Next Article in Journal
Resilience toward Volcanic Eruptions: Risk Perception and Disaster Microinsurance in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Next Article in Special Issue
Expediting the Cost Estimation Process for Aged-Housing Renovation Projects Using a Probabilistic Deep Learning Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Cloud Based Smart City Services for Industrial Internet of Things in Software-Defined Networking
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimization of Prefabricated Components in Housing Modular Construction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/su13168911
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification and Prioritization of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction Using ISM and MICMAC Analysis

by
Seoyoung Jung
,
Seulki Lee
and
Jungho Yu
*
Department of Architectural Engineering, Kwangwoon University, Seoul 01897, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 8911; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168911
Submission received: 21 June 2021 / Revised: 6 August 2021 / Accepted: 6 August 2021 / Published: 9 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Industrialized and Automated Construction in the Context of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Many studies have been conducted to define the critical success factors (CSFs) for off-site construction (OSC) activation, but there has been a lack of identification of the relationship with the identified CSFs. However, it is necessary to clearly identify the hierarchy and relationships with the success factors in order to develop specific strategies for OSC activation. This work presents a study that was conducted to identify the CSFs for OSCs and establish the relationships of the identified CSFs for OSC. First, 20 CSFs for OSCs were identified through prior study reviews related to CSFs for OSC. Next, the interpretive structural modeling (ISM), which has advantages in developing an understanding of complex relationships, was leveraged in order to analyze the relationships between 20 CSFs for OSC to derive a hierarchical model consisting of seven levels. The CSFs for OSC were classified into four groups using MICMAC analysis, which is useful for classifying factors by the strength of the relationship with factors based on driving power and dependence power. This proposed model can be used as a basis for developing management measures for OSC project success.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, a construction system is based on field labor, by which most of the raw materials and production materials are transported to the building site and are used for construction with the assistance of necessary equipment. These systems are less and less productive due to factors that deteriorate the industrial environment such as increasing project and site complexities [1], insufficiently skilled labor at frontline and supervisory levels, the poor safety of construction workers [2], and cost escalation and time overrun considerations [3]. To overcome the limitations of such existing construction systems, research on off-site construction (OSC) is accelerating.
OSC refers to the planning, design, fabrication, and assembly of building elements at a given location, different from the finally installed location, to implement the rapid and efficient construction of permanent structures [4]. It is a general concept that encompasses other similar concepts such as off-site prefabrication, off-site manufacturing, modern methods of construction, prefabricated construction, and industrial building [5]. OSC was introduced in the 1900s after World Wars I and II as an alternative to large-scale housing restoration projects and have been developed since the 2000s through new technologies and improvements in construction methods. The OSC market is estimated to represent approximately USD 9 billion in the U.K. (as of 2019), USD 39.6 billion in the U.S. (as of 2019), and USD 41.4 billion in China (as of 2018) [6]. OSC is being actively applied to various construction projects such as schools, hospitals, factories, hotels, offices, and residential housing.
However, the construction industry continues to strive for higher levels of OSC activation [7]. To address this issue, a number of studies have been conducted to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) for OSC activation. These studies have proposed CSFs for the OSC project, including basic information needed to establish a plan for the successful activation of the OSC project.
However, the relationship among the identified CSFs has yet to be established. Each CSF should be identified individually, given that CSFs are inter-related, because a clear identification of hierarchies and interrelationships among success factors can lead to more concrete proposals for the success of OSC projects. In this study, the following objectives were set in this regard: to identify the critical success factors for OSC, to establish the relationship among the identified CSFs and propose a structural model of CSFs for OSC performance, and to discuss the managerial implications of this study (based on the proposed structural model).
To achieve these objectives, the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and matrix of cross-impact multiplication were applied to classification (MICMAC) analysis methodologies in this study. The ISM is a well-established methodology for identifying the relationships among specific items that define a problem or an issue [8]. Meanwhile, the MICMAC analysis is used to classify and validate the factors obtained from ISM to obtain results and draw conclusions [9]. Thus, the ISM is a methodology used to represent the hierarchical relationships among factors, and the MICMAC analysis is a methodology used to classify and derive implications based on the strength of the relationships derived from the ISM process. Therefore, in this work, the ISM methodology will be applied to present a structural model of OSC success factors and classify them according to the strength of the relationship through MICMAC analysis.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the objectives and significance of this study, along with a comparison between existing research related to the concept, development trends, and critical success factors of OSC. In Section 3, our research methods were clarified by conducting a review of the ISM and MICMAC methodologies. Section 4 identifies the major OSC success factors used in existing research and various examinations related to these factors. Section 5 establishes an ISM model of OSC success factors using the ISM and classifies CSFs for OSC into four groups using MICMAC analysis. Finally, Section 6 presents the significance and expected effects of our findings as well as the limitations of our study and future research trends.

2. Literature Review

With the introduction and development of OSC globally, many researchers have begun to recognize the need to identify and consider critical success factors for the successful implementation of new construction methods. Over the past decades, various studies have been conducted by various researchers abroad on the key success factors of OSC projects.
Choi (2014) [10] presented 21 key success factors for modularization and identified correlations with project performance. He identified the relationships among cost, process, construction, and start-up performance of modularity, and his representative success factors included early design freeze, the participation of key participants in the entire project, and the recognition of the early completion of the project. O’Connor et al. (2014) [11] identified key success factors needed to create an optimal environment for wider and more effective uses of modularity in the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) industries. They identified 21 critical success factors and divided them into project processes and participating entities. The top five CSFs implied that participants should pay attention to module envelope limitations, the organizational alignment of project drivers, adequate planning resources and processes by the owner, the timely freezing of scoping and design, and the recognition of possible early completion from modularization.
Li and Li et al. (2018) [12] identified 23 critical success factors in China’s prefabricated housing production through literature reviews, in-depth interviews, and pilot studies with experts, and they ranked them in terms of their relative importance through a survey of five experts. As such, 23 success factors were presented separately into five clusters by conducting a factor analysis. These five clusters are as follows: information, communication, and collaboration; technology and method; experience and knowledge; external environment; and the competence of the project manager.
Wuni and Shen (2019) [13] reviewed 55 research studies conducted from 1993 to 2019 on the success factors of modular architecture, and they presented a total of 35 key success factors, with frequency analyses of six key success factors (e.g., design standardization, effective supply chain management, cooperation and effective communication among participants, and accurate design).
Azhar (2013) [14] conducted a study identifying important factors and constraints that can help select modular architectural methods. Through interviews, literature reviews, and surveys with industry experts, he presented 12 important decision factors and 6 key constraints. Blismas and Wakefield (2009) [15] conducted workshops, interviews, case studies, and surveys to identify drivers and constraints in the Australian construction industry.
Lau (2011) [16] conducted a case study of six companies in Hong Kong, China, and Singapore with experience in modular product design, presenting seven key success factors. Pan et al. (2007) [17] identified OSC activation factors through interviews with UK home builders. In addition, Ismail et al. (2012) [18] identified control factors through a literature review, investigating factor-specific importance, and Wuni and Shen (2020) [3] conducted research to derive success factors for 25 modular architectures, evaluating factor-specific weights through surveys and statistical analysis.
Several studies [3,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] identified the factors related to OSC success in a variety of ways, such as to provide the underlying information needed to establish strategies for the successful implementation of OSC projects. However, the relationship and hierarchy of interactions between the identified factors are yet to be determined. In response, this study aims to establish the interrelationship among OSC success factors identified in the existing research literature and to propose a structural model for success factors. Furthermore, it discusses the managerial implications based on the proposed structural model.

