Customer satisfaction with advanced construction technologies in residential buildings

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study.

Table 1. List of success criteria with their sources.

#	Criteria	Sources
A	Reducing the time (construction time)	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Kazemian et al. 2017; Kidwell 2017; Pessoa and Guimarães 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017; Wu, Wang, and Wang 2016)
B	Reducing the cost (construction cost)	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Kazemian et al. 2017; Kidwell 2017; Pessoa and Guimarães 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017; Wu, Wang, and Wang 2016)
C	Reducing manpower	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017; Wu, Wang, and Wang 2016)
D	Capability to build a complex design	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Kidwell 2017; Le et al. 2012; Pessoa and Guimarães 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021; Wu, Wang, and Wang 2016)
E	Capability and ease of changing the design during and after construction	Lessons learned from Dubai Future Foundation (DFF)
F	Reducing the lifecycle cost	(Pessoa and Guimarães 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021; Wu, Wang, and Wang 2016)
G	Capability to install heat and sound isolation	Brainstorming
H	Increasing customization to fit customer needs	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Kazemian et al. 2017; Pessoa and Guimarães 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017; Wu, Wang, and Wang 2016)
I	Increasing precision and reducing rework	(Kidwell 2017; Schuldt et al. 2021; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017)
J	Facilitation of integration of services and the structure	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017)
K	Reducing reliance on skilled labor	(Kidwell 2017; Schuldt et al. 2021; Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017)
L	Increasing safety on site.	(El-Sayegh, Romdhane, and Manjikian 2020; Pessoa and Guimarães 2020; Schuldt et al. 2021)
M	Increasing the benefit of visualization and communication	(Uppala and Tadikamalla 2017)
N	Capability to build a multi-story building	Brainstorming, interviews
O	Capability to apply different types of exterior design (glass facade, stone facade, brick, etc)	Brainstorming, interviews
P	Avoiding mobilization of building components and installing them on site	Lessons learned from Dubai Future Foundation (DFF)
Q	Reduce the need for a storage area for materials and equipment on site	Brainstorming, interviews
R	Capacity of equipment to withstand climatic conditions	Interviews

Figure 2. Kano two-dimensional quality Model (Juan, Huang, and Chen 2014).

Table 2. Kano Evaluation Table (Shahin et al. 2013).

Customer needs		Dysfunctional form of the question
		I like this feature omitted	(2)I need this feature omitted	(3)I am neutral about this feature	(4)I can live with omitting this feature	(5)I dislike omitting this feature
Functional from of the question	(1) I like this feature included	Q	A	A	A	O
	(2) I need this feature included	R	I	I	I	M
	(3) I am neutral about this feature	R	I	I	I	M
	(4) I can live with including this feature	R	I	I	I	M
	(5) I dislike including this feature	R	R	R	R	Q

Notes: A – Attractive need; O – one dimensional need; M – must be need; I – indifferent; R – reverse; Q – questionable.

Figure 3. Template of the customer satisfaction Matrix.

Figure 4. Example of customer satisfaction Matrix.

Table 3. Overview of target Real Estate Developer.

#	Variables	Classification	Percentage %
1.	Number of respondents as per their major	Civil/Architectural engineering	71%
		Electrical/Mechanical/Industrial engineering	11%
		BA/Finance/Accountant	11%
		Others	7%
2.	Number of respondents as per their years of experience	0~5 years	24%
		5~10 years	39%
		above 10 years	37%
3.	Number of respondents who worked previously in modern construction techniques	Yes	53%
		No	47%
4.	The number of respondents who worked Previously on housing projects with 50 units and more.	Yes	79%
		No	21%

Table 4. Kano quality Model attributes and (SC & DSC) of each criterion.

Criterion	The criteria	Must-be	Attractive	Indifferent	One-Dimensional	Revers	Questionable	SC	DSC
A	Reducing time	29%	38%	18%	12%	0%	3%	0.5152	−0.4242
B	Reducing the Cost	32%	18%	26%	21%	3%	0%	0.3939	−0.5455
C	Reducing manpower	9%	21%	65%	3%	0%	3%	0.2424	−0.1212
D	Capability to build a complex design	41%	32%	18%	9%	0%	0%	0.4118	−0.5
E	Capability and ease of changing the design during and after construction	47%	18%	26%	6%	0%	3%	0.2424	−0.5455
F	Reducing the lifecycle cost	44%	21%	29%	3%	0%	3%	0.2424	−0.4848
G	Capability to install heat and sound isolation	9%	35%	38%	12%	3%	3%	0.5	−0.2188
H	Increasing customization to fit the customer needs	32%	15%	35%	12%	3%	3%	0.2813	−0.4688
I	Increasing the precision and reducing rework	15%	47%	32%	3%	0%	3%	0.5152	−0.1818
J	Facilitation of integration of the services and the structure	35%	38%	12%	9%	3%	3%	0.5	−0.4688
K	Reducing reliance on skilled labor	38%	21%	32%	3%	3%	3%	0.25	−0.4375
L	Increasing safety on site	32%	12%	29%	26%	0%	0%	0.3824	−0.5882
M	Increasing the benefit of visualization and communication	15%	41%	32%	6%	3%	3%	0.5	−0.2188
N	Capability to build a multi-story building	41%	29%	21%	6%	0%	3%	0.3636	−0.4848
O	Capability to apply different types of exterior design (glass facade, stone façade, brick, etc)	15%	29%	50%	3%	0%	3%	0.3333	−0.1818
P	Avoiding mobilization of building components and installing them on site	12%	53%	15%	12%	6%	3%	0.7097	−0.2581
Q	Reducing the need for storage area for materials and equipment on site	44%	24%	26%	3%	0%	3%	0.2727	−0.4848
R	Capacity of equipment to withstand climatic conditions	38%	18%	29%	9%	3%	3%	0.2813	−0.5

