017), we discuss drivers as factors that create the tion process is therefore a generic term covering a range of methods and
need for organisations to innovate, enablers as factors that facilitate approaches with the joint goal of increasing the efficiency and produc­
innovation and finally barriers as factors that impede the uptake of tivity of the building and construction sector (CIB, 2010; Atkin, 2014;
innovation. In a wider project management context, the study uses Ågren and Wing, 2014).
3D-printing as a case to study innovation in a project-based industry and Traditionally, industrialization revolves around attaining higher
in particular innovation inspired by the ongoing development of In­ degrees of standardization of materials and processes. It allows for
dustry 4.0. specialization of steps or components in the production, allowing it to be
split among several actors. Companies may invest in specialized equip­
2. On innovation and industrialization in construction ment to handle capital-intensive and highly specialized aspects of the
production, allowing others to focus capital and knowledge in other
The construction industry faces technological changes evolving from areas. In construction and building industrialization has traditionally
Industry 4.0 which will change the way of doing projects, driven by resulted in approaches based on a higher degree of pre-fabrication and
technologies such as prefabrication, BIM, automated and robotic offsite production moving the value-adding activities upstream in the
equipment, wireless sensors and 3D printing (Buehler et al., 2018). supply chain (Barlow et al., 2003; Pan et al., 2007; Thuesen and Hvam,
Because the construction industry is project-based, the number of 2011). Industry 4.0, automation and Internet of Things (IoT) can
stakeholders is large. All parts of the value chain need to be informed of contribute to reversing this trend, moving value-adding activities back
the consequences of new innovative products (World Economic Forum, to the building site. Richard (2005) define industrialization as the “ag­
2016). Architects, engineers, clients, contractors, subcontractors, and gregation of a large market to divide into fractions the investment in strategies
suppliers need to cooperate in this area. This is important strategically as and technologies capable, in return, of simplifying the production and
well as on a project basis. Not to forget the governmental role that fa­ therefore reducing the costs” and goes on to describe the stages of
cilitates politics and procurement processes for innovation, for instance, industrialization as “prefabrication”, “mechanization”, “automation”,
industry-wide standards and certifications. Risk-sharing between “robotics” and “reproduction”.
stakeholders in the industry is important (World Economic Forum, Construction projects can have different degrees of “projec­
2016).This challenges the role of project managers and other champions tification”. Gibb (2001) distinguishes between four categories of con­
of change, and raises issues such as; who has to follow up risks, make struction as follows: (1) Traditional “one-of-a-kind” construction utilizes
sure that agreements are in place about risk-sharing and ensure that the component manufacture and sub-assembly in which raw materials and
risks taken do not have negative consequences for stakeholders components are brought to the site where the value-adding actions are
involved, but also to open up for the opportunities that emerge carried out. (2) Non-volumetric pre-assembly describes when
(Johansen et al., 2019). two-dimensional elements are prefabricated and assembled on-site
As a project-based industry, the construction industry is facing the (walls, floors, etc.). (3) With volumetric pre-assembly volumes of spe­
two-fold challenge of meeting increasing demand with limited re­ cific parts of the building are produced off-site and assembled onsite
sources. Due to pressures such as population growth, climate change, within an independent frame. (4) Finally, modular building describes
urbanisation, and increasing demands for social development, the construction where most of the production is carried out off-site leaving
identification of the most efficient solutions is becoming more chal­ only assembly and finishing operations to take place on-site. By applying
lenging. Innovation in construction projects is key for project success this view on industrialization, Jonsson and Rudberg (2014) developed a
(Engström and Stehn, 2016). Olsson et al. (2019) point out that the framework illustrating different degrees of off-site production based on
construction industry has evolved from craftsmanship towards an a manufacturing framework by Miltenburg (2005). The original frame­
industrialized business, thanks to the development and implementation work presented a manufacturing strategy based on the number of

2
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

products and the production volumes ranging from the “job shop” Table 1
(unique products) to mass production (Continuous flow). Similarly, they Barriers of innovation in construction industry identified in literature.
present a linking of construction approach or strategy as a function of Barriers of innovation Reference
standardization, volumes and volume of off-site production.
Focus on cost efficiency and lack of funding (World Economic Forum, 2016), (
3D printing is introducing changes to this traditional vision of in R&D Hardie et al., 2005)
industrialization of the construction process by simultaneously allowing Lack of formal process following and (World Economic Forum, 2016), (
for transferring value-adding activities back to the construction site and knowledge transfer from one project to Davis et al., 2016; Walker and
moving only the production of complex components off-site. While another project. Walker, 2016)
Multiple stakeholders lack in cooperation to (World Economic Forum, 2016), (
Miltenburg’s framework incorporates both output and process-oriented implement innovation Davis et al., 2016), (Barlow, 2000)
strategies (Just-in-time and flexible manufacturing systems), the Conservative behaviour of small companies World Economic Forum (2016)
adapted version leaves the process perspective relatively untouched. regarding innovation
The application of process-oriented strategies, such as lean construction Lack of young talent due to job insecurity World Economic Forum (2016)
(Construction projects are temporary
in construction projects is independent of the degree of off-site pro­
jobs)
duction, yet they represent in our view, industrialization of the con­ Loose coupling between stakeholders Dubois and Gadde (2002)
struction process. Process-focused innovation in building and Non-profitability Choi et al. (2011)
construction has been ongoing for a long time. Gann (1996) pointed to Lack of coordination between market needs Nam and Tatum (1997)
supply chain management and product development as areas where and innovation
Locked system created by construction Nam and Tatum (1988)
providers of industrialized housing concepts could learn from car products
manufacturers. Lean construction has formalized this line of thinking by Innovation missing in the main strategy of Barlow (2000)
adapting lean thinking (Womack and Jones, 2010) and Toyota pro­ the companies
duction systems (Ohno, 1988) to a construction setting (Howell, 1999; Focus on success and failure of the project Maghsoudi et al. (2016)
(Creates lack of attention on
Ballard and Howell, 2003; Höök and Stehn, 2008). It is interesting to
implementation of the innovation)
study how industrialization and the introduction of new technologies Lack of skilled workforce in the market for (Ozorhon et al., 2013) (Davis et al.,
will impact project management. On one hand, standardisation, off-site innovation implementation. 2016)
production and technologies such as 3D printing can enable greater Conservative behaviour of suppliers Ozorhon et al. (2013)
control for project managers and thus reduce complexity. On the other Lack of the management of innovation in Xue et al. (2014b)
construction organisations
hand, new technologies introduce new uncertainties, especially before
Construction industry fragmentation Davis et al. (2016)
the technologies are mature. This study is intended to give a contribu­ Conservatism in construction industry KPMG (2016)
tion in gaining knowledge about such issues. Risk in adopting new technology KPMG (2016)
High cost of the innovation KPMG (2016)
Lack of positive environment for innovation Dulaimi et al. (2005)
2.2. Barriers to the introduction of innovative technologies in construction
in organisations