3. Methodology

As discussed in Chapter 2, many studies have defined CSFs for OSC, but only a few studies have identified the relationships with the identified CSFs. However, it is necessary to clearly identify the hierarchy and relationships with CSFs in order to develop strategies for specific OSC activation. This study was aimed at identifying the CSFs for OSCs and establishing the relationships with identified CSFs for OSCs.
The ISM used in this study is a methodology specialized in representing hierarchical relationships with factors, measuring the driving power and dependence power, and even considering the transitivity of influences among factors. Furthermore, the ISM has schematic hierarchical relationships with factors, thus making them easy to grasp at a glance. On the other hand, the MICMAC analysis is a methodology for classifying factors into four groups and deriving implications using the driving power and dependance power calculated during the ISM process.
Thus, applying ISM methods would help implement a hierarchical structural model that identifies the complex relationships of CSFs with OSCs, and MICMAC analysis would help classify factors into four groups and derive group-specific implications. The concepts and analysis procedures for ISM and MICMAC analysis are given below.

3.1. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)

The ISM was first proposed by Warfield (1974) [19] and is based on the principle of pairwise comparison. Its basic idea is to use the hands-on experience and knowledge of experts to break down complicated systems into multiple subsystems and build a multilevel structural model [20]. The method is interpretive in that the group’s judgment decides whether and how elements are related. An overall structure is determined for a complex set of elements on the basis of their relationships, and the overall structure and specific relationships are portrayed in a digraph model [21], resulting in the structural modeling denomination of this modeling technique.
The ISM generally involves the following steps [22,23,24]:
-
Step 1: Identify the variables relevant to the current issue or problem.
-
Step 2: Establish a contextual relationship among the variables from the elements identified in Step 1.
-
Step 3: Develop a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) for variables that identify pairwise relationships among the elements of the system.
-
Step 4: Develop a reachability matrix from the SSIM and check the matrix for the transitivity of the contextual relationship. The transitivity is a basic assumption made in ISM. It dictates that if X is related to Y and Y is related to Z, then X is necessarily related to Z.
-
Step 5: Partition the reachability matrix obtained in Step 4 into different levels.
-
Step 6: Develop a directed graph based on the contextual relationships found in the reachability matrix and remove the transitive links from the digraph.
-
Step 7: Convert the digraph developed in Step 6 into an ISM model by replacing the variable nodes with relationship statements
-
Step 8: Review the ISM model developed in Step 7 to identify conceptual inconsistencies and make necessary modifications.

3.2. Matrix of Cross-Impact Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC) Analysis

MICMAC refers to “Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée a un Classement,” which implies cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification [25]. One of the main objectives of this analysis is to investigate and classify the factors of interest in terms of driving power and dependence, wherein all the variables are classified into four clusters with the following characteristics [9,26].
-
Cluster I contains “autonomous factors” that have neither high driving power nor high dependence. These factors are relatively disconnected from the system and have weak or no dependence on other factors.
-
Cluster II contains “dependent factors” that have low driving power and high dependence. These factors are primarily dependent on other factors.
-
Cluster III contains “linkage factors” that have high driving power and high dependence. These factors are unstable and influence other factors.
-
Cluster IV contains “independent factors” that have high driving power and low dependence. As strong key factors, these factors have little influence from other factors and have to be paid maximum attention.