Figure 5. Customer satisfaction matrix for real estate developer.

Table 5. Conclusion of the result of KQM.

Criterion	Criterion	SC	DSC	Quadrant (KQM)
B	Reducing the Cost	0.394	−0.545	Q1
E	Capability and ease of changing the design during and after construction	0.5	−0.469	Q1
H	Increasing customization to fit the customer needs	0.515	−0.424	Q1
O	Capability to apply different types of exterior design (glass facade, stone façade, brick, etc)	0.412	−0.5	Q1
A	Reducing time	0.382	−0.588	Q2
F	Reducing the lifecycle cost	0.281	−0.469	Q2
G	Capability to install heat and sound isolation	0.364	−0.485	Q2
I	Increasing precision and reducing rework	0.281	−0.5	Q2
J	Facilitation of integration of the services and the structure	0.242	−0.485	Q2
L	Increasing safety on site	0.242	−0.545	Q2
N	Capability to build a multi-story building	0.25	−0.438	Q2
R	Capacity of equipment to withstand climatic conditions	0.273	−0.485	Q2
M	Increasing the benefit of visualization and communication	0.333	−0.182	Q3
P	Avoiding mobilization of building components and installing them on site	0.242	−0.121	Q3
C	Reducing manpower	0.5	−0.219	Q4
D	Capability to build a complex design	0.515	−0.182	Q4
K	Reducing reliance on skilled labor	0.5	−0.219	Q4
Q	Reduce the need for storage area for materials and equipment on site	0.71	−0.258	Q4

El-Sayegh, S., L. Romdhane, and S. Manjikian. 2020. “A Critical Review of 3D Printing in Construction: Benefits, Challenges, and Risks.” Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 20 (2): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-020-00038-w.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kazemian, A., X. Yuan, E. Cochran, and B. Khoshnevis. 2017. “Cementitious Materials for Construction-Scale 3D Printing: Laboratory Testing of Fresh Printing Mixture.” Construction Building Materials 145:639–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kidwell, J. 2017. “Best Practices and Applications of 3D Printing in the Construction Industry.” California Polytechnic State University. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cmsp/79

 Google Scholar

Pessoa, S., and A. S. Guimarães. 2020. “The 3D Printing Challenge in Buildings.” In E3S Web of Conferences, Tallinn, Estonia, 19005. Vol. 172. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017219005.

 Google Scholar

Schuldt, S. J., JA. Jagoda, AJ. Hoisington, JD. Delorit. 2021. “A Systematic Review and Analysis of the Viability of 3D-Printed Construction in Remote Environments.” Automation in Construction 125:103642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103642.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Uppala, S. S., and M. R. Tadikamalla. 2017. “A Review on 3D Printing of Concrete-The Future of Sustainable Construction.” i-Manager’s Journal on Civil Engineering 7 (3): 49. https://doi.org/10.26634/jce.7.3.13610.

 Google Scholar

Wu, P., J. Wang, and X. Wang. 2016. “A Critical Review of the Use of 3-D Printing in the Construction Industry.” Automation in Construction 68:21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Le, T. T., S. A. Austin, S. Lim, R. A. Buswell, R. Law, A. G. F. Gibb, and T. Thorpe. 2012. “Hardened Properties of High-Performance Printing Concrete.” Cement Concrete Research 42 (3): 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.12.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Juan, Y.-K., S.-J. H. Huang, and H.-T. Chen. 2014. “Applying a Kano Quality Model for Intelligent Green Building Design Strategies in Taiwan.” International Journal of Strategic Property Management 18 (2): 125–137. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2014.893266.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shahin, A., M. Pourhamidi, J. Antony, and S. Hyun Park. 2013. “Typology of Kano Models: A Critical Review of Literature and Proposition of a Revised Model.” International Journal of Quality Reliability Management 30 (3): 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711311299863.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.