The construction sector is traditionally seen as a business with little

innovation, typically lower than other industries such as manufacturing 2.3. Enablers for the introduction of innovative technologies in
or energy infrastructure. However, the adoption of innovative con­ construction
struction technologies is so relevant, as it can have a disruptive effect on
this industry, opening it to new paradigms. Several studies have shown The literature search mentioned in the methods section has also
that construction has failed to adopt innovation to improve its perfor­ identified several enablers as countermeasures to overcome barriers and
mance as in other industries (World Economic Forum, 2016). succeed in the implementation of innovations. The enablers are sum­
Lack of a formal process to transfer knowledge from one project to marized in Table 2.
another project is one of the biggest challenges found in the literature for
innovation implementation (Ekambaram et al., 2010; Maghsoudi et al.,
2016). Feedback is important to improve processes, products and ser­
vices. Feedback is needed from users, customers, regulators and other
stakeholders. For innovation initiators, feedback is very important to Table 2
make it successful at the user end. One of the features of construction Enablers of innovation in construction industry identified in literature.
projects is uniqueness. Almost every contraction project is unique in Enablers of innovation Reference
some dimension. If there is no formal knowledge transfer system from
Mega projects are ideal for innovation (Worsnop et al., 2016) (
one project to another project, the chances of failure for innovation development and implementation Brockmann et al., 2016)
increase. Effective leadership (Ozorhon et al., 2013) (Dulaimi
Construction projects have faced both internal and external barriers et al., 2005)
for the efficient adaption of innovations that have been introduced. In­ Stakeholders coordination Ozorhon et al. (2013)
Market demand (External environmental (Davis et al., 2016; Xue et al.,
ternal barriers mainly stem from the traditional and conservative con­ factors or pressure) 2014b) (KPMG, 2016)
struction culture that have long prioritized the cost-efficient and on-time Effective flow of information from project to (Xue et al., 2014b) (Hardie et al.,
delivery of the project to the customer with a little focus for improve­ project 2005)
ments both within and between the projects. External barriers are Integrated design Xue et al. (2014b)
Technology capacity of organisations (Davis et al., 2016) (KPMG, 2016)
mainly originated from the dispersed and fragmented nature of the
Organization strategies for innovation (Davis et al., 2016) (Dulaimi et al.,
construction value chains that involve multiple stakeholders and con­ adoption 2005)
tractors, making it highly challenging for successful implementation of Efficiency in cost reduction and planning KPMG (2016)
innovations holistically. Based on the literature study, Table 1 summa­ Growth KPMG (2016)
rizes the barriers that are encountered by the construction industry, Profitability KPMG (2016)
Increasing governmental regulations KPMG (2016)
regarding all innovation types within product, process, and service providing a reward for creativity in Dulaimi et al. (2005)
categories. organisations,
Increasing risk-taking behaviour, Dulaimi et al. (2005)
Industry-academia collaboration Hardie et al. (2005)
Recruitment for fresh graduates Hardie et al. (2005)

3
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

3. Methodology 4. 3D printing technology and its drivers, enablers and barriers

In this study, a comprehensive literature review was conducted first 4.1. 3D printing technology
and the literature was analysed qualitatively to identify the drivers and
barriers to the application of industrialized building and construction, in 3D printing is a type of additive manufacturing (AM), which can be
general and for 3D printing in particular. The review was done using a defined as: “the process of joining materials to make objects from 3D
range of databases and keywords, to ensure that important publications model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive
were not overlooked. Keywords included; Innovation, Construction, 3D- manufacturing methodologies” (Standard Terminology for Additive
printing; Additive; Characteristics; Challenges. The main searches were Manufacturing Technologies (ASTM, 2012). Additive Manufacturing
done using Google scholar. AM is a tool that offers increased “design freedom” (Bikas et al., 2016),
Based on the literature review, an interview-guide was developed because it is possible to make parts with intricate and complex geome­
and applied in a series of semi-structured interviews. This qualitative tries. This mean that three important aspects in the use and analysis of
method is used to gather data withindividual variation, to verify out­ additive manufacturing are: material, process, and design which include
comes, and to clarify discrepancies between the actual intervention and 3D model data (Labonnote et al., 2016). The 3D printing technology is
how participants experience it (Sandelowski, 1996). It also has the used in several industries, utilizing different material types. By the 3D
advantage of including stakeholders in the research dialogue and en­ printing technology, solid objects can be produced from a digital (i.e.
ables them to become active participants in an inquiry (Denzin et al., CAD) model. In the process, a series of 2D layers are deposited by a
2008). Interview techniques can follow three main directions. There is printer (Boothroyd, 1994). The objects are fabricated through the
the non-directive interview technique where the interviewee leads the deposition of a material using a print head, nozzle, or another printer
process and decides where the conversation will go, and the directive technology (ASTM, 2012). From a sustainability perspective, it is
interview where specific questions are asked that follow a predefined attractive that additive manufacturing has near-zero material waste and
theme proposed by the researcher (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). In can utilize a variety of materials. Also, the quality of the parts produced
semi-structured interviews the questions are also prepared, but a more can be assessed using a variety of methods (Stavridis et al., 2018).
open conversational style allows follow-up questions to be included There are some examples of applications of 3D printing in concrete.
(Skinner, 2012). In this case semi-structured interviews were conducted A concrete five-story residential complex was built in China by Winsun
with five informants from three different construction companies. The (Sevenson, 2015) between 2014 and 2015, for which a giant 3D printer
informants are anonymous. The interviews took place using skype was used to pour concrete layers following a digital model, but the
technology and lasted approximately 1 h each. The feedback and re­ design looks very similar to traditional concrete houses (Brandon,
quirements of the informant are in focus in the data presented, rather 2015). Several young and innovative start-ups show however a will­
than the specifications found in the interview guide. The differing ingness to reshape the way we think about architectural components
backgrounds and professions of the informants meant they placed (Rael and San Fratello, 2011) and to exploit the design potential of
emphasis on a variety of issues during the interviews and this is exem­ additive manufacturing technologies for construction. Among others,
plified in the analysis. Branch Technology (Branch Technology, 2016) patented a freeform
Companies were selected from a range of European countries and printing process to construct complex geometries in open space without
positions within the construction industry in order to extrapolate and the use of support materials, and plans to build a single-family home
improve the generalizability of the results. The three companies are with sleek cave-like form (Huen, 2017). More complete overviews of
known here as, Company A, Company B, and Company C for confiden­ previous and current additive construction experiences can be found in
tiality. The participants had a variety of roles and experience with 3D (Labonnote et al., 2016; Labonnote and Rüther, 2016; Perkins and
printing. We did not require them to be experts in 3D printing but were Skitmore, 2015; Wu et al., 2016).
interested in their point of view and experiences based on their own
roles and experiences, as well as the company’s. These companies are 4.2. Drivers of 3D printing for implementing in construction projects
larger actors either within Scandinavia or the EU and there was an
expectation that they could be using or planning to use 3D printing A set of drivers that can support project innovation in general, and
technology. 3D printing in particular, are identified through a literature review, as
Company A is a large international construction company with described in the methods section. Significant customization opportu­
headquarters in Scandinavia and 60000 employees worldwide. Three nities due to design flexibility and strong integration between design and
informants came from Company A, two from a Nordic facility, and one manufacturing, enabling the realization of complex geometries and
from an EU facility. One of the Nordic participants works as a director in materials: Construction projects differ in various criteria such as size,
business management with 41 years of experience in leadership, project geometry, design, material, aesthetic, and insulation requirements. In
development and management. The other Nordic informant from addition, it is often characterized with the waste of resources and
Company A is the Head of the Technique Department and responsible for creating significant environmental issues. These factors trigger the hope
50 consultants in several departments. The informant from the EU fa­ for the use of AM based 3D printing technology in the construction in­
cility is the director of Innovation and Business Improvement at his dustry, which can customize the construction projects with high time
country’s branch of the company. Company B is a global civil engi­ and cost efficiency (Xue et al., 2014a).
neering company with headquarters in the EU and 50000 employees Minimization of waste (e.g. reduce material waste): This has been
worldwide. The informant from Company B has twenty years of expe­ assessed by Berman (2012), among others, when making comparisons
rience in the company and worked as a site manager for seven years. He with subtractive manufacturing technologies. It is argued that additive
has been responsible for Research and design (R&D) since 2011 in the construction produces less waste, and that it also enables the recycling of
European region of the corporation. Company C is a Nordic architecture most of the waste during the next round of additive construction (Rael
firm with 450 employees in Scandinavia. The informant from this and San Fratello, 2011; Berman, 2012; Achillas et al., 2015) and this is
company is an architect who has been working with innovation since applied in particular in the case of excess cement and aggregates.
2000 and developed Building Information Modelling (BIM) standards. Better carbon footprint: Achillas et al. (2015) consider that the car­
All three companies are large, with the resources to test innovative so­ bon footprint left by additive construction is significantly smaller than
lutions. As such they have the potential to function as role models within that left by traditional construction techniques. In general, less material
the industry. is used, firstly because of the absence of a requirement for molding and
casting operations, and secondly because additive construction enables