4. Identification of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction

The Critical Success Factors (CSFs) are specific elements that help achieve the strategic goals of the project. They have a significant impact on the success and failure of the project. Establishing strategies to clearly identify and manage CSFs is essential for successful implementation. In this study, existing literature reviews related to OSC success factors were conducted to identify the CSFs for OSC.
For obtaining the existing literature on OSC success factors, this study defined OSC as a method for planning, fabricating, and assembling building elements at a location different than the construction site, such as a factory, and then transporting them to the site for installation as the final object. The OSC encompasses other similar concepts, including prefabricated, industrialized, modular, and panelized construction. In addition, this study defined CSFs, such as constraint factors, project management and control factors, influence factors, failure factors, barriers and enabling factors, and recommendation concepts, as having a significant effect on the success and failure of the project.
By focusing on these OSC and key success factors related keywords, this study collected 104 existing works of literature related to the CSFs for OSC and collected the CSFs for OSC mentioned in the existing literature collected. The collected CSFs were identified by merging different representations but having the same meaning, dividing between concepts with contrasting meanings, and counting the numbers mentioned in the existing literature. The 20 most frequently appearing factors are shown in Table 1 and identified as follows:
(1).
F1: Availability and active involvement of key project team members from the earliest stages of the project
OSC projects are divided into design, factory production, transport, and site construction stages, and the information generated at each stage requires integrated management considering continuity. Therefore, the coordination between various steps is essential for the systematic and integrative management of the vast amount of information arising from the project. Considering that the benefits of OSC are realized when modularity is planned earlier in the design development process [3,27], it is essential for key participants such as designers, fabricators, suppliers, and contractors to participate in the process [28,29].
(2).
F2: Effective communication and information-sharing among participants
The OSC project separates between on-site and off-site operations, with various organizations participating in detailed processes such as design, manufacturing, transportation, and assembly. Therefore, the efficient and successful operation of the OSC project dictates the efficient communication of information between on-site and off-site operations [30] as well as the coordination of opinions between various organizations and participants [31]. In particular, it is important to establish effective communication and information sharing channels among all participants throughout the entire project, as OSC projects consider factors such as the manufacturing and transportation of parts, field assembly, and construction from an early stage [10,18,32].
(3).
F3: Extensive project planning, scheduling, and control
Project management is a success factor for OSC project management as well as all construction projects. Among the various project management capabilities, “project schedule management” has been identified as a particularly important factor. Extensive activity planning and scheduling in advance are important to ensure project performance, coordination, improved scope control, and smooth project sequences [31]. Avoiding owner delays and transport delays were proposed as measures to ensure the proper scheduling of OSC projects [7,10,11,33].
(4).
F4: Effective use of information and communication technology (e.g., BIM)
Many researchers have suggested that information and communication technologies such as building information modeling (BIM) and radio frequency identification (RFID) should be utilized to support efficient communication and information sharing [3,34,35]. The use of these information and communication technologies not only supports communication and information sharing among participants but also enables real-time progress monitoring [36], which facilitates the process management and supply chain management of projects [37].
(5).
F5: Availability of skilled labor
The successful implementation of the OSC project requires skilled personnel and appropriate skills in the manufacturing and production of OSC parts and field construction [38]. Since the introduction of OSC to address the lack of functional personnel and the degradation of functional levels in the construction industry, securing and utilizing people with higher skill levels in comparison with existing field-oriented construction methods has been highlighted as an essential factor for the success of OSC [37,39]. In response, researchers such as Kamar et al. (2010) [35] and Thanoon et al. (2003) [40] emphasized that proper training such as the on-site installation training of OSC components should secure sufficient functional personnel to improve the skill level of labor.
(6).
F6: Design standardization and the more effective use of the concept of repetition
One of the greatest constraints that reduces the industrial competitiveness of OSC projects is the high value of its direct costs [41]. Several researchers have pointed to low-level design standardization as one of the main reasons for the high direct cost of OSC projects [42,43]. The design standardization of OSC projects can improve the efficiency of module production by facilitating the repeated use of limited configuration modules. This is because the standardization of modules enables mass manufacturing, the specialization of labor, and the automation of production processes using the same materials, equipment, and processes [13]. However, while there is concern that the use of limited modules may undermine the diversity of project designs, standardized modules have the advantage of being able to create different types of differentiated projects that fit the nature of the project [44].
(7).
F7: Alignment of module architecture and long-term collaboration among fabricators, suppliers, designers, subcontractors, and contractors.
OSC projects are generally divided into design, manufacturing, transport, and assembly processes, but the harmony between processes is highly emphasized [31,45,46]. In this regard, the participation of key participants among project precursors is important. In OSC projects, designers, engineers, OSC part makers (suppliers), and constructors participate in collaboration with each other, enabling more efficient OSC project management. The participation of OSC part makers and builders in the design phase can also prevent the risks associated with actual module production and field installation [16,37,39,47] as well as unnecessary design implementation changes [48].
(8).
F8: Effective coordination of supply chain segments
As existing construction industries use non-standardized and manpower-oriented production methods, the effects of supply chain management are difficult to determine. However, OSC is expected to maximize the effectiveness of supply chain management, as it can standardize production modules and secure automated production technologies. The OSC project’s supply chain includes a variety of sectors, such as design, engineering, manufacturing, transportation, storage, and field assembly, that have interdependent relationships. Therefore, it is important to proactively prevent risks through the appropriate coordination between various sectors [41]. However, this requires a strategy to support communication between relevant stakeholders, including potential risks in the initial stage, in regard to appropriate information sharing and consultation between various sectors [49].
(9).
F9: Robust drawings and specifications
Design changes should be prevented to reduce the direct costs of OSC projects. While this is an important success factor not only in OSC projects but also in general architectural projects, design changes in OSC projects that affect air and construction costs are even more important. Therefore, many scholars, including Gibb and Isack (2001) [50], Choi (2014) [10], Li and Li et al. (2018) [12], and Wuni and Shen (2019) [13], have noted that design development and early design freeze are important. This requires accurate design at the design stage, considering that OSC projects have shorter lead times than typical projects [2].
(10).
F10: Continuous improvement and learning
Regarding other construction projects, the performance of OSC projects should be defined and measured to achieve strategic objectives and successful results [7,10,11,33]. This is because the project performance can be continuously improved through performance analysis and by adopting best practices and benchmarking them [41,51]. Choi (2014) [10] and Wong et al. (2018) [52] stated that performance management systems should be applied to measure and manage performance systematically.
(11).
F11: Effective coordination of on-site and off-site trade
The OSC project is divided into factory work to manufacture components and field work to construct factory-manufactured components, but the harmony between the two work types is highly emphasized [31,46]. OSC projects require close coordination between on-site and off-site operations, as they run in parallel [53]. This can prevent problems such as production delays and rework [12].
(12).
F12: Adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the manufacturer
The manufacturing phase of the OSC project is widely recognized as the greatest point of difference with the traditional field production method [37,54], and the experience and knowledge of OSC part makers are also cited as critical success factors. The knowledge and experience of OSC part makers are important considerations in developing production plans to achieve on-time delivery [55] and preventing physical damage in the loading and unloading of finished OSC parts [56] through the intervention of a well-informed and experienced manufacturer [12].
(13).
F13: Suitable procurement strategy and contracting
The effective integration between manufacturers and suppliers in the decision-making process and cooperation between project participants are important factors for efficient procurement strategies and the appropriate contracting of OSC projects [17]. Ismail et al. (2012) [18] proposed partnering and strategic alliances by developing complementary objectives among project participants. Meanwhile, Rentschler et al. (2016) [49] stated that a procurement strategy should be established to select a small number of OSC component manufacturers, if the management objective of the OSC project is to reduce the construction period. They also pointed out that the success of the OSC project depends largely on the capabilities of the OSC part manufacturer, and Wuni & Shen (2019) [13] stated that proper consideration should be given to past project performance, manufacturing capability, and the scope of work when selecting OSC part manufacturers.
(14).
F14: Adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the contractor
The experience and knowledge of the contractor performing field installation and assembly work also affect the success or failure of the project. This requires appropriate management. O’Connor et al. (2014) [11] stated that contractors should have sufficient experience in modular approaches and that owners should add modular experience to the criteria for selecting contractors from pre-FEED through detailed design and give significant weight to the decision of selecting contractors. Kamar et al. (2009) [39] and Pan et al. (2008) [37] noted that an understanding of the complexities of transportation, logistics, and interfaces is necessary to integrate and manage complex OSC construction processes.
(15).
F15: Maturity of manufacturing technology and facilities
The maturity of the technology and equipment applied for each detailed process is also essential for OSC success. In particular, the maturity of the manufacturing technology and facilities of components is critical to the success or failure of the OSC project [11]. Unlike the traditional construction method, where actual construction takes place on site, actual OSC projects are executed in manufacturing facilities. Li and Li et al. (2018) [12] stated that the mechanization and automation of manufacturing technologies would increase the productivity of an OSC project.
(16).
F16: Maturity of the transportation method of prefabricated components
The maturity of OSC component transport technology has also been identified as an important success factor. Transportation technologies include technologies and equipment that support the movement and transportation between and within factories and sites. The project budget must be considered through a proper advance review of the availability of transportation technologies and equipment [7,11,33].
(17).
F17: Adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the designers and engineers
Li et al. (2018) [12] emphasized that the most important factors in OSC projects are the experience and knowledge of designers. The experience and knowledge of designers have a significant impact on the success and failure of the project from start to end [57], as accurate design prevents design fluctuations, which in turn affects time and cost savings [58].
(18).
F18: Maturity of on-site assembly technology and equipment
The maturity of field assembly technologies and equipment has a significant impact on OSC success. The efficient use of on-site assembly equipment is effective in reducing construction costs and shortening construction periods [10,41]. In addition, the use of high-level field assembly techniques to prevent quality problems is critical because quality problems occur more frequently in construction sites than in manufacturing plants [12].
(19).
F19: Intensive early research on modularization
Lee and Kim (2017) [59] suggested “inappropriate selection of the modular system,” “module size not reflecting the road and access conditions to the site,” “module size not reflecting legal regulations for transportation,” and “inconsistent factory fabrication rate per a modular unit” as cost-increasing factors of the OSC project, and they stated that early research on modularization was important. In addition, Choi and O’Connor (2014) [7] stated that owners should be willing to invest in early research studies on modularization to achieve full benefits.
(20).
F20: Persistent policies and incentives
To ensure the activation of OSCs, securing new technologies and differentiated project management technologies is also important. Further, creating an external environment for projects such as government policies and related infrastructure is crucial. One of the key success factors in this regard is the government’s “continuing policies and incentives.” In this regard, Li & Li et al. (2018) [12] pointed out that, at the time of introducing new technologies into the market, relevant contractors resorted to existing mature technologies in lieu of new ones deprived of any incentives. As a result, they emphasized that policies should be devised to encourage the use of new technologies at the government level. Therefore, devising policies related to the activation of the OSC is essential, especially considering that OSCs not only have minimal performance in the construction industry but are also faced with great reluctance from private businesses.

