Introduction of a digital maturity assessment framework for construction site operations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research design.

Table 1. Defined assessment areas for construction site operations (research question one).

Assessment areas	Data source	Examples of activities
Design management	Initial model	Visualize drawings and 3D models on-site on mobile platforms
		Update digital drawings, models and technical information with notes and as-built records
Scheduling	Initial model	Create, assign, and prioritize tasks in real time and distribute to mobile devices
		Plan and simulate site progress in 4D-software
		Maintain a digital construction site disposition plan
Logistics	Illingworth (2000); interviews	Identify, track and locate material and equipment on-site with digital tools
		Digitally monitor procurement orders, receipts, use, and quality issues
		Maintain digital bill of quantities
Production	Illingworth (2000); interviews	Automation and robotization of production processes
		Utilization of advanced production technologies e.g., additive manufacturing
Human resource management	Mohamed (2006); Bowden et al. (2004); questionnaire; interviews	Track productivity digitally on trade or worker level
		Monitor skills, competences, and training plans on digital platforms
		Digitally monitor staff health status
Quality control	Initial model	Digitally collect and monitor progress reports
		Perform quality inspections with mobile devices
Contract management	Initial model	Digitally update and follow-up contracts towards clients
		Digitally track sub-contractor and supplier progress including payment management
Work safety	Bowden et al. (2004); Mohamed (2006); questionnaire	Track and report incidents through mobile devices
		Announce safety massages to staff through mobile devices
Security	Bowden et al. (2004); questionnaire; interviews	Monitor staff and visitors presence through digital entrance security
		Handling of cyber-threats and data security
Environmental impact	Archival study; workshop; questionnaire; interviews	Digitally plan, monitor and track environmental impact
		Digital authority involvement in environmental issues
Information management	Mohamed (2006); Bowden et al. (2004); Sezer and Bröchner (2019); Mäki and Kerosuo (2015); archival study; workshop	Utilize digital communication opportunities with stakeholders
		Collect, update, and distribute project documents through digital platform
		Computer-aided calculation, optimization, and simulation
		Utilize IoT-solutions, advanced analytics, or artificial intelligence
		Digitally monitor problem issues and solving process

Figure 2. Organizational model for construction sites (adapted from Scott 2003; Rolstadås and Schiefloe 2017; Lin et al. 2007).

Table 2. Defined assessment criteria for construction site organizations (research question three).

Assessment criteria	Definition as applied in framework (source)
Individuals	Organizational participants who in return for incentives contribute to the organization (Scott 2003)
	Aspects of individual humans considered important to perform a task or a change (Berglund and Karltun 2007) as education, experience, knowledge (Ivert and Jonsson 2014), and engagement (Lin et al. 2007)
Technologies	Refer to mechanism for transforming inputs into outputs that emerge in utilization of machines, equipment, and technical skills of individuals (Scott 2003)
	Range from IT infrastructure to technologies used for core operations e.g., manufacturing; enables members to work effectively and to control the system (McAuley et al. 2007)
	Technical system divided into two parts; production equipment as primary and administration (not directly associated with the value-adding activities) as secondary e.g., information system, hardware, software (Berglund and Karltun 2007)
	Different tools and infrastructures utilized by members of an organization to perform their activities (Rolstadås and Schiefloe 2017)
Organizational structure	Design of the organization to fits its purpose (McAuley et al. 2007)
	Physical and social structure (Hatch and Cunliffe 2013)
	Existing patterned or regularised relationships among participants in an organization (Scott 2003)
	Represents the individuals in an aggregated sense and comprises how activities are organized and structured, both formally and informally including rules, procedures, cultural factors, and relations between system components (Berglund and Karltun 2007; Ivert and Jonsson 2014)
	Humans immersed in socio-technical network (Lin et al. 2007)
	Organizations as socio-cultural systems with defined roles, responsibilities and authority in the formal organization, defined procedures, regulations, and working requirements (Rolstadås and Schiefloe 2017)
Goals	‘Tentatively defined as conceptions of desired ends’ that individuals attempt to achieve through their performance of activities (Scott 2003)
	Organizational capabilities and performance including an organization’s ability to manage a project to meet defined goals e.g., time, cost, and quality (Rolstadås and Schiefloe 2017)
Environment	Elements outside the organization but with relations to it (McAuley et al. 2007)
	Physical, technological, cultural, and social context where organizations exist in and must adapt to for survival (Scott 2003)
	Relationships of the site internal organization to external contexts and stakeholders (Rolstadås et al. 2014)

Table 3. Digital maturity assessment framework for construction site operations.