4
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

highly optimized construction processes and the production of have announced that the National Aeronautics and Space
highly-optimized components that naturally reduce the amount of ma­ Administration (NASA) suggested constructing a lunar base by
terial used. When combined with technologies that favour in-situ re­ 2020 as a jumping-off point for future missions (WilhelmCur­
sources, additive construction is also described as resulting in a bach, 2014). In addition, Mars is also claimed to be a target for
significant diminution of carbon emissions related for the most part to human colonization before the end of the new century (Khosh­
transport (Achillas et al., 2015; Strauss, 2013). Bowen (2007) argued nevisRussell et al., 2001). Projects involving the construction of
that transport-related emissions were further reduced because of the settlements on the moon have been highly publicized. They
need for less traffic to and from the construction site as a result of limited include plans originating both from NASA (Khoshnevis, 2004)
labour requirements. Haymond and Noble (2008) used the 2008 LEED from SinterHab (RousekEriksson and Doule, 2012), and from the
Homes system as a guide to isolate the sustainable potential of additive ESA, in partnership with Foster and Partners (CeccantiDini et al.,
construction (in the form of contour crafting) as an alternative to con­ 2010). It is could be argued that extra-terrestrial environments
ventional construction for single family housing. will demand a significant contribution from additive construc­
Cost-efficiency: Bosscher et al. (2007) presented a comparative cost tion, not least when it comes to facilitating the maximum
and productivity analysis designed to evaluate the potential of their exploitation of in-situ resources (Kading and Straub, 2015) in
cable-suspended additive construction technology against traditional order to minimise the enormous costs of transporting materials to
concrete work. Although the cost savings were considered to be construction sites using space shuttles (Howe et al., 2014). Such
“tremendous” (Rael and San Fratello, 2011; Bosscher et al., 2007) applications are assumed not only to reduce transportation costs
nevertheless concluded that the cost of their additive construction but also to increase the efficiency of extra-terrestrial operations
alternative was in fact very similar to a conventional operation, (FateriGebhardt and Khosravi, 2013).
although they did not take into account costs linked to accident and
safety training, which are assumed to be considerably lower for additive
construction. In 2014, Skanska’s Director of Innovation and Business 4.3. Enablers of implementing 3D printing in construction projects
Improvement considered that additive construction using concrete had
the potential to revolutionize the entire process of construction, and A number of enablers are identified through the literature review. In
anticipated that it would “reduce the time needed to create complex order to achieve a recognizably environmentally friendly construction
elements of buildings from weeks to hours” (www.3ders.org and process, a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) of additive construction pro­
Loughborou, 2014). The Chinese company Winsun probably shares this cesses must be performed in the same scientific and objective way this
view and has claimed in the public domain to save between 30 and 60 has been already performed for additive manufacturing processes (Drizo
percent of building materials and to have shortened production times by and Pegna, 2006). Additive construction is such a wide-ranging concept,
between 50 to even 70 percent, while at the same time decreasing labour involving many different materials and technologies, that it is doubtful if
costs by 50 to even 80 percent. This took place while the company was all additive construction processes will be able to reduce carbon foot­
allegedly applying additive construction to the construction of ten in­ prints to the same extent when compared to traditional construction
dividual houses and a six-story apartment building. However, Brandon techniques. Some are probably better than others are. In this sense,
(2015) was critical of Winsun’s achievements, emphasizing that no “digital” additive construction would also act as a catalyst for the inte­
description was provided by the Chinese company as to what had in fact gration of LCAs as a basis for construction projects.
been produced, and considered that its figures were highly doubtful. The houses of the future must free themselves from traditional (and
Finally, the issues of low-income housing and third-world housing have less efficient) designs if they are to benefit from the potential inherent in
been mentioned in the literature. Among other initiatives, Tridom additive construction. In fact, the future of additive construction may
formed a strategic partnership with WASP in Italy in order to investigate rely on an architectural paradigm shift. An important issue for archi­
the additive construction of affordable and sustainable housing for tecture as a field will therefore be whether or not architects are ready to
“bottom-of-the-pyramid” people (Sher, 2014). make use of the complex (Gardiner, 2011), potential and the high degree
Use of 3D printing can reduce danger for human workers in harsh of design freedom (www.3ders.org, 2015) provided by additive con­
environments, where access for humans is either difficult, impossible or struction, and whether or not they will be able to “reshape the way we
dangerous (MillsapsMillsaps, 2015). Such applications will reduce think about architectural components (Rael and San Fratello, 2011).
stressful workloads and prevent fatigue and accidents (MillsapsMillsaps, In a new building process, for the paradigm shift to take place,
2015; Perrot et al., 2016). Two examples of this are provided. project management must consider the production and assembly stages
of the construction process right from the start of the design process.
(1) Quick deploy-ability in hazardous situations resulting from either Ideally, the design process should be thought of as collaboration be­
natural or man-made disasters (Peter, 2015). Several potential tween architects, engineers and constructors. All these aspects must be
applications were emphasized, and in particular those focusing far more incorporated into a single design process if the true potential of
on the construction of first response shelters (Howe et al., 2014; additive construction is to be realized.
Hunt et al., 2014), and the repair of damaged infrastructure An evaluation of the cost-efficiency of additive construction must
(Abdulrahman et al., 2015). The University of Nantes in France rely on knowledge of the allocation of costs involved in the design phase,
has developed the INNOprint 3D printer for this purpose. This material consumption, human labor for construction, and equipment.
printer is capable of building a small emergency facility in just Unfortunately, overall knowledge of these factors is often incomplete or
under 30 min that is insulated, sealed, and safe to live in missing. There is a need for comparisons between existing approaches
(www.3ders.org, 2015). In such situations, additive construction and new additive construction techniques that are scientifically
can also be used to build infrastructure in remote regions with the documented.
aim of facilitating access, such as bridges, etc. in discontinuous Rational decision-making will involve trade-offs, and the task will be
terrain to assist humanitarian aid (Gaziulusoy et al., 2016). made more complex by the large volume of information made available
(2) Relevant technology to build in extra-terrestrial environments: via the holistic design process. However, this will also mean that addi­
Plans to erect constructions on the Moon have already been tive construction should become the next natural step in the evolution of
proposed. Johann-Dietrich Wörner, who is head of the European “smarter” construction. By doing so, additive manufacturing technolo­
Space Agency (ESA), has indicated that his organization is gies would definitely demonstrate an important advantage over tradi­
intending to start building “Lunarville” by as early as 2024 tional construction processes for investing towards a low carbon,
(Orwig, 2015) and US President George W. Bush is reported to resilient and sustainable future (Labonnote and Rüther, 2016).