5. Prioritization of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction

5.1. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix

In this study, contextual relationships between success factors were developed by understanding the nature of the relationships between these factors in consultation with eight industry and academic experts who have experience in carrying out OSC projects. A contextual relationship is defined as a relationship of the type “lead to” or “influence.” This indicates that any one factor affects the other. Based on the contextual relationship, the nature of this relationship between any two factors (i and j) is divided into four types:
  • V: factor i leads to factor j
  • A: factor j leads to factor i
  • X: factor i and j influence each other
  • O: no relation exists between factors i and j
Table 2 indicates the pairwise relationships between the 20 CSFs of the OSC. Some cases are given below. For example, the symbol V is entered (1, 3), as Factor F1 affects F18, and symbol A is entered in (1, 17), as Factor F4 affects Factor F1. Meanwhile, the symbol X is entered in (1, 19), as Factors F1 and F2 influence each other, while symbol O is entered in (1, 1), as there is no relation between Factor F1 and Factor F20.

5.2. Reachability Matrix

After SSIM, the initial reachability matrix was developed by taking the SSIM values as input (Table 3). The four symbols V, A, X, and O are converted to 1 and 0 according to the following rules:
(a)
If entry (i, j) of SSIM is V, then entry (i, j) of the reachability matrix is 1 and entry (j, i) is 0.
(b)
If the (i, j) entry of SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry of the matrix is 0 and the (j, i) entry is 1.
(c)
If the (i, j) entry of SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry of the matrix is 1 and the (j, i) entry is 1.
(d)
If the (i, j) entry of the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry of the matrix is 0, and so is the (j, i) entry.
In this study, a final reachability matrix was developed by applying the concept of transitivity to bridge the differences among expert results collected during the SSIM development. Transitivity represents the hidden interrelationships that exist between variables. For example, if A affects B and B affects C, then A is considered to affect C. This transitivity is shown in the final reachability matrix as 1 * (Table 4). Meanwhile, the final reachability matrix allows for the calculation of the driving power and the dependence of each variable. The driving power is the force of a variable that affects another variable and is calculated by summing all of the items in a row. Dependence is the degree to which the variable itself and the other variable are influenced, and it is calculated by summing all of the items in the column of Table 4.

5.3. Level Partitions

The next step was to develop a level partition. Levels are separated using the reachability, antecedent, and intersection sets derived from the final reachability matrix. A reachability set consists of a given factor and the other factors that it can influence—that is, the reachability set consists of factors in rows with 1 in the final reachability matrix (Table 4). Meanwhile, the antecedent set consists of the corresponding factors and the other factors that may affect them. In the final reachability matrix, an antecedent set is composed of factors in columns with 1. An intersection set is a factor in which the reachability set and leading set intersect. Factors with similar reachability and crossings form the top level of the ISM model. A top-level factor is a factor that does not lead to other factors above its level. If the top-level variable is identified, it should be eliminated, and the same process should be repeated to find the next level of factor until all of the variables are leveled. The level partitions of this study are listed in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11.
Table 5 extracts F3, F5, F16, and F18 with the same reachability set and intersection set at the top level. Next, F8, F11, F13, and F15 with the same reachability set and intersection set were identified as Level 2. F3, F5, F16, F18, and F18, were then identified as the highest levels in Table 6. The same process was repeated to identify F9 factors as Level 3 factors (see Table 7), and F2, F6, F7, and F10 factors as Level 4 factors (see Table 8). In addition, F1 factors were identified as Level 5 factors (see Table 9), and F4 and F19 factors were identified as Level 6 factors (see Table 10). Finally, F12, F14, F17, and F20 factors were identified as the lowest level factors (see Table 11).

5.4. ISM Model

The ISM model was developed based on the level partition results. Top-level factors were placed at the top and sequentially from top to bottom. An ISM model was developed by plotting the relationship between the factors in the form of a line drawn between the factors placed. The ISM model of the OSC success factors developed in this study is shown in Figure 1.
The following are placed at the top level of the model: F3 (extensive project planning, scheduling, and control), F5 (availability of skilled labor), F16 (maturity of transportation method of prefabricated components), and F18 (maturity of on-site assembly technology and equipment). The following are placed at the very bottom level of the model: F12 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of manufacturer), F14 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the contractor), F17 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of designers and engineers), and F20 (persistent policies and incentives). The factors placed at a lower level in the ISM model can be deduced to have more influence on OSC success than those placed at a higher level.

5.5. MICMAC Analysis

In the MICMAC analysis, the OSC success factors are clustered based on the dependence and driving power in the final reachability matrix (Table 4). Figure 2 shows the resulting four clusters (autonomous, dependent, linkage, and independent), with driving power under the x-axis and dependence under the y-axis.
  • Autonomous parameters: Factors in this cluster are relatively less important because of their small dependence and driving power. None of the factors identified in this study fall in this cluster, indicating that they all contribute significantly to the success of OSC.
  • Dependent parameters: F3 (extensive project planning, scheduling, and control), F9 (robust drawing and specification), and F13 (suitable procurement strategy and contracting) fall in this quadrant. The factors in this cluster are low in driving power but high in dependence. These factors are mainly dependent on other factors and can vary significantly.
  • Linkage parameters: Most factors fall within this quadrant. A total of 15 factors are included in this cluster: F1 (availability and active involvement of key project team members from the earliest stages of the project), F2 (effective communication and information sharing among participants), F4 (effective use of information and communication technology (e.g., BIM)), F5 (availability of skilled labor), F6 (design standardization and more effective use of the concept of repetition), F7 (good working collaboration), F8 (effective coordination of the supply chain segments), F10 (continuous improvement and learning), F11 (effective coordination of on-site and off-site trades), F12 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the manufacturer), F14 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the contractor), F15 (maturity of manufacturing technology and facility), F16 (maturity of the transportation method of prefabricated components), F18 (maturity of on-site assembly technology and equipment), and F19 (intensive early research on modularization). This cluster is characterized by high dependence and driving power. Factors in this category can be considered critical factors because they have a strong relationship with other factors.
  • Independent parameters: F17 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of designer and engineer) and F20 (persistent policies and incentives) fall in this quadrant. These factors are high in driving power but low in dependence. Therefore, these are critical factors that require the most attention.