Assessment areas	Assessment criteria	Maturity level	Assessment conditions to determine digital maturity level 0, 1, 2, or 3
		Level name	0	1	2	3
		Level outline	Initial	Digitization	Digitalization	Digital transformation
			No, unspecific, or sporadic digital initiatives	Central IT led pilot projects	Project/site responsible for digital initiatives	Long-term development in project portfolio
		Assessment questions
Design management Scheduling Logistics Production Human resource management Quality control Contract management Work safety Security Environmental impact Information management	Individuals (I)	Within 'Assessment area', which condition characterizes best how individuals on-site are involved in digital initiatives?	0) unspecific, no, or sporadic involvement	1) invited and/or led by central IT	2) defined roles and activities integrated in project/site	3) long-term project-independent development
	Technologies (T)	Within 'Assessment area', which condition characterizes best how digital technologies for sites are selected?	0) unspecific, no, or sporadic selection	1) selection by central IT	2) selection based on project or site demands	3) selection based on long-term portfolio development
	Organizational structure (O)	Within 'Assessment area', which condition characterizes best how digital initiatives are integrated with the organizational structure on-site?	0) unspecific, no, or sporadic integration	1) central IT responsible for integration	2) project or site organization responsible for integration	3) portfolio management responsible for integration
	Goals (G)	Within 'Assessment area', which condition characterizes best how goals for digital initiatives are defined and evaluated?	0) unspecific, no, or sporadic definition and evaluation	1) central IT defines and evaluates goals	2) project or site organization defines and evaluates goals	3) long-term definition and evaluation on portfolio level
	Environment (E)	Within 'Assessment area', which condition characterizes best how the site environment is involved in digital initiatives?	0) unspecific, no, or sporadic involvement	1) central IT responsible for involvement	2) project or site organization responsible for involvement	3) involvement based on long-term collaboration on portfolio level

Figure 3. Quantitative case study results (line profile displays area average score; scale figures represent digital maturity levels: 0 = Initial, 1 = Digitization, 2 = Digitalization, 3 = Digital transformation).

Illingworth JR. 2000. Construction methods and planning. 2nd ed. London: E. & F.N. Spon.

 Google Scholar

Mohamed SF. 2006. Improving construction site management practices through knowledge management [dissertation]. Loughborough: Loughborough University.

 Google Scholar

Bowden S, Dorr A, Thorpe A, Anumba CJ. 2004. Mapping site processes for the introduction of mobile IT. Proceedings of ECPPM eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 491–8.

 Google Scholar

Sezer AA, Bröchner J. 2019. Site managers’ ICT tools for monitoring resources in refurbishment. Eng Constr Archit Manag. 27(1):109–127.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mäki T, Kerosuo H. 2015. Site managers’ daily work and the uses of building information modelling in construction site management. Constr Manage Econ. 33(3):163–175.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scott WR. 2003. Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. 5. ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

 Google Scholar

Rolstadås A, Schiefloe PM. 2017. Modelling project complexity. Int J Manag Proj Bus. 10(2):314–395.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin CH, Hwang SL, Wang EM. 2007. A reappraisal on advanced planning and scheduling systems. Ind Manage Data Syst. 107(8):1212–1226.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berglund M, Karltun J. 2007. Human, technological and organizational aspects influencing the production scheduling process. Int J Prod Econ. 110(1–2):160–174.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ivert LK, Jonsson P. 2014. When should advanced planning and scheduling systems be used in sales and operations planning? Int J Oper Prod Manage. 34(10):1338–1362.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McAuley J, Duberley J, Johnson P. 2007. Organization theory: Challenges and perspectives. London: Pearson Education.

 Google Scholar

Hatch MJ, Cunliffe AL. 2013. Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.

 Google Scholar

Rolstadås A, Tommelein I, Schiefloe PM, Ballard G. 2014. Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach. Int J Manag Proj Bus. 7(4):638–660.

 Google Scholar