5
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

4.4. Barriers of implementing 3D printing in construction projects as a wall installed with hot water transport and electrical distribution
equipment.
Following barriers are of particular interest. The survival of 3D 3D printing and programmable equipment face the additional chal­
printing in the construction industry is largely dependent on the degree lenges linked to cyber security and risk of hacking. Campbell et al.
of customization requirements in the construction industry (Wu et al., (2014) raised the issue of securing embedded programmable capabilities
2016). A large demand for customization would increase the demand for into objects.
3D-printed products, thus decreasing the printing costs and helping the
technology survive in the construction industry. Therefore, the central 5. Case study interviews
issue is whether a large demand for mass customization could be ex­
pected in the construction industry. The categorization of demands in 5.1. Innovation and 3D printing experiences of the companies
the construction industry (i.e. either functional or innovative) requires
further investigation. Similarly, future research is needed to identify the Company A offers a large portfolio of construction services including
customer sacrifice gap, i.e. the gap between the desired product and architectural services, design, project management, construction ser­
available products in the construction market. As customization options vices, operation and maintenance, sitework, concrete work, electrical,
were usually limited by suppliers in order to achieve economies of scale and plumbing services. They work along the whole value chain but are
in the construction process, knowing the categorization of demands, the particularly strong within project management and project
degree of these demands and the customer sacrifice gap will be useful for development.
3D printing technology to reach economies of scale (Wu et al., 2016). The director from Company A claimed that it is a conservative in­
Due to size limitation of existing 3D printers, it is difficult to print a dustry with little innovation taking place over the 40 years that he has
high-rise building all in one go (Gibson et al., 2002). However, structural worked at the company. However, things have happened during the last
components can be printed piece-by-piece and then assembledtogether 5 years at a high speed. This is mostly occurring on the design side in
as a real-scale building (Feng and Yuhong, 2014). When applying this digital drawing and BIM tools. There are also innovations related to
approach, users need to address some critical issues so that building as industrialization of construction through modularization, which is in
assemblages of components reflects aspects of real-world material high demand and focus. The respondent from Company A stated that
fabrication and assemble methods (Sass and Oxman, 2006). materials and concrete are main areas. Low-carbon concrete, virtual
Firstly, it remains unclear whether 3D printing could lead to reduced design, use of sensors and digitalization are currently in focus within the
or increased construction cost (Wu et al., 2016). The assumed high cost company. The Norwegian respondents from Company A didn’t know
of the 3D printing technology as compared to conventional technology is whether they have been involved 3D printing. There is no strategy in the
a particular challenge for small and medium sized enterprises that Norwegian facility for implementing 3D printing. They are watching
constitute the majority of the construction industry. The commonly what is happening in other companies and other countries, for example
recognized three cost items in construction included labour, material, in EU, which is more active in implementing 3D printing.
and plant. While labour costs could be reduced similarly to manpower Company A’s EU facility has experienced innovations in digital en­
requirement, 3D printable materials are usually more expensive than gineering, offsite fabrication, design, and manufacturing efficiency. This
traditional ones. In summary, although short-term potential cost was stated by the informant associated with the EU facility. There are
reduction can be achieved by 3-D printing, empirical studies are needed currently projects on BIM, 3D printing, geographic information systems,
to investigate the financial performance of the printed construction and automation and robotics. All the projects mentioned are collabo­
product or project over its life cycle. rative and they have all received external funding and can be classed as
Secondly, types of materials can be used in 3D printing technology research projects. The EU facility has been involved in 3D printing for
are limited. They should have some basic features such as quick hard­ 2–3 years. The motivation is that they can produce very high-quality
ening in order to be used in 3-D printing (Wang et al., 2016). There were building components easily and cheaply. They are focusing on print­
various studies which found that the strength and stability of the printed ing complex parts. Parts that are impossible to create other ways.
products using current printing materials (such as plaster) might prevent Cladding is the most applicable solution. There are benefits when
the technology from being used in large-scale models or buildings. The working with complex shapes and continuous variations – continuously
low availability of high-strength printing materials also led to the varying facades that are impossible to make any other way. There are
speculation that 3-D printing might not be used in large-scale models or many technical challenges still existing, and aesthetics is an important
buildings. issue. To overcome the challenges and achieve the preferred aesthetic
Thirdly, the digitalization of designs and manufacturing raises con­ quality there is a need for both subtractive and additive processes.
cerns about intellectual property rights (Wang and Rimmer, 2020). The Reinforcement is another challenge where solutions are on their way.
digital files that describing an object and an additive construction can Company B also offers a broad range of services and is considered as
potentially be copied and distributed out of control of the organization a competitor of Company A. The company works primarily with con­
which created it (Berman, 2012). The lack of standardization and struction but also designs buildings and provides facility management.
regulation governing 3D printed objects, whether these are products or The respondent from Company B has experienced innovation in many
the construction itself, has also been noted (Strauss, 2013). Validation areas as he has been working at the R&D department. Among others, the
should apply in this specific case to both hardware and the construction following areas were emphasized: materials and production, design,
project in question (Leblanc, 2014). The regulation issue is a serious energy and sustainable solutions, robotics, environmental design and
matter because of the consequences that will be incurred if construction biodiversity, circular economy. There are also some ongoing projects
failures result in fatalities. This situation represents a serious challenge if within these topics, such as a Horizon 2020 project which is about how
additive construction is ever to compete with traditional construction to remove asbestos, and a project that looks at how to imagine bio­
approaches (Gardiner, 2011). diverse solutions for roofs. Company B is involved with experimental
Finally, the liability issue should also be considered carefully. There projects and prototyping for 3D printing. 3D printing is part of the
have been speculations (Campbell et al., 2014) as to who would be liable company strategy but is allocated a small budget. A group is working on
in the event of failure of a powder metallurgy fabricated (using 3D 3D printing. There are 3 projects linked to concrete, but no metal and
printing) component of an aircraft wing. Would it be the original plastic at the moment.
manufacturer, the programmer, or the manufacturer of the new design Company C works with architectural services. The respondent from
or new smart material? This problem is even more complicated in the Company C has emphasized their innovation efforts within process
case of building components that may have two or more functions, such thinking, standardization, and added value in construction. BIM for

6
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

information workflow has been the major innovation for this purpose. issues. People often rush in with what they know how to do – it is a
Data capturing is becoming more and more efficient and is now culture of quick gains. People get tired and are not interested when the
including information for the entire building operation. They are difficult stuff starts. There is also a belief that every building is unique,
becoming more innovative about how they capture data. Now there is and that innovation is a one-shot experience. It is difficult to get people
easy access and the data is more correct. Company C is prototyping and to see innovation as a long-term issue. Being technology-driven might
making models for customers by 3D printing. They are making plastic also make innovation fail. There should be a focus on the problem first.
and plaster models. Models give good feedback to architects. It is a The respondent from Company C claimed that leadership commit­
report form, like a drawing, another way of reporting from BIM. ment is important but there is need for demonstrating how this will work
if it is worth the investment. There is no need to 3D print everything.
5.2. Enablers and barriers of implementing 3D printing innovation Complex parts could be 3D printed. This goes hand in hand with
industrialized development and offsite construction. There is a need for
Interviewees have largely agreed on the main enablers for innova­ standardized interfaces. In terms of barriers, the respondent of company
tion. All respondents stated that effective leadership, collaboration with C also emphasizes that if you believe too much in technology and not
partners, and industry-academia collaboration are primary enablers of enough in the people thinking, it will not work. Things can go wrong if
3D printing innovation. there is a lack of leadership. Small focused steps are important. Make
Company A pointed out the importance of leadership and customer sure it works before you move onto the next one. It is also always a
commitment for successful implementation of 3D printing. The com­ struggle to change an organisations behaviour and culture. There is a
pany’s EU respondent prioritized R&D funding and collaboration before lack of competence, a lack of interest and understanding about how
the leadership commitment. If it is high quality and cost-efficient it will technology can improve a product and productivity. There is an un­
attract the leaders. Customers should also want 3D printing in buildings. derstanding that risk is involved and a lack of understanding about how
The director from Company A also pointed out the significance of supply it could mean developing your company.
chain thinking for innovation. Clients ask for projects where the supplier
is involved. Contact with the supply chain is therefore necessary, from 6. Case study interviews discussion
the architect to those who are going to deliver afterwards. The envi­
ronmental aspect is also a driver, not only for sustainability but also The case study interviews outlined the key enablers and barriers for
economy because it has a positive effect on the sale and rental of implementing 3D printing in construction, as summarized in Table 3.
buildings. The second Norwegian respondent included the importance They also point to drivers and barriers that could influence acceptance
of collaborating with researchers on the projects and allocating a within project-based project management. The enabler highlighted by
budget. According to the EU respondent from Company A, the main most companies is effective leadership, in addition to cost efficiency.
driver for innovation is to become more competitive and having a The leadership issue shows the importance of project management, but
dedicated innovation capability and funding. They currently have four also senior executive management commitment. As the main barrier,
fulltime innovation managers and 20 people work with this part-time. most companies pointed to conservatism of the industry, along with
In terms of barriers, Company A respondents discussed the conser­ culture and team focus. Despite the positive expectations about 3D
vatism of the construction industry and have different points of view. printing technology, the interviews point to the Norwegian construction
According to the Norwegian director in Company A The industry is industry being a bit slow adopter of this technology compared to other
conservative because no one has demanded anything There is always an EU countries. Then study indicate a degree of sitting on the fence and
element of risk when testing new technology and here is need for new waiting to see what the rest of the industry or other EU countries are
contracting models to mitigate and share risks. According to the second doing, and in particular to study if the technology is profitable. This
Norwegian respondent from Company A, about the idea that the con­ could also be considered a case of learning from what the other actors
struction industry is conservative is a misunderstanding. Customers ask are doing. However, key actors must most likely serve as champions for
for something that is innovative, and then the company makes it. The this type of technology, and some of the companies in this study have the
respondent from the EU facility of Company A said that the construction potential in terms of size to be a role model.
industry is conservative, but this is changing. Historically it has gone A conservatism of the Norwegian construction industry can be linked
through big cycles. Now they see the benefits and solutions, there is a lot to the high labour costs, which may cause high investment cost
more customer pull, asking for innovation. The respondent also
emphasized the complexity of construction in terms of an important
barrier. It is difficult to come up with widely applicable solutions Table 3
because of the complexity. In addition, there is a lack of funding and Key enablers and barriers identified through interviews.
supply chains are fragmented. finally, there is a culture for localized Key Enablers and Barriers Company
problem solving but no culture for universal solutions or widely appli­ Key enabler
cable solutions. Innovation happens in individual projects. Effective leadership A, B, C
The respondent from Company B also stated the importance of Collaboration with partners/supply chain A, B
having a strategy for open innovation. Governmental regulations are a R&D funding and budget allocation A
Quality and cost efficiency A, B, C
very good driver to push clients and companies. More and more of the
Customer demand A, B
bosses are convinced that sustainability in terms of the circular economy New contracting models to mitigate risks A
- cannot be avoided. It is a good reason to innovate and many projects Strategy for open innovation B
are linked to it. The respondent from Company B claimed that the Governmental regulations for sustainability B
leadership is important, but if the client and market do not want it, then Incremental implementation C

it will not happen. He added that sharing information is important, such Key barriers
as codes and patents. The respondent from Company B has also pointed Conservatism of the construction industry A, B, C
Risks of implementing new technology A, C
out the conservativism of the industry in terms of barrier, which can be
Complexity of the construction projects A
problematic in spreading information through teams. Construction Non-standard nature of construction projects A, B
professionals are strong and experienced, but it can be difficult to Fragmented supply chains A
change their minds. The focus on cost efficiency and funding can also be Lack of funding A
a barrier. The industry is not patient. Most planned actions begin with Culture of local focus and teams A, B, C
Technology focus, ignoring other factors B, C
what is likely to be successful and leave to the end the more difficult

7
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

expectations for the 3D printing technology. Table 4

The conservatism of the construction industry to adopt 3D printing Implication of barriers and enablers on implementation of 3D printing.
can also be compared with other industries in Norway, where Industry Previous experiences 3D printing Implication for
4.0 and 3D printing is on its way to acceptance. According to the Nor­ characteristics implementation of 3D
wegian Industry Report from 2016 (Norsk Industri, 2016). Companies printing
from automotive aluminium and plastic industries are currently utilizing Focus on cost efficiency 3D printing technology is The large funding will
the potential with 3D printing as a production method. of the projects and lack getting funding for R&D facilitate to implement it
While 3D printing is mainly being used for prototyping, it is of funding in R&D on large scale in
construction industry
becoming an important method for making of the tools, fixtures, spare Mismatch between 3D printing will facilitate As mass customization has
parts, as well as producing parts and repairing the equipment. According market needs and the mass customization high demand in
to the report by Norsk Industri (Norsk Industri, 2016) 20% of the innovation in construction industry construction industry, this
manufacturing companies use 3D printing for prototyping while fewer feature of 3D printing
technology should be
use 3D printing for ordinary production. In terms of materials, plastic
leveraged in improvement
and ceramic appear to be widely used in 3D printing, but there is a major projects.
development in 3D printing of metals. Lack of skilled workforce High-skilled labour High-skilled labour is a big
Previous innovation experiences imply valuable insights and learn­ in the market for required for 3D printing challenge to implement
ings for the introduction and implementation of the 3D printing tech­ innovation operation the 3D printing
implementation. technology on large scale.
nology to the construction industry. These implications are summarized Training and education
in Table 4, taking the characteristics of the 3D printing innovation. initiatives are required.
We find that 3D printing has characteristics that support successful Initial high cost of the High cost of 3D printing Especially, the SMEs will
implementation in construction projects, but also shares many of the innovation technology have difficulties to afford
the 3D printing
characteristics that have created challenges in previous innovation ini­
technology. Actions to
tiatives in the sector. In particular, it is important to demonstrate the improve the technology
potential profitability of the technology. and reduce the cost of it
3D printing, and other aspects of Industry 4.0 may have social ef­ should be taken.
fects. To construction workers, it is a challenge to acquire new techno­ Risk in adopting new The 3D printing High risk is involved for
technology technology is not mature large construction
logical knowledge. To those who manage new technologies they
for large scale usage companies to use this
represent an opportunity, while those who struggle to work with and technology at large scale.
understand new technologies may have challenges on the labour mar­ New risk sharing models
ket. From a user perspective, more efficient production of for example will be of importance.
Non-profitability 3D printing has The use of 3D printing will
homes would be a benefit as it can influence the cost of living.
capability of waste result in more productive
reduction, cost reduction and profitable projects,
7. Conclusion and time reduction which should be escalated
for wider implementation.
In specific, this paper contributes to the literature and practice by Multiple stakeholders Multiple stakeholders are Implementation of 3D
create challenges for involved in the printing technology
outlining drivers, enablers and barriers of implementing 3D printing in
collaborative implementation of 3D requires a common
construction projects, through a comprehensive literature review and implementation of the printing understanding and
interviews with industry practitioners. In general, we discuss 3D print­ innovation interest within the whole
ing as an application of Industry 4.0 in a project context. We treated construction value chain.
drivers as factors that push organisations to innovate, while enablers
represent factors that support innovation. Barriers are factors that make
have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
innovation difficult. The study results indicate that the construction
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
industry in general needs more examples of the projects that show the
cost efficiency obtained by the implementation of the 3D printing
technology. This will increase the awareness of this technology and Acknowledgment
adopt it to a larger extend. The construction industry is considered to be
conservative, which can partly explain slow adaption of Industry 4.0 and This research has been funded by the European Commission under
related concepts. the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme. Grant Agreement No 723611.
The interview participants put the cost efficiency of 3D printing
forward as a key enabler for larger adoptions of this technology in the Appendix A. Supplementary data
construction industry. In terms of project management, 3D printing has
potential to improve the construction processes, make them more Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
effective, by saving time and money, but investment costs are high and org/10.1016/j.plas.2021.100033.
support from leadership is required. R&D is a central factor for
encouraging investment and prioritisation. It does this by producing References
good or ambitious examples and shows how things can be done. This
issue brings another important mission to the research projects to Abdulrahman, A.O., Huisingh, D., Haflamp, W., 2015. Sustainability improvements in
Egypt’s oil & gas industry by implementation of flare gas recovery. J. Clean. Prod.
demonstrate the efficiency gains by implementation of 3D printing in
98, 116–122.
use cases. It is likely that the specific results related to 3D printing are an Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., Iakovou, E., Thymianidis, M., Tzetzis, D., 2015.
indication of challenges for implementation of other parts of Industry A methodological framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing
4.0 in project businesses. into the production portfolio of a focused factory. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 328–339.
Ågren, R., Wing, R.D., 2014. Five moments in the history of industrialized building.
Construct. Manag. Econ. 32, 7–15.
Declaration of competing interest ASTM, 2012. Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies, ASTM
committee F42 on additive manufacturing technologies ASTM committee F42 on
additive manufacturing technologies. Subcommittee F42. In: 91 on Terminology.
Javier Alonso Madrid does R&D and consulting on innovative tech­ Astm International.
nologies, including 3D-printing. The other authors declare that they Atkin, B., 2014. Industrialized building. Construct. Manag. Econ. 32, 1–6.

8
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

Ballard, G., Howell, G., 2003. Lean project management. Build. Res. Inf. 31, 119–133. Hardie, M.P., Miller, G., Manley, K., McFallan, S., 2005. Experience with the
Barlow, J., 2000. Innovation and learning in complex offshore construction projects. Res. Management of Technological Innovations within the Australian Construction
Pol. 29, 973–989. Industry.
Barlow, J., Childerhouse, P., Gann, D., Hong-Minh, S., Naim, M., Ozaki, R., 2003. Choice Hauschildt, J., Salomo, S., Schultz, C., Kock, A., 2016. Innovationsmanagement, 6.,
and delivery in housebuilding: lessons from Japan for UK housebuilders. Build. Res. vollständig aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage, Vahlens Handbücher. Verlag
Inf. 31, 134–145. Franz Vahlen, München.
Berman, B., 2012. 3-D printing: the new industrial revolution. Bus. Horiz. 55, 155–162. Haymond, L., Noble, D., 2008. Rapid contour crafting to create more sustainable
Besklubova, S., Skibniewski, M.J., Zhang, X., 2021. Factors affecting 3D printing housing. In: American Solar Energy Society - SOLAR 2008, Including Proc. Of 37th
technology adaptation in construction. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 147, 04021026. ASES Annual Conf., 33rd National Passive Solar Conf., 3rd Renewable Energy Policy
Bikas, H., Stavropoulos, P., Chryssolouris, G., 2016. Additive manufacturing methods and Marketing Conf.: Catch the Clean Energy Wave, pp. 5051–5057.
and modelling approaches: a critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83, Hofmann, E., Rüsch, M., 2017. Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future
389–405. prospects on logistics. Comput. Ind. 89, 23–34.
Boothroyd, G., 1994. Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput. Aided Des. Höök, M., Stehn, L., 2008. Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized
26, 505–520. housing production. Construct. Manag. Econ. 26, 1091–1100.
Bosscher, P., Williams II, R.L., Bryson, L.S., Castro-Lacouture, D., 2007. Cable-suspended Howe, A.S., Wilcox, B., McQuin, C., Mittman, D., Townsend, J., Polit-Casillas, R.,
robotic contour crafting system. Autom. ConStruct. 17, 45–55. Litwin, T., 2014. Modular additive construction using native materials. Earth and
Bowen, T.S., 2007. As prefabrication sheds its off-the-rack image, automation via 3D Space 2014 301–312.
printing threatens to transform conventional construction. Architect. Rec. 195, 166- Howell, G.A., 1999. What is lean construction-1999. In: Proceedings IGLC. Citeseer, p. 1.
166. Huen, E., 2017. In: The World’s First Freeform 3D Pirnted House Is Slated to Open, 2016.
Branch Technology, 2016. Build like Nature with Cellular Fabrication. Hunt, G., Mitzalis, F., Alhinai, T., Hooper, P.A., Kovac, M., 2014. 3D printing with flying
Brandon, J.F., 2015. Don’t believe the hype: WinSun unveils bland multi-story 3D robots. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).
printed buildings, SolidSmack. www.solidsmack.com. IEEE, pp. 4493–4499.
Brockmann, C., Brezinski, H., Erbe, A., 2016. Innovation in construction megaprojects. Johansen, A., Olsson, N.O., George, J., Asbjørn, R., 2019. Project Risk and Opportunity
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 142, 04016059. Management: an Owner’s Perspective. Routledge.
Buehler, M., Buffet, P., Castagnino, S., 2018. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is about to Jonsson, H., Rudberg, M., 2014. Classification of production systems for industrialized
hit the construction industry. Retrieved June 13 2018 Here’s how it can thrive 209. building: a production strategy perspective. Construct. Manag. Econ. 32, 53–69.
Cakmakci, M., 2019. Interaction in project management approach within industry 4.0. Kading, B., Straub, J., 2015. Utilizing in-situ resources and 3D printing structures for a
In: Trojanowska, C.O., Machado, J., Pavlenko, I. (Eds.), Advances in Manufacturing manned Mars mission. Acta Astronaut. 107, 317–326.
II. MANUFACTURING 2019. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Khoshnevis, B., 2004. Automated construction by contour crafting - related robotics and
Cham. information technologies. Autom. ConStruct. 13, 5–13.
Campbell, T.A., Tibbits, S., Garrett, B., 2014. The Next Wave: 4D Printing Programming Khoshnevis, B., Russell, R., Kwon, H., Bukkapatnam, S., 2001. Crafting large prototypes.
the Material World. The Atlantic Council, Washington, DC, pp. 1–15. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 8, 33–42.
Ceccanti, F., Dini, E., De Kestelier, X., Colla, V., Lambaguian, L., 2010. 3D printing KPMG, 2016. Building a technology advantage: harnessing the potential of technology to
technology for a moon outpost exploiting lunar soil. In: 61st International improve the performance of major projects. Global Construction Survey.
Astronautical Congress 2010, IAC 2010. International Astronautical Federation, Labonnote, N., Rüther, P., 2016. Additive Manufacturing: an Opportunity for Functional
Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 8812–8820. and Sustainable Constructions. Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing, Lisbon,
Choi, D.G., Lee, H., Sung, T.-k., 2011. Research profiling for ‘standardization and Portugal.
innovation’. Scientometrics 88, 259–278. Labonnote, N., Rønnquist, A., Manum, B., Rüther, P., 2016. Additive construction: state-
CIB, 2010. New perspective in industrialisation in construction: a state-of-the-art report; of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. Autom. ConStruct. 72 (Part 3), 347–366.
CIB Task Group 57" Industrialisation in Construction. In: Eigenverl. des IBB an d. Latham, S.M., 1994. Constructing the Team. HM Stationery Office London.
ETH Zürich, Zurich. Leblanc, F., 2014. Anything, anyone, anywhere: towards a cloud-based 3D printing
Davis, P., Gajendran, T., Vaughan, J., Owi, T., 2016. Assessing construction innovation: fabrication in architecture. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on
theoretical and practical perspectives. Construction Economics and Building 16, Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia-Rethinking Comprehensive
104–115. Design: Speculative Countercultur (CAADRIA), the Association for Computer-Aided
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2008. Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative Architectural Design Research in Asia, pp. 461–470. Kyoto, Japan.
research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Maghsoudi, S., Maghsoudi, S., Duffield, C., Duffield, C., Wilson, D., Wilson, D., 2016. In
Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–32. pursuit of innovation value in building projects. Int. J. Innovat. Sci. 8, 39–70.
Diekmann, J.E., Krewedl, M., Balonick, J., Stewart, T., Won, S., 2004. Application of Millsaps, B.B., Millsaps, B.B., 2015. The Swarmscapers: Students Create 3D Printing
Lean Manufacturing Principles to Construction. Construction Industry Institute, Robots Capable of Building in Outlying Areas. 3DPrint.com.
Boulder, CO, p. 191. Miltenburg, J., 2005. Manufacturing Strategy: How to Formulate and Implement a
Drizo, A., Pegna, J., 2006. Environmental Impacts of Rapid Prototyping: an Overview of Winning Plan. CRC Press.
Research to Date. Rapid prototyping journal. Mossman, A., 2009. Creating value: a sufficient way to eliminate waste in lean design
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E., 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: and lean production. Lean Constr. J. 13–23.
implications for productivity and innovation. Construct. Manag. Econ. 20, 621–631. Nam, C., Tatum, C., 1988. Major characteristics of constructed products and resulting
Dulaimi, M.F., Nepal, M.P., Park, M., 2005. A hierarchical structural model of assessing limitations of construction technology. Construct. Manag. Econ. 6, 133–147.
innovation and project performance. Construct. Manag. Econ. 23, 565–577. Nam, C.H., Tatum, C.B., 1997. Leaders and champions for construction innovation.
Egan, J., 1998. Rethinking Construction, Construction Task Force Report for Department Construct. Manag. Econ. 15, 259–270.
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. HMSO, London. Norsk Industri, 2016. Konjunkturrapport 2016. Norsk Industri. https://www.norskin
Ekambaram, A., Johansen, A., Jermstad, O., Okland, A., 2010. Opportunities in Projects dustri.no/siteassets/dokumenter/rapporter-og-brosjyrer/konjunkturrapporten_201
and Innovative Thinking. 6_web.pdf. (Accessed 9 October 2021).
Engström, S., Stehn, L., 2016. Barriers to client-contractor communication: implementing Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota Production System: beyond Large-Scale Production. crc Press.
process innovation in a building project in Sweden. Int. J. Proj. Organisat. Manag. 8, Olsson, N.O.E., 2006. Management of flexibility in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24,
151–171. 66–74.
Fateri, M., Gebhardt, A., Khosravi, M., 2013. Experimental investigation of selective laser Olsson, N.O.E., 2008. External and internal flexibility-aligning projects with the business
melting of lunar regolith for in-situ applications. In: ASME 2013 International strategy and executing projects efficiently. Int. J. Proj. Organisat. Manag. 1, 47–64.
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. San Diego, California. Olsson, N., Shafqat, A., Arica, E., Økland, A., 2019. 3D-Printing technology in
Feng, L., Yuhong, L., 2014. Study on the status quo and problems of 3D printed buildings construction: results from a survey. In: Lill, I.a.W. (Ed.), 10th Nordic Conference on
in China. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research 14, 1–4. Construction Economics and Organization. Emerald Publishing Limited,
Gann, D.M., 1996. Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences pp. 349–356. E.
between industrialized housing and car production in Japan. Construct. Manag. Orwig, Jessica, 2015. Here’s the crazy plan to start building an inflatable habitat on the
Econ. 14, 437–450. Moon in 2024. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/european-space-agency-pl
Gardiner, J., 2011. Exploring the Emerging Design Territory of Construction 3D Printing- ans-to-build-lunarville-moon-habitat-in-2024-2015-6?r=US&IR=T. (Accessed 9
Project Led Architectural Research, PhD Thesis, School of Architecture and Design. October 2021).
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C., Aouad, G., 2013. Integration and leadership as enablers of
Gaziulusoy, A.I., Ryan, C., McGrail, S., Chandler, P., Twomey, P., 2016. Identifying and innovation in construction: case study. J. Manag. Eng. 30, 256–263.
addressing challenges faced by transdisciplinary research teams in climate change Pajares, J., Poza, D., Villafañez, F., López-Paredes, A., 2017. Project management
research. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 55–64. methodologies in the fourth technological revolution. A.. In: Hernández, C. (Ed.),
Ghaben, R.K., Jaaron, A.A., 2017. Identifying and assessing innovation factors in Advances in Management Engineering, Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial
construction projects in Palestine: an empirical study. Int. J. Proj. Organisat. Manag. Engineering. Springer International Publishing AG.
9, 350–373. Pan, W., Gibb, A.G., Dainty, A.R., 2007. Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of
Gibb, A.G., 2001. Standardization and pre-assembly-distinguishing myth from reality offsite modern methods of construction. Construct. Manag. Econ. 25, 183–194.
using case study research. Construct. Manag. Econ. 19, 307–315. Perkins, I., Skitmore, M., 2015. Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry:
Gibson, I., Kvan, T., Ming, L.W., 2002. Rapid prototyping for architectural models. Rapid a review. International Journal of Construction Management 15, 1–9.
Prototyp. J. Perrot, A., Rangeard, D., Pierre, A., 2016. Structural built-up of cement-based materials
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P., 2007. Ethnography. Principles in Practice. Routledge, used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Mater. Struct. 49, 1213–1220.
London and New York. Peter, B.J., 2015. Spiderbot: Large Scale 3D Printer.

9
N.O.E. Olsson et al. Project Leadership and Society 2 (2021) 100033

Porter, M.E., Heppelmann, James E., 2014. How Smart, Connected Products Are Vieira, D., Romero-Torres, M., 2016. Is 3D printing transforming the project management
Transforming Competition. Harvard Business Review. function in the aerospace industry? The Journal Of Modern Project Management 4.
Rael, R., San Fratello, V., 2011. Developing concrete polymer building components for Vrijhoef, R., Koskela, L., 2005. A critical review of construction as a project-based
3D printing. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Association for industry: identifying paths towards a project-independent approach to construction.
Computer Aided Design in Architecture: Integration through Computation In: Proceedings CIB Combining Forces. June, Helsinki.
(ACADIA), Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture. Calgary/Banff, Walker, D.H., Walker, D.H., 2016. Reflecting on 10 years of focus on innovation,
Canada, pp. 152–157. organisational learning and knowledge management literature in a construction
Ramos, P., Mota, C., Corrêa, L., 2016. Exploring the management style of Brazilians project management context. Construct. Innovat. 16, 114–126.
project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 902–913. Wang, B., Rimmer, M., 2020. 3D Printing and Housing: Intellectual Property and
Richard, R.-B., 2005. Industrialised building systems: reproduction before automation Construction Law. Automating Cities, Springer.
and robotics. Autom. ConStruct. 14, 442–451. Wang, Y., Han, Q., de Vries, B., Zuo, J., 2016. How the public reacts to social impacts in
Rousek, T., Eriksson, K., Doule, O., 2012. SinterHab, Acta Astronautica 74, 98–111. construction projects? A structural equation modeling study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34,
Sandelowski, M., 1996. Using qualitative methods in intervention studies. Res. Nurs. 1433–1448.
Health 19, 359–364. Wilhelm, S., Curbach, M., 2014. Review of possible mineral materials and production
Sarhan, S., Fox, A., 2013. Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK techniques for a building material on the moon. Struct. Concr. 15, 419–428.
construction industry. The Built & Human Environment Review 6, 1–17. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 2010. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
Sass, L., Oxman, R., 2006. Materializing design: the implications of rapid prototyping in Your Corporation. Simon and Schuster.
digital design. Des. Stud. 27, 325–355. World Economic Forum, 2016. Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in
Schwab, K., December 12, 2015. The fourth industrial revolution: what it means and how Mindset and Technology.
to respond. Foreign Affairs: https://www. foreignaffairs. com/articles/2015-12-12/ Worsnop, T., Miraglia, S., Davies, A., 2016. Balancing open and closed innovation in
fourth-industrial-revolution. megaprojects: insights from crossrail. Proj. Manag. J. 47, 79–94.
Schwab, K., 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown business, New York. Wu, P., Wang, J., Wang, X., 2016. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the
Sevenson, B., 2015. Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and construction industry. Autom. ConStruct. 68, 21–31.
an Incredible Home. Loughborough University teams up with Skanska to build commerical 3D concrete
Sher, D., 2014. Tridom Joins the Race for 3D Printed Affordable Housing. 3D Printing printing robot. www.3ders.org, 2014.
Industry. www.3ders.org, 2015. INNOprint 3D Printer Can Build Emergency Housing in Just under
Skinner, J., 2012. The Interview: an Ethnographic Approach. A&C Black. 30 Minutes. https://www.3ders.org/articles/20150716-3d-print-emergency-housi
Stavridis, J., Papacharalampopoulos, A., Stavropoulos, P., 2018. Quality assessment in ng-in-under-30-minutes-with-innoprint-3d-printer.html. (Accessed 9 October 2021).
laser welding: a critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 94, 1825–1847. www.3ders.org.
Strauss, H., 2013. Am Envelope: the Potential of Additive Manufacturing for Facade Xue, X., Zhang, R., Yang, R., Dai, J., 2014a. Innovation in construction: a critical review
Constructions. TU Delft. and future research. Int. J. Innovat. Sci.
Thuesen, C., Hvam, L., 2011. Efficient on-site construction: learning points from a Xue, X., Zhang, R., Yang, R., Dai, J., 2014b. Innovation in construction: a critical review
German platform for housing. Construct. Innovat. 11, 338–355. and future research. Int. J. Innovat. Sci. 6, 111–126.

10