6. Conclusions

As labor productivity problems in the construction industry are emerging worldwide, the use of OSC is gaining attention as an alternative to overcome productivity limitations. As research on OSC is starting to accelerate, strategies that can effectively implement new construction methods become necessary. In this regard, a variety of studies have identified factors related to the success of OSC. However, research on the structuring of the relationship between factors based on the understanding of their nature remains limited. In this study, the OSC success factors presented in prior studies were identified, the relationship between the factors was defined using the ISM model and the MICMAC analysis, and a structural model reflecting the relationship between the factors was presented.
The comprehensive examination of the ISM model and MICMAC analysis results indicates that the most important success factors to be considered among the 20 success factors identified in this study are F17 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of designers and engineers) and F20 (persistent policies and incentives). These factors constitute the lowest level of the ISM model and are included in Cluster 4 (independent parameters). In addition, F12 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the manufacturer) and F14 (adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the contractor) need to be given special consideration, as they constitute the lowest level of the ISM model and are included in Cluster 3 (linkage parameters). This implies that the appropriate selection of key project participants, designers, engineers (F17), manufacturers (F12), and contractors (F14) should be initially considered when establishing strategies for the success of OSC. This also implies that an institutional foundation (F20) should be established to encourage the use of OSC at the government’s level, along with the appropriate selection of key project participants.
To establish high-quality and sustainable strategies for OSC success, understanding OSC success factors structurally and establishing an effective strategy to utilize them are important. Therefore, this study is significant in that it presents an ISM model that identifies the relationship between OSC success factors and distinguishes the factors based on the degree of influence between them, thereby improving the understanding of the OSC success factors.
A limitation of this study is that only 20 factors were considered to develop an understanding of the relationships between OSC success factors. More success factors need to be considered in future investigations. In addition, the relationship between the success factors was based, in this study, on the opinions of eight experts picked from the industrial and academic fields who have experience in OSC-related work and research. However, the opinions of these experts may change with time. Finally, this study is only applicable to the actual circumstances in South Korea. Additional research is required for applications in different countries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J. and J.Y.; methodology, S.J.; software, S.J. and S.L.; formal analysis, S.J. and S.L; investigation, S.J. and J.Y.; resources, J.Y.; data curation, S.L. and J.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J.; writing—review and editing, S.L.; visualization, S.J. and S.L.; supervision, S.L. and J.Y.; project administration, J.Y.; funding acquisition, J.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant 21ORPS-B158109-02). The work reported in this paper was conducted during the sabbatical year of Kwangwoon University in 2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barbosa, F.; Woetzel, J.; Mischke, J. Reinventing Construction: A Route of Higher Productivity; McKinsey Global Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Blismas, N.; Pasquire, C.; Gibb, A. Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Osei-Kyei, R. Quantitative evaluation and ranking of the critical success factors for modular integrated construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Smith, R.E.; Quale, J.D. Offsite Architecture: Constructing the Future; Taylor & Francis: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Construction Offsite Expo. About Offsite Construction. 2016. Available online: http://www.offsiteconstructionexpo.com/htmlPage.aspx?name=osce_data&utm_source=Homepage&utm_medium=Offsite-Umbrella-Graphic&utm_campaign=OSCE2016 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  6. Modor Intelligence, Industry Reports-Prefabricated Buildings. 2020. Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/category/real-estate/prefabricated-buildings (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  7. Choi, J.O.; O’Connor, J.T. Modularization critical success factors accomplishment: Learning from case studies. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 19–21 May 2014; pp. 1636–1645. [Google Scholar]
  8. Attri, R.; Dev, N.; Sharma, V. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2013, 2319, 1171. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ahmad, M.; Tang, X.-W.; Qiu, J.-N.; Ahmad, F. Interpretive structural modeling and MICMAC analysis for identifying and benchmarking significant factors of seismic soil liquefaction. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Choi, J.O. Links between Modularization Critical Success Factors and Project Performance. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  11. O’Connor, J.T.; O’Brien, W.J.; Choi, J.O. Critical success factors and enablers for optimum and maximum industrial modularization. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, L.; Li, Z.; Wu, G.; Li, X. Critical success factors for project planning and control in prefabrication housing production: A China study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q. Critical success factors for modular integrated construction projects: A review. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 48, 763–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Azhar, S.; Lukkad, M.Y.; Ahmad, I. An investigation of critical factors and constraints for selecting modular construction over conventional stick-built technique. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2013, 9, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blismas, N.; Wakefield, R. Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite manufacture in Australia. Constr. Innov. 2009, 9, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lau, A.K. Critical success factors in managing modular production design: Six company case studies in Hong Kong, China, and Singapore. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2011, 28, 168–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.; Dainty, A.R. Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2007, 25, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ismail, F.; Yusuwan, N.M.; Baharuddin, H.E.A. Management factors for successful IBS projects implementation. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 68, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Warfield, J.N. Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1974, SMC-4, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kumar, S.; Luthra, S.; Haleem, A. Customer involvement in greening the supply chain: An interpretive structural modeling methodology. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 2013, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sushil, S. Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2012, 13, 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jayant, A.; Singh, P. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Approach: A State of the Art Literature Review. Int. J. Res. Mech. Eng. Technol. 2015, 5, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kannan, G.; Pokharel, S.; Kumar, P.S. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 54, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mandal, A.; Deshmukh, S. Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 1994, 14, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Karamat, J.; Shurong, T.; Ahmad, N.; Afridi, S.; Khan, S.; Mahmood, K. Promoting healthcare sustainability in developing countries: Analysis of knowledge management drivers in public and private hospitals of Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Agrawal, N.M. Modeling Deming’s quality principles to improve performance using interpretive structural modeling and MICMAC analysis. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2019, 36, 1159–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Modular Building Institute. Modular advantage for the Commercial Modular Construction Industry: The Offsite Construction Issue; Modular Building Institute’s Quarterly Publication: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Building and Construction Authority. Overview of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA); Building and Construction Authority: Singapore, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Construction Industry Council. About Modular Integrated Construction; Construction Industry Council: Hong Kong, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hjort, B.; Lindgren, J.; Larsson, B.; Emmit, S. Success factors related to industrialized building in Sweden. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction in a Changing World, Dambulla, Sri Lanka, 4–7 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  31. Haas, C.T.; Fagerlund, W.R. Preliminary research on prefabrication, pre-assembly, modularization and off-site fabrication in construction; Construction Industry Institute: Austin, TX, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tam, V.W.; Tam, C.M.; Ng, W.C. On prefabrication implementation for different project types and procurement methods in Hong Kong. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2007, 5, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Choi, J.O.; O’Connor, J.T.; Kim, T.W. Recipes for Cost and Schedule Successes in Industrial Modular Projects: Qualitative Comparative Analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yunus, R.; Noor, S.R.M.; Nagapan, S.; Hamid, A.R.A.; Tajudin, S.A.A.; Jusof, S.R.M. Critical success factors for lean thinking in the application of Industrialised Building System (IBS). IOP Conf. Series: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 226, 012045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kamar, K.A.M.; Azman, M.N.A.; Nawi, M.N.M. IBS survey 2010: Drivers, barriers and the critical success factors in adopting industrialised building system (IBS) construction by G7 contractors in Malaysia. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2014, 9, 490–501. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhong, R.Y.; Peng, Y.; Xue, F.; Fang, J.; Zou, W.; Luo, H.; Ng, S.T.; Lu, W.; Shen, G.Q.; Huang, G.Q. Prefabricated construction enabled by the Internet-of-Things. Autom. Constr. 2017, 76, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.; Dainty, A.R. Leading UK housebuilders’ utilization of offsite construction methods. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Warszawski, A. Industrialized and Automated Building Systems: A Managerial Approach, 2nd ed.; E & FN Spon, Routledge: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kamar, K.; Alshawi, M.; Hamid, Z. Industrialised building system: The critical success factors. In Proceedings of the 9th International Postgraduate Research Conference (IPGRC), Salford Quays, Greater Manchester, UK, 29–30 January 2009; pp. 29–30. [Google Scholar]
  40. Thanoon, W.; Peng, L.W.; Kadir, M.R.A.; Jaafar, M.S.; Salit, M.S. The essential characteristics of industrialised building system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrialised Building Systems, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10–11 September 2003; pp. 283–292. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hwang, B.-G.; Shan, M.; Looi, K.-Y. Knowledge-based decision support system for prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barlow, J.; Childerhouse, P.; Gann, D.; Hong-Minh, S.; Naim, M.; Ozaki, R. Choice and delivery in housebuilding: Lessons from Japan for UK housebuilders. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. O’Connor, J.T.; O’Brien, W.J.; Choi, J.O. Standardization strategy for modular industrial plants. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Richard, R.B. Industrialized, Flexible and Demountable Building Systems Quality, Economy and Sustainability. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management & Real Estate CRIOCM 2006, Beijing, China, 3–5 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, C.Z.; Hong, J.; Xue, F.; Shen, G.Q.; Xu, X.; Mok, M.K. Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong: A social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 482–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Lessing, J.; Stehn, L.; Ekholm, A. Industrialised housing: Definition and categorization of the concept. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Sydney, Australia, 18–21 July 2005; pp. 471–480. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mydin, M.A.O.; Mohd Nawi, M.N.; Mohd Yunos, M.Y.; Utaberta, N.U. Decisive success factors in executing prefabrication system in Malaysia. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2015, 9, 160–163. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nadim, W.; Goulding, J.S. Offsite production: A model for building down barriers. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2011, 18, 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rentschler, C.; Mulrooney, M.; Shahani, G. Modularization: The key to success in today’s market. Hydrocarb. Process. 2016, 95, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gibb, A.G.; Isack, F. Client drivers for construction projects: Implications for standardization. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2001, 8, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Murtaza, M.B.; Fisher, D.J.; Skibniewski, M.J. Knowledge-based approach to modular construction decision support. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1993, 119, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wong, P.S.; Whelan, B.; Holdsworth, S. Are contractors ready for greater use of prefabrication in projects? An empirical analysis on the role of unlearning and counter-knowledge. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 21, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Babič, N.Č.; Podbreznik, P.; Rebolj, D. Integrating resource production and construction using BIM. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in Hong Kong: A review of the public and the private sector. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ko, C.H. An integrated framework for reducing precast fabrication inventory. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Wu, P.; Low, S.P. Barriers to achieving green precast concrete stock management–a survey of current stock management practices in Singapore. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014, 14, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chan, A.P.; Scott, D.; Chan, A.P. Factors affecting the success of a construction project. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 153–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Haller, M.; Lu, W.; Stehn, L.; Jansson, G. An indicator for superfluous iteration in offsite building design processes. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2015, 11, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lee, J.S.; Kim, Y.S. Analysis of cost-increasing risk factors in modular construction in Korea using FMEA. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 1999–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gibb, A.G. Off-Site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-Assembly and Modularisation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kamar, K.; Hamid, Z.; Alshawi, M. The critical success factors (CSFs) to the implementation of industrialized building system (IBS) in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 18th CIB World Building Congress, TG57-Industrialization in Construction, Salford, UK, 10–13 May 2010; pp. 64–76. [Google Scholar]
  62. Li, C.Z.; Xue, F.; Li, X.; Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q. An Internet of Things-enabled BIM platform for on-site assembly services in prefabricated construction. Autom. Constr. 2018, 89, 146–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ojoko, E.O.; Osman, M.H.; Rahman, A.B.A.; Bakhary, N. Evaluating the critical success factors of industrialised building system implementation in Nigeria: The stakeholders’ perception. Int. J. Built Environ. Sustain. 2018, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. O’Connor, J.T.; O’Brien, W.J.; Choi, J.O. Industrial project execution planning: Modularization versus stick-built. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2016, 21, 04015014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.; Dainty, A.R. Strategies for integrating the use of off-site production technologies in house building. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1331–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Rashidi, A.; Ibrahim, R. Industrialized construction chronology: The disputes and success factors for a resilient construction industry in Malaysia. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2017, 11, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Song, J.; Fagerlund, W.R.; Haas, C.T.; Tatum, C.B.; Vanegas, J.A. Considering prework on industrial projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Triumph Modular Corporation. Critical Success Factors for Volumetric Modular Construction. Littleton: Triumph Modular. 2019. Available online: https://triumphmodular.com/permanent-modular/how-to-start/critical-success-factors/ (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  69. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q. Critical success factors for management of the early stages of prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction project life cycle. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2020, 27, 2315–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xue, H.; Zhang, S.; Su, Y.; Wu, Z. Factors affecting the capital cost of prefabrication—A case study of China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. BSRIA. Prefabrication and Preassembly-applying the technique to building engineering services. In Advance Construction Technique ACT 1/99; Wilson, D.G., Smith, M.H., Deal, J., Eds.; Department of Environment Transport Region (DETR) and the Building Services Research and InformatFactors Affecting Large Scale Modular Construction Projecion Association (BSRIA): Bracknell, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  72. Lessing, J.; Brege, S. Industrialized building companies’ business models: Multiple case study of Swedish and North American companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 05017019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nawi, M.N.M.; Lee, A.; Kamar, K.A.M.; Hamid, Z. Critical success factors for improving team integration in Industrialised Building System (IBS) construction projects: The Malaysian case. Malays. Constr. Res. J. 2012, 10, 45–63. [Google Scholar]
  74. Toor, S.u.R.; Ogunlana, S.O. Construction professionals’ perception of critical success factors for large-scale construction projects. Constr. Innov. 2009, 9, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Benjaoran, V.; Dawood, N. Intelligence approach to production planning system for bespoke precast concrete products. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gibb, A.G. Standardization and pre-assembly-distinguishing myth from reality using case study research. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Gibb, A.; Isack, F. Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations and drivers. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Demiralp, G.; Guven, G.; Ergen, E. Analyzing the benefits of RFID technology for cost sharing in construction supply chains: A case study on prefabricated precast components. Autom. Constr. 2012, 24, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ergen, E.; Akinci, B. Formalization of the flow of component-related information in precast concrete supply chains. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ergen, E.; Akinci, B.; Sacks, R. Tracking and locating components in a precast storage yard utilizing radio frequency identification technology and GPS. Autom. Constr. 2007, 16, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liu, H.; Al-Hussein, M.; Lu, M. BIM-based integrated approach for detailed construction scheduling under resource constraints. Autom. Constr. 2015, 53, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lu, W.; Yuan, H. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes of offshore prefabrication construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 804–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Sharafi, P.; Rashidi, M.; Samali, B.; Ronagh, H.; Mortazavi, M. Identification of factors and decision analysis of the level of modularization in building construction. J. Archit. Eng. 2018, 24, 04018010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chiang, Y.-H.; Chan, E.H.-W.; Lok, L.K.-L. Prefabrication and barriers to entry—a case study of public housing and institutional buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 482–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhang, X.; Skitmore, M.; Peng, Y. Exploring the challenges to industrialized residential building in China. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Mole, T. Prefabrication in UK Housing: Innovation or Deja Vu. In Proceedings of the CEEC/AEEBC Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 4–6 October 2001. [Google Scholar]
  87. Arashpour, M.; Bai, Y.; Aranda-mena, G.; Bab-Hadiashar, A.; Hosseini, R.; Kalutara, P. Optimizing decisions in advanced manufacturing of prefabricated products: Theorizing supply chain configurations in off-site construction. Autom. Constr. 2017, 84, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hofman, E.; Voordijk, H.; Halman, J. Matching supply networks to a modular product architecture in the house-building industry. Build. Res. Inf. 2009, 37, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lu, N.; Liska, R.W. Designers’ and general contractors’ perceptions of offsite construction techniques in the United State construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2008, 4, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Carriker, M.; Langar, S. Factors affecting large scale modular construction projects. In Proceeding of the Associated School of Construction international Conference, Washington, DC, USA,, 26–28 March 2014. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hsu, P.-Y.; Angeloudis, P.; Aurisicchio, M. Optimal logistics planning for modular construction using two-stage stochastic programming. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Marchesi, M.; Matt, D.T. Design for mass customization: Rethinking prefabricated housing using axiomatic design. J. Archit. Eng. 2017, 23, 05017004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Neala, R.; Price, A.; Suer, W. Prefabricated modules in construction: A Study of Current Practice in the United Kingdom; Chartered Institute of Building: Bracknell, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  94. Vrijhoef, R.; Cuperus, Y.; Voordijk, H. Exploring the connection between open building and lean construction: Defining a postponement strategy for supply chain management. In Proceedings of the IGLC-10, Gramado, Brazil, 6–8 August 2002; pp. 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Pan, W.; Ye, K. Major barriers to off-site construction: The developer’s perspective in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, C.; Liu, M.; Hsiang, S.M.; Leming, M.L. Causes and penalties of variation: Case study of a precast concrete slab production facility. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 775–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Arif, M.; Egbu, C. Making a case for offsite construction in China. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2010, 17, 536–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Haron, N.A.; Abdul-Rahman, H.; Wang, C.; Wood, L.C. Quality function deployment modelling to enhance industrialised building system adoption in housing projects. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2014, 26, 703–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 08911 g001 550
Figure 1. ISM model.
Figure 1. ISM model.
Sustainability 13 08911 g001
Sustainability 13 08911 g002 550
Figure 2. MICMAC analysis.
Figure 2. MICMAC analysis.
Sustainability 13 08911 g002
Table
Table 1. Critical success factors for off-site construction.
Table 1. Critical success factors for off-site construction.
No.Critical Success FactorsFrequencyReferences
F1Availability and active involvement of key project team members from the earliest stages of the project29[2,3,7,10,12,13,15,16,18,27,28,29,32,33,35,37,47,50,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]
F2Effective communication and information sharing among participants28[3,10,12,13,14,16,17,18,30,31,32,33,34,35,37,39,43,61,62,63,64,66,68,70,71,72,73,74]
F3Extensive project planning, scheduling, and control26[3,7,10,11,12,13,14,18,30,31,33,34,35,39,46,61,63,64,66,67,69,72,74,75,76,77]
F4Effective use of information and communication technology (e.g., BIM)23[3,12,13,14,16,34,35,36,39,46,53,61,62,66,67,69,72,78,79,80,81,82,83]
F5Availability of skilled labor22[3,12,13,14,15,31,32,35,37,38,39,40,41,51,61,62,67,70,71,76,84,85]
F6Design standardization and more effective use on the concept of repetition19[3,11,13,14,16,32,35,38,42,43,50,51,61,63,64,65,66,76,86]
F7Good working collaboration18[3,13,14,17,18,31,33,34,61,62,63,66,69,70,73,87,88,89]
F8Effective coordination of the supply chain segments16[3,13,18,30,31,35,39,46,49,61,63,66,72,87,90,91]
F9Robust drawings and specifications16[3,12,13,14,38,42,49,50,52,65,68,69,74,76,85,92]
F10Continuous improvement and learning15[3,10,13,30,31,33,35,39,52,62,66,70,73,93]
F11Effective coordination of on-site and off-site trades15[3,7,10,11,12,13,31,33,35,37,39,61,66,73,94]
F12Adequate relevant experience and knowledge of manufacturer14[7,10,12,13,14,33,47,51,62,67,69,74,95,96]
F13Suitable procurement strategy and contracting14[13,15,17,18,30,32,37,49,61,66,68,69,70,73]
F14Adequate relevant experience and knowledge of the contractor14 [7,10,11,13,32,33,39,47,51,61,62,68,69,74]
F15The maturity of manufacture technology and facility14[7,10,11,12,13,14,33,41,45,51,54,63,67,76]
F16The maturity of transportation method of prefabricated components14[7,10,11,12,13,14,33,41,45,51,54,63,67,76]
F17Adequate relevant experience and knowledge of designer and engineer11[12,13,14,15,47,51,57,58,62,69,74]
F18The maturity of on-site assembly technology and equipment11[3,7,10,11,13,14,33,41,51,63,76]
F19Intensive early research on modularization9[7,10,11,13,31,33,59,68,76]
F20Persistent policies and incentives7[12,15,32,47,95,97,98]
Table
Table 2. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).
Table 2. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).
F20F19F18F17F16F15F14F13F12F11F10F9F8F7F6F5F4F3F2
F1OOVOVVOVOVVVVXVOAVX
F2AAVAVVAVAVVVVXAVAV
F3OAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVA
F4AXXAXXAVAVVVVVVV
F5OAXOXOAOOOAAOAA
F6AAXAXXAVAVAVVA
F7AVVAVVAVAVVVV
F8OAOOXAAXAXAA
F9OAOAOOAVAVA
F10AXVVVVVVVV
F11OAXAXXAXA
F12OVOOXXOV
F13OAAOAAA
F14OVXOOO
F15AAOOO
F16AAOO
F17OVO
F18AA
F19A
Table
Table 3. Initial reachability matrix.
Table 3. Initial reachability matrix.
F1F2F3F4F5F6F7F8F9F10F11F12F13F14F15F16F17F18F19F20
F111100111111010110100
F211101011111010110100
F300101000000000000000
F411111111111010110110
F500001000000000010100
F601101101101010110100
F711101111111010110110
F800100001001010010000
F900101001101010000000
F1000101101111111111110
F1100100001001010110100
F1201110111101110110010
F1300100001001010000000
F1401111111101011000110
F1500110101001110100000
F1610111101001110010000
F1701110110101000001010
F1800111100001011000100
F1901111101111010110110
F2001010110010000110111
Table
Table 4. Final reachability matrix.
Table 4. Final reachability matrix.
F1F2F3F4F5F6F7F8F9F10F11F12F13F14F15F16F17F18F19F20DrivingPower
F11111 *1 *1111111 *11 *111 *11 *019
F21111 *11 *111111 *11 *111 *11 *019
F30010100000000001 *01 *004
F4111111111111 *11 *111 *11019
F51 *01 *1 *11 *01 *001 *1 *1 *1 *01010012
F61 *111 *111 *111 *11 *11 *11010017
F71111 *11111111 *11 *111 *11019
F81 *011 *1 *1 *010011 *101 *101 *0012
F9001010011010101 *1 *01009
F101 *1 *11 *111 *111111111111019
F111 *011 *1 *1 *010011 *11 *11010013
F121 *1111 *11111 *11101101 *1017
F1300101 *0010010101 *1 *01 *008
F141 *111111111 *10111 *1 *011017
F151 *1 *111 *11 *11 *1 *111011 *01 *1 *017
F1611 *11111 *11 *1 *11101 *101 *1 *017
F171 *1111 *111 *11 *101 *01 *1 *11 *1017
F181 *1 *11111 *1 *1 *1 *10111 *1 *011 *017
F191 *111111 *11111 *11 *111 *11019
F201 *11 *11 *111 *1 *11 *1 *1 *1 *111 *11120
Dependence17142017201714191514191419121820820131
1 *: transitivity.
Table
Table 5. Iteration 1.
Table 5. Iteration 1.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F1F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F190
F2F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F190
F3F3 F5 F16 F18F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F3 F5 F16 F181
F4F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F190
F5F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F14 F16 F18F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F14 F16 F181
F6F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F18F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F16 F180
F7F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F190
F8F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F18F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F4 F5 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F180
F9F3 F5 F8 F9 F11 F13 F15 F16 F18F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F9 F15 F16 F180
F10F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F190
F11F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F18F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F4 F5 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F180
F12F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F15 F16 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F10 F11 F12 F15 F16 F190
F13F3 F5 F8 F11 F13 F15 F16 F18F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F5 F8 F11 F13 F15 F16 F180
F14F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F13 F14 F15 F16 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F10 F11 F14 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F10 F11 F14 F18 F190
F15F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F18 F190
F16F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F18 F19F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F16 F18 F191
F17F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F13 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F190
F18F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F13 F14 F15 F16 F18 F19F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F13 F14 F15 F16 F18 F191
F19F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F190
F20F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20F20F200
Table
Table 6. Iteration 2.
Table 6. Iteration 2.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F1F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F12 F14 F15 F17 F190
F2F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F190
F4F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F17 F190
F6F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F11 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F11 F12 F150
F7F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F190
F8F8 F11 F13 F15F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F8 F11 F13 F152
F9F8 F9 F11 F13 F15F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F9 F150
F10F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F190
F11F4 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F15F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F4 F6 F8 F11 F12 F13 F152
F12F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F11 F12 F15 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F11 F12 F15 F190
F13F8 F11 F13 F15F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F8 F11 F13 F152
F14F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F13 F14 F15 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F14 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F14 F190
F15F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F15 F192
F17F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F13 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F190
F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F15 F17 F190
F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F17 F19 F20F20F200
Table
Table 7. Iteration 3.
Table 7. Iteration 3.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F1F1 F2 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F6 F7 F12 F14 F17 F190
F2F1 F2 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F4F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F6F1 F2 F6 F7 F9 F10F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F6 F7 F100
F7F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F9F9F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F93
F10F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F12F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F190
F14F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F14 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F14 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F14 F190
F17F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F190
F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F20F200
Table
Table 8. Iteration 4.
Table 8. Iteration 4.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F1F1 F2 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F6 F7 F12 F14 F17 F190
F2F1 F2 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F194
F4F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F6F1 F2 F6 F7 F10F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F6 F7 F104
F7F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F194
F10F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F194
F12F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F190
F14F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F14 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F14 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F14 F190
F17F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F17 F190
F19F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F1 F2 F4 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F190
F20F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F10 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F20F200
Table
Table 9. Iteration 5.
Table 9. Iteration 5.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F1F1F1 F4 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F15
F4F1 F4 F19F4 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F4 F190
F12F1 F4 F12 F19F12F120
F14F1 F4 F14 F19F14F140
F17F1 F4 F17 F19F17F170
F19F1 F4 F19F4 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F4 F190
F20F1 F4 F19 F20F20F200
Table
Table 10. Iteration 6.
Table 10. Iteration 6.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F4F4 F19F4 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F4 F196
F12F4 F12 F19F12F120
F14F4 F14 F19F14F140
F17F4 F17 F19F17F170
F19F4 F19F4 F12 F14 F17 F19 F20F4 F196
F20F4 F19 F20F20F200
Table
Table 11. Iteration 7.
Table 11. Iteration 7.
Reachability_SetAntecedents_SetIntersection_SetLevel
F12F12F12F127
F14F14F14F147
F17F17F17F177
F20F20F20F207
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jung, S.; Lee, S.; Yu, J. Identification and Prioritization of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction Using ISM and MICMAC Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168911

AMA Style

Jung S, Lee S, Yu J. Identification and Prioritization of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction Using ISM and MICMAC Analysis. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168911

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jung, Seoyoung, Seulki Lee, and Jungho Yu. 2021. "Identification and Prioritization of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction Using ISM and MICMAC Analysis" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168911

APA Style

Jung, S., Lee, S., & Yu, J. (2021). Identification and Prioritization of Critical Success Factors for Off-Site Construction Using ISM and MICMAC Analysis. Sustainability, 13(16), 8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168911

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop