The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1726-0531.htm

JEDT
21,3 Barriers to integrating lean
construction and integrated
project delivery (IPD) on
778 construction megaprojects
Received 2 February 2021
Revised 7 March 2021
towards the global integrated
28 April 2021
26 May 2021
Accepted 28 May 2021
delivery (GID) in multinational
organisations: lean IPD&GID
transformative initiatives
Martin Evans
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK
Peter Farrell
University of Bolton, Bolton, UK
Emad Elbeltagi
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, and
Helen Dion
The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry encounter substantial risks and
challenges in its evolution towards sustainable development. International businesses, multinational AEC
organisations, technical professionals, project and portfolio management organisations face global connectivity
challenges between business units, especially during the outbreak of novel coronavirus pandemic, to manage
construction megaprojects (CMPs). That raises the need to manage global connectivity as a main strategic goal of
global organisations. This paper aims to investigate barriers to integrating lean construction (LC) practices and
integrated project delivery (IPD) on CMPs towards the global integrated delivery (GID) transformative initiatives
and develop future of work (FOW) global initiatives in contemporary multinational AEC organisations.
Design/methodology/approach – A two-stage quantitative and qualitative research approach is adopted.
The qualitative research methodology consists of a literature review to appraise barriers to integrating
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs. Barriers are arranged into six-factor clusters (FCs), with a conceptualisation of
LeanIPD&GID, GID strategy placements and FOW global initiatives with multiple validations. This analysis
also involved semi-structured interviews and focus group techniques. Stage two consisted of an empirical
questionnaire survey that shaped the foundation of analysis and findings of 230 respondents from 23 countries

Journal of Engineering, Design

With sincere thanks and appreciation, the authors acknowledge the valuable feedback, inputs, and
and Technology guidance received from Mr. Ayman Mashali, BSc, MSc, CEng, MICE (Mansoura University,
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2023
pp. 778-818 Mansoura, Egypt) and Mr. Wael Zewein, BSc, MBA, MSc, PMP (Edinburgh Napier University,
© Emerald Publishing Limited Edinburgh, UK), that spark our thinking. Equally, the authors thank our outstanding experts for
1726-0531
DOI 10.1108/JEDT-02-2021-0070 their generous contributions that made this study possible.
with extensive cosmopolitan experience in the construction of megaprojects. The survey examined a set of 28 Barriers to
barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs resulting from a detailed analysis of extant literature after
validation. Descriptive and inferential statistical tests were exploited for data analysis, percentage scoring integrating
analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) and eigenvalues were used to elaborate on clustered factors. lean
Findings – The research conceptualised LeanIPD&GID principles and proposed GID strategy placements construction
for LeanIPD&GID transformative initiatives and FOW global initiatives. It concluded that the most
significant barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs are “lack of mandatory building information
modelling (BIM) and LC industry standards and regulations by governments”, “lack of involvement and
support of governments”, “high costs of BIM software licenses”, “resistance of industry to change from 779
traditional working practices” and “high initial investment in staff training costs of BIM”. PCA revealed the
most significant FCs are “education and knowledge-related barriers”, “project objectives-related barriers” and
“attitude-related barriers”. Awareness of BIM in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is higher
than LC and LC awareness is higher than IPD knowledge. Whilst BIM adoption in the MENA region is higher
than LC; the second is still taking its first steps, whilst IPD has little implementation. LeanBIM is slightly
integrated, whilst LeanIPD integration is almost not present.
Originality/value – The research findings, conclusion and recommendation and proposed GID strategy
placements for LeanIPD&GID transformative initiatives to integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs. This will
allow project key stakeholders to place emphasis on tackling LeanIPD&GID barriers identified in this
research and commence GID strategies. The study has provided effective practical strategies for enhancing
the integration of LeanIPD&GID transformative initiatives on CMPs.
Keywords Lean construction, COVID-19, Integrated project delivery, Global integrated delivery,
LeanIPD&GID, Organisation behaviour, Construction megaprojects, Organisations
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry encounter substantial risks
and challenges in its evolution towards sustainable development (Evans and Farrell, 2021).
International businesses, multinational AEC organisations (including enterprises and
corporations), technical professional, architecture, engineering, construction, project and
portfolio management organisations face global connectivity challenges between business
units, especially during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, to manage construction
megaprojects (CMPs). This raises the need to manage global connectivity as a main strategic
goal of global organisations. This research introduces global integrated delivery (GID) as a
transformative initiative in contemporary organisations. The main objective of the research to
investigate barriers to integrating lean construction (LC) practices and integrated project
delivery (IPD) on CMPs towards GID transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational
AEC organisations. In the following sections, research will define, redefine and conceptualise
concepts that have been introduced or redefined from an integrative perspective. The research
investigates barriers to integrating LC practices through IPD principles on CMPs, known as
LeanIPD and leading towards GID transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational
organisations, called LeanIPD&GID. The research also investigates integration between LC
practices and building information modelling (BIM) functionalities, LeanBIM, as a part of
holistic IPD integration processes, LeanIPD, on CMPs at project and portfolio level and
integration of LeanIPD principles and GID initiatives at organisational levels. Accordingly,
the research conceptualises integration principles of LeanBIM, LeanIPD and LeanIPD&GID.
The delivery method adopted on construction projects impacts upon distribution of risks and
responsibilities amongst different project stakeholders, the timing of their engagement and the
nature of their relationships (Hamzeh et al., 2019). A variety of project delivery methods have
been used in the construction industry, the most popular being the “traditional” design-bid-build
method. Researchers often attribute poor performance to lack of integration within project
JEDT delivery systems, referred to as “segmental” project design and delivery, which manifests in a
21,3 lack of coordination and collaboration, poor communication and reduced trust and teamwork
(Evans et al., 2020a; Evans et al., 2020b; Harper et al., 2016). Therefore, alternative delivery
systems have evolved to cater for these deficiencies. BIM is a collaborative design sharing
platform that helps facilitate the transfer of information and knowledge between trades, enhance
communication and cooperation and reduce misunderstandings and errors (AIA/AIA CC
780 American Institute of Architects and AIA California Council, 2007); BIM functionality as a
collaborative design sharing platform helps in achieving LC principles; accordingly, adoption
and implementation of BIM, LC and integration between BIM and LC jointly, as LeanBIM, is
contributing to the achievement of IPD principles, so-called LeanIPD.
IPD is an alternative project delivery approach that integrates project teams, business
structures, operating systems and practices into a process that promotes innovation
(Hamzeh et al., 2019). It differs from traditional delivery approaches by integrating
principles such as early collaboration, trust-building, teamwork, collective risk management
and profit-sharing throughout project life cycles (AIA/AIA CC American Institute of
Architects and AIA California Council, 2007). IPD and its relational type of contractual
agreement offers an alternative that addresses several deficiencies found in traditional
approaches. For instance, projects using IPD are found to substantially increase
productivity and reduce waste, thus offering better performance and increasing value for
owners, contractors and designers (AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects and AIA
California Council, 2007). The construction industry has been a slow adopter of innovative
and smart technologies, such as BIM and integration with LC practices (Evans and Farrell,
2020; Evans et al., 2020c; Evans et al., 2021a; Evans et al., 2021b). BIM and LC approaches
have been introduced as two distinctive but integral initiatives (Sacks et al., 2010; Sacks
et al., 2009). Developing modern standards for implementation of BIM is required (Olawumi
et al., 2018; Olawumi and Chan, 2018), whilst full integration between BIM and LC is
necessary to achieve optimum LeanBIM synergy; integration between LeanBIM and IPD is
also required to achieve LeanIPD synergies working towards LeanIPD&GID. Numerous
studies have evaluated potential, barriers, risks, challenges, critical success factors (CSFs),
critical failure factors of BIM and its influence on the successful delivery of construction
projects (Olawumi and Chan, 2020; Olawumi and Chan, 2019a; Hamzeh et al., 2016; Dave
et al., 2013; Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2017; Azhar et al., 2012; Chan, 2014; Sacks et al., 2010;
Chan et al., 2019; Elhendawi et al., 2019; Evans et al., 2020b; Saieg et al., 2018).
BIM is a revolutionary design-based technology (Olawumi et al., 2018), which provides
tangible value when implemented and fully integrated with LC (Bui et al., 2016). Apart from
the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) which have witnessed an
improved adoption and implementation of BIM and LC practices, most other countries are
still lagging in its execution (Olawumi et al., 2017). Gu and London (2010), whilst
expounding on readiness and implementation level of BIM and LC practices, reported that it
varies significantly across the world. Even countries considered to be early adopters and
initiators of these concepts experienced a disproportionate level of knowledge (Evans et al.,
2020a, 2020b; Olawumi and Chan, 2019b; Bradley et al., 2016). BIM implementation
encompasses visualisation processes which enable users to analyse models and retrieve
important information such as costs, schedules, clash detection and more (Sacks et al., 2010;
Sacks et al., 2009; Sacks et al., 2018a, 2018b; Giel and Issa, 2016). BIM’s inherent
characteristics are also compatible with LC principles (Hamzeh et al., 2016; Zhang et al.,
2018; Solaimani and Sedighi, 2020; Shuquan et al., 2020). Even though the construction
industry has started the adoption of BIM and LC principles; there are still many barriers and
challenges to achieve ultimate LeanBIM synergies.
1.1 Research objectives Barriers to
Despite the obvious benefits of adopting the IPD approach in the USA and many countries integrating
worldwide, its implementation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region faces a
number of challenges which limit its adoption on megaprojects (Evans and Farrell, 2021;
lean
Rached et al., 2014). The current construction literature associated with the integration of construction
IPD, LC and or BIM is limited and existing studies mostly focus on qualitative approaches.
There is no research that investigates barriers to integrating LC practices and IPD principles
on CMPs, LeanIPD, towards the GID transformative initiatives in contemporary
781
multinational organisations or LeanIPD&GID.
In terms of integration of BIM and LC, LeanBIM, much criticism has been raised about the
separate implementation of either BIM or LC practices in the built environment (Olawumi
and Chan, 2019b) due to difficulties and problems caused by its adoption. Hence, Olawumi
and Chan (2020) advocated the implementation of concepts of BIM technologies to facilitate
holistic LC development. More so, studies such as Evans et al. (2020c) and Evans and Farrell
(2020) pointed out that there are still significant gaps in practice in the adoption of innovative
tools such as BIM for implementation of LC practices and there are significant gaps in the
literature regarding the integration of BIM, LC and IPD as LeanIPD on CMPs towards GID.
Studies such as Olawumi and Chan (2019b) emphasised that without sufficient knowledge on
the status (such as its barriers) of implementation of these concepts in the construction
industry; it is difficult to improve and track aspects of its implementation.
Therefore, the current study will discuss BIM and the challenges of using it to enable the
integration of LC practices in the built environment. Although previous research studies
have highlighted profound barriers relating to BIM in the construction industry – none are
yet to appraise impediments militating against adopting both LeanBIM and IPD principles
on the construction of megaprojects. Accordingly, this study reviews existing literature to
gather evidence of barriers faced by the built environment in integrating LC practices and
IPD towards GID. Accordingly, this paper aims to bridge the gap in the literature,
investigates barriers to integrating LC practices and IPD principles on CMPs, LeanIPD,
towards GID transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational AEC organisations,
as LeanIPD&GID. To achieve this aim, the research methodology consists of a literature
review, a survey questionnaire and structured interviews. In the context of CMPs in
contemporary multinational AEC organisations, research objectives are:

RO1: To build a comprehensive background through reviewing the nature of the
construction industry in CMPs, traditional procurement approaches and IPD, LC
thinking, including BIM as a smart tool, as well as barriers of implementation and
integration between LC and IPD, LeanIPD, on CMPs towards GID, as LeanIPD&GID,
transformative initiatives and FOW in contemporary multinational AEC organisations;

RO2: To identify and assess LeanIPD&GID barriers, and examine the perception of
AEC industry professionals and academics towards the barriers of integrating
LeanIPD and LeanIPD&GID, on CMPs in GID context; and

RO3: To establish the significance of LeanIPD&GID barriers and the relative
weight and significance of factor clusters (FCs) associated with LeanIPD integration
– including LeanBIM – on CMPs working towards GID, GID strategy placements
and FOW global transformative initiatives.

The paper is organised into seven sections. Section 1 introduces the topic. Section 2 is a
literature review. Section 3 describes the research methodology. Section 4 introduces GID
transformative initiatives and FOW global initiatives. Section 5 provides the research
JEDT analysis, findings and discussion of results. Section 6 presents the conclusions. Finally,
21,3 Section 7 is recommendations.

2. Literature review
A number of recent research studies have discussed the use of IPD, LC and or BIM in the
construction industry whilst there is little work focussing on investigating integration
782 between lean principles, BIM and IPD and implementation of this integration towards GID
integration at the organisational level. Also, there is very limited research that introduces
project performance metrics, such as cost and schedule performance along with this
integration. In this section, the definition of each component of IPD, LC and BIM as described
in the construction literature is provided and then recent research concentrating on the use of
all three components in projects is discussed. Research also will define, redefine and
conceptualise integration principles of LC, BIM, IPD, LeanBIM, LeanIPD and LeanIPD&GID.
In addition, definitions of project, portfolio and CMP are provided. Figure 1 illustrates the
hierarchy of integration of BIM, LC, IPD, LeanBIM, LeanIPD, LeanIPD&GID concepts, noting
that all concepts originate at the project level but GID concepts are at organisational level.

2.1 Global integrated delivery

The “globally integrated enterprise” (GIE) business model emerged from massive
socioeconomic changes that were occurring throughout the world in the 1990s. A key factor
was the emergence of the internet. There are some earlier contributions in the GIE intuitive by
Palmisano (2006), IBM100 (2006), IBM and the Lisbon Council (2007). Maerki (2008) introduced
IBM’s business model and strategy by explaining how the enterprise transformed from an
international corporation model of the nineteenth century to the multinational corporation
model of the twentieth century. This was a response to globalisation, its subsequent impact of
governance and technological advances in the nineteenth century. Lubowe et al. (2009)
discussed comprehensive strategies for globally integrated operations. Bramante et al. (2010)
discussed IBM’s case study in transforming to GIE between 2000 and 2010.
There is a gap in the literature to link the transformation of business models from GIE
towards the integration of BIM, LC practices, as LeanBIM and considering holistic,
integrative processes between LC – including BIM functionalities – and IPD, as LeanIPD to
achieve full optimisation of these principles on CMPs working towards GID, as
LeanIPD&GID. GID could be defined as a transformative initiative in contemporary
multinational organisations (or enterprises or corporations) that redefines what is possible
by connecting and collaborating global delivery units or teams; it allows teams to grow and
achieve opportunities worldwide (Evans and Farrell, 2021). GID encourages inventive

BIM

LC
Figure 1.
LeanBIM
Hierarchy of
(Note: BIM+LC)
integration of BIM,
LC, IPD, LeanBIM, IPD
LeanIPD and
LeanIPD
LeanIPD&GID (Note: BIM+LC+IPD or LeanBIM+IPD)
concepts on CMP at
LeanIPD&GID
organisational level (note: GID at organisational level)
thinking, exploration and brings innovative ideas and sustainable solutions to CMP clients Barriers to
and owners that lead to profitable growth and shared success with multinational AEC integrating
organisations (Evans et al., 2021b).
GID redefines how work is delivered in the AEC industry. It promotes global
lean
connectivity and GID standard delivery approaches increase digital capabilities and construction
enhance integration between Line of Business (LoB) services. GID benefits are: leveraging
time zone benefits and extending working days to fast track delivery of projects to meet
schedules, improving project financials combining scalable solutions from LoB for cost 783
benefits, facilitates access to global talent, core services in each LoB and expand markets
and broaden LoB capabilities, efficiently delivering word-class services bringing the global
experience to local projects, swift team mobilisation, facilitation of advances in technology
and delivery innovation, connecting teams globally and increasing diversity, enhancing
competitive advantage for LoB through competitive pricing and offering value for money to
clients, thus winning more work.

2.2 Integrate project delivery

AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects and AIA California Council (2007)
defines IPD as “a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business
structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses talents and
insights of all participants to optimise project results, increase value to owners, reduce
waste and maximise efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and
construction”. Figure 2 shows the relationship amongst BIM, LC and IPD principles and
GID initiatives.
The principles of IPD, as its name suggests, is integration or collaboration between the
different participants involved in projects. For efficient collaboration to take place, project
delivery systems must encompass several core features, including:

early collaboration during design where owners, architects, contractors, subcontractors,
consultants and suppliers provide their expertise early in projects to drive innovation
and improve performance (AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects and AIA
California Council, 2007);

Figure 2.
Staked Venn diagram
shows relationship
amongst BIM, LC,
IPD principles and
GID initiatives
[vector artwork
design using AdobeV
R

Illustrator software]
JEDT
alignment of interests and objectives amongst project parties in line with overall
21,3 project objectives (AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects and AIA
California Council, 2007);

trust and respect between parties and a “no-blame” culture within projects (Evans
et al., 2020b);

high levels of teamwork, communication and collaboration, where knowledge and
784 information is openly shared and exchanged (Evans et al., 2020a);

processes and tools that encourage cooperation, for example, BIM;

pain-share/gain-share agreements, leading to the elimination of adversarial
relationships; through this feature, different trades are compensated for their work
based on a principle that rewards them together according to the ultimate benefit of
projects (Evans et al., 2020b);

high levels of teamwork, communication and collaboration, where knowledge and
information is openly shared and exchanged (AIA/AIA CC American Institute of
Architects and AIA California Council, 2007); and

the employment of collaborative planning systems, such as “Last Planner Systems”
(LPSs) for production planning and control (Ballard, 2000).

This latter feature assists project teams in smoothing variability in construction workflow,
reducing uncertainty in construction operations, developing planning foresight and
encouraging proactive behaviour to remove constraints (Hamzeh et al., 2015). Table 1
demonstrates principles of IPD according to (AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects
and AIA California Council, 2007).

2.3 Lean construction

In the 1990s, recognised as an outcome of the Toyota production system, lean
manufacturing (or lean production) was established and implemented with significant
achievements, and this led to the original uses of lean thinking in the construction industry
(Ballard and Howell, 1998; Koskela, 2000; Koskela et al., 2002). Liker (2004) described
principles and behaviours that underlie the operational philosophy of the Toyota Motor
Corporation. As lean principles originally appeared as philosophies, it can be defined in
many different ways in accordance with the purpose of the users (Forbes and Ahmed, 2010;
Koskela et al., 2019). Lean in construction is described as a method to design construction
systems to lessen the waste of time, materials and effort in the interest of maximising
possible project value (Sacks, 2013; Howell and Koskela, 2000).

2.4 Building information modelling

BIM is defined as a digital representation of a facility illustrating accurate geometry and
pertinent data used for supporting design, procurement, fabrication and construction, of
projects (Sacks et al., 2018a, 2018b). Building information models also encompass
exchangeable data or files used to assist communication and decision-making processes
(Evans et al., 2020c; Evans et al., 2021b). The term four-dimensional (4D) BIM refers to the
adding time dimension or schedule-related information into three-dimensional (3D) BIM
models (usually 3D computer-aided design or CAD) of projects. With the use of simulation in
4D models, many construction conflicts, design clashes and constructability issues can be
found and resolved in advance. Five-dimensional (5D) BIM is another variation developed
to incorporate the cost dimension; 5D BIM is still in its infancy stage of practice and
# IPD principle Description
Barriers to
integrating
1 Mutual respect and trust In an integrated project, owners, designers, consultants, constructors, lean
subcontractors and suppliers understand the value of collaboration and
are committed to working as a team in the best interests of the project construction
2 Mutual benefit and reward All participants or team members benefit from IPD. Because the
integrated process requires early involvement by more parties, IPD
compensation structures recognise and reward early involvement. 785
Compensation is based on the value added by an organisation and it
rewards “what’s best for project” behaviour. IPD use innovative
business models to support collaboration
3 Collaborative innovation and Innovation is stimulated when ideas are freely exchanged amongst all
decision-making participants. In an integrated project, ideas are judged on their merits,
not on the author’s role or status. Key decisions are evaluated by the
project team and, to the greatest practical extent, made unanimously
4 Early involvement of key In an integrated project, the key participants are involved from the
participants earliest practical moment. Decision-making is improved by the influx of
knowledge and expertise of all key participants. Their combined
knowledge and expertise are most powerful during the project’s early
stages where informed decisions have the greatest effect
5 Early goal definition Project goals are developed early, agreed upon and respected by all
participants. Insight from each participant is valued in a culture that
promotes and drives innovation and outstanding performance, holding
project outcomes at the centre within a framework of individual
participant objectives and values
6 Intensified planning The IPD approach recognises that increased effort in planning results in
increased efficiency and savings during execution. Thus, the thrust of
the integrated approach is not to reduce design effort, but rather to
greatly improve the design results, streamlining and shortening the
much more expensive construction effort
7 Open communication IPD’s focus on team performance is based on open, direct and honest
communication amongst all participants. Responsibilities are clearly
defined in a no-blame culture leading to identification and resolution of
problems, not determination of liability. Disputes are recognised as they
occur and promptly resolved
8 Appropriate technology Integrated projects often rely on cutting edge technologies. Technologies
are specified at project initiation to maximise functionality, generality
and interoperability. Open and interoperable data exchanges based on
disciplined and transparent data structures are essential to support IPD
9 Organisation and leadership The project team members are committed to the project team’s goals and
values. Leadership is taken by the team member most capable with
regard to specific work and services. Often, design professionals and
contractors lead in areas of their traditional competence with support
from the entire team. Roles are clearly defined, without creating artificial
barriers that chill open communication and risk taking
Table 1.
Source: AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects and AIA California Council, 2007 Principles of IPD

six-dimensional (6D) BIM, which has all data of the lifecycle management of projects, but is
still forthcoming in practice (Sacks et al., 2018a, 2018b; Evans and Farrell, 2020). Table 2
shows LC principles BIM functionalities (Evans et al., 2021a).

2.5 Governance of portfolios, programmes and projects

Projects exist and operate in environments that may have an influence on them. These
influences can have a favourable or unfavourable impact on projects. Two major categories
JEDT Code (10LC, PR) Code (10BIM, FN)
21,3
LC, PR, i The 10 LC principles BIM, FN, j The 10 BIM functionalities
LC, PR, 01 Reduce variability of projects and BIM, FN, 01 High visualisations for aesthetic and
processes by getting it right first time functional evaluation of designs
and improving upstream flow
LC, PR, 02 Reduce cycle time and inventories BIM, FN, 02 Rapid generation of multiple design
786 alternatives
LC, PR, 03 Reduce batch size; strive for single-piece BIM, FN, 03 Predictive analysis of performance
flow to assure continuous production during designs
LC, PR, 04 Increase flexibility using multi-skilling BIM, FN, 03 Automated cost/time estimation
within the design stages
LC, PR, 05 Standardise methods and processes BIM, FN, 05 Evaluation of conformance to client
using convenient systems to control value within the design stages
production
LC, PR, 06 Visualise production methods and BIM, FN, 06 Integration in design models based on
processes whilst assuring continues single information source, multiple
improvement disciplines design and automated
clash checking
LC, PR, 07 Parallel processing using a convenient BIM, FN, 07 Increase collaboration in designs and
system to assure flow by parallel and constructions via multi-user to edit
reliable technologies and view a single model
LC, PR, 08 Focussing on concepts, strive to BIM, FN, 08 Evaluation of alternative construction
maximise value selection and ensure plans with 4D visualisation
requirements flow down whilst
continuously verifying and validating
LC, PR, 09 Go and see for yourself and taking BIM, FN, 09 Online multidisciplinary
decisions in consensus, considering all communication and visualisations of
options for problem-solving process status for projects; on/off site
during construction stages
LC, PR, 10 Encourage networks of partners to BIM, FN, 10 Integration with project partners,
improve cooperation and maintain supply chains and subcontractor’
valuable long-term relationships with databases
subcontractors and suppliers
Table 2.
The 10-LC principles Note: LC = lean construction; PR = principles; FN = functionalities; BIM = Building information
and ten-BIM modelling; (i;j) = numbers
functionalities Source: (Evans et al., 2021a)

of influences are enterprise environmental factors (EEFs) and organisational process assets
(OPAs). EEFs refer to conditions, not under the control of project teams, that influence,
constrain or direct projects. These conditions can be internal and/or external to
organisations. EEFs are considered as inputs to many project management processes,
specifically for most planning processes. These factors may enhance or constrain project
management options. In addition, these factors may have a positive or negative influence on
outcomes. OPAs are the plans, processes, policies, procedures and knowledge (PMI A.,
2017). Governance of portfolios, programmes and projects involves aligning organisational
project management, portfolios, programmes and project management. There are four
governance domains of alignment, risk, performance and communication and each domain
has the following functions: oversight, control, integration and decision-making (PMI A.,
2017). PMI A. (2017) defines a project as: “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a
unique product, service, or result” and a programme “as a group of related projects,
subsidiary programs and program activities managed in a coordinated manner to obtain
benefits not available from managing them individually”. According to PMI A. (2017)
“a portfolio is defined as projects, programs, subsidiary portfolios, and operations managed Barriers to
as a group to achieve strategic objectives”. integrating
CMPs can be defined as temporary endeavours undertaken to create unique products,
services or results. Megaprojects can be characterised as large-scale, complex, ventures with
lean
typically a cost of the US$ value of one billion or more, involving multiple public and private construction
stakeholders. The CMP definition aligns with that of the PMI A. (2017) definition of a project
and (Flyvbjerg, 2014); accordingly, the PMI Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOKV Guide) key components are project life cycle, project phase, phase gate, project
R 787
management process, project management process group and project management
knowledge area. PMI A. (2017) defined project governance reference to a framework,
functions and processes that guide project management activities to create unique products,
services or results to meet organisational, strategic and operational goals. CMPs involve
various stakeholders such as international consultants, multinational contractors and joint
ventures, together with several design and construction teams. A formal definition of
stakeholders is: “an individual, groups or organisations who may affect, be affected by or
perceive themselves to be affected by a decision, activity or outcome of a project”.

2.6 LeanBIM, LeanIPD and LeanIPD&GID concepts

LeanBIM. BIM and LC approaches have been introduced as two distinctive but integral
initiatives (Sacks et al., 2010; Sacks et al., 2009). Developing modern standards for implementation
of BIM is required (Olawumi et al., 2018a), whilst full integration between BIM and LC, so-called
“LeanBIM”, is necessary to achieve optimal LeanBIM synergies (Evans et al., 2020c).
LeanIPD. IPD is uniquely suited to put these principles into practice because it solves
contractual issues that prevent true collaboration and sharing of ideas, materials and manpower.
One of the cardinal principles of LC is that when a single step is optimised in a process, it de-
optimises the whole. Unfortunately, traditional construction contracts divide all entities on
projects into separate camps with each intent on optimising its own part, thus de-optimising the
whole. Cost and profit-sharing approaches eliminate traditional contract barriers and incentivise
team members to act unselfishly and make “project” decisions rather than “trade” decisions.
Using the principles of LC and IPD processes offers two main advantages over the traditional
design-bid and design-build processes; that is reduced waste and increased reliability of planning.
LC principles focus on attitudes, processes and techniques for continuous improvement,
increasing value, eliminating waste in projects, loose supply chains and interactions with
third parties, whilst IPD principles boost LC principles. IPD instead of introducing processes
to reduce waste or optimising processes, concentrates on collaboration between contractual
parties, and thus integration between IPD and maximising the value of using LC processes.
Integrating with BIM enhances collaboration, open communication and the use of
innovative technologies. BIM functionality is a collaborative design sharing platform that
helps in achieving LC principles, as LeanBIM, whilst the implementation of LeanBIM
achieves IPD principles. Those integrations between LeanBIM and IPD achieves the IPD
principles, so-called LeanIPD (Evans and Farrell, 2021; Evans et al., 2021a).
LeanIPD&GID. Projects, including CMPs, exist and operate in environments that may
have an influence on them. GID redefines what is possible by connecting and collaborating
global delivery units or teams; as it allows teams to grow and achieve opportunities
worldwide. GID encourages inventive thinking, exploration and bringing innovative ideas
and sustainable solutions to clients and owners of CMPs, which leads to profitable growth
and shared success with AEC organisations. LeanIPD is a project delivery approach
that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that
collaboratively harnesses talents and insights of all participants; this includes integration of
JEDT BIM, LC, as LeanBIM and integrating LeanBIM with IPD as LeanIPD working towards
21,3 LeanIPD&GID transformative initiatives.

2.7 Barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID on construction megaprojects

There has been a surge in recent years in the use of variants of BIM in the construction process
and previous studies such as Evans and Farrell (2020), Evans et al. (2020b, 2020c), Olawumi
788 and Chan (2019b) and Zhang et al. (2018) stressed the need to integrate BIM with LC practice to
achieve LeanBIM synergy towards LeanIPD. However, as it is always the case when new
techniques and concepts are introduced in the construction industry, the implementation of LC
practices can face setbacks and challenges (Hamzeh et al., 2016; Evans and Farrell, 2020). BIM
has transformed infrastructure and building development within the AEC industry over recent
decades (Sacks et al., 2018a, 2018b; Cao et al., 2015). A plethora of research illustrates the merits
of BIM application through the development of the entire life cycle of projects (Olawumi et al.,
2018; Chen et al., 2015). BIM adoption has gained momentum and attention from key
stakeholders and decision makers in the construction industry (Sacks et al., 2009; Sacks et al.,
2010; Evans et al., 2020a; Evans et al., 2020b; Carvajal-Arango et al., 2019).
Evans and Farrell (2020) applied a Delphi study to investigate the critical barrier factors
(CBFs) encountered by key construction stakeholders in their efforts to integrate BIM and
LC on CMPs. The research concluded that the most significant barriers to integration of
LeanBIM are: “lack of mandatory BIM and LC industry standards and regulations by
governments”, “lack of involvement and support of governments”, “resistance of industry to
change from traditional working practices”, “high cost of BIM software licences” and “high
initial investment in sta training costs of BIM”. Whilst Evans et al. (2020c) applied a Delphi
survey to investigate the CSFs that enhance integration between BIM and LC practices on
CMPs and concluded that the five extreme significant BIM CSFs that boost LeanBIM
synergy were “collaboration in design, construction works and engineering management”,
“senior organisational management support”, “coordination and planning of construction
work”, “earlier and precise 3D visualisation of design” and “boosting implementation of LC
and integrating project delivery”. Evans et al. (2021a) introduced a framework for the
interactions between BIM and LC on CMPs, detailing a comprehensive analysis of existing
literature. This research included a conceptual analysis of interactions between BIM and LC
on CMPs and yielded ten-LC principles and 10-BIM functionalities that are necessary for
their integration. A framework of interaction between BIM and LC is then compiled.
Chan (2014) considered barriers of implementing BIM in the construction industry in
Hong Kong, and Chan et al. (2019) investigated benefits and barriers to implementing BIM in
construction. Dave et al. (2013) investigated LC implementation in construction. Sacks et al.
(2018a, 2018b) introduced a guideline to BIM for contractors, owners, designers and
engineers. Other researchers examined benefits, risks, challenges and barriers to the
application of BIM such as Ghaffarianhoseini et al. (2017), Hamzeh et al. (2016), Hong et al.
(2018), Jin et al. (2017), Olatunji et al. (2017), Olawumi et al. (2017), Olawumi et al. (2018),
Olawumi and Chan (2019a), Olawumi and Chan (2019b), Chan and Chan (2011), Ding et al.
(2015) and Tan et al. (2019). Ozorhon and Karahan (2017), Hong et al. (2018) and Hsu et al.
(2015) examined CBFs of BIM implementation. Rogers et al. (2015) deliberated on the
adoption of BIM in Malaysian engineering consulting services. There are a few studies that
examined interrelations between BIM and LC, such as Sacks et al. (2009), Sacks et al. (2010)
and Zhang et al. (2018). Whilst Abdirad (2017), Ahankoob et al. (2018) and Ahn et al. (2016)
focussed on assessment and maturity models of BIM adoption in a built environment.
Ibrahim et al. (2010a, 2010b) analysed dynamics of the global construction industry with
a focus on lean production systems in the Malaysian construction industry and concluded
that it consumes large amounts of natural resources along with wastage, due to inefficient Barriers to
and improper utilisation. Numerous factors contribute to poor performance, but an efficient integrating
means of identification and reduction of waste has always been left aside. van Lith et al.
(2015) found an increase in maturity of purchasing functions in general and in particular in
lean
the management of strategic relations, coordinated activities in supply chains and increased construction
use of information technology (IT) solutions which enable better-integrated approaches in
construction processes. Dubey and Gunasekaran (2015) investigated soft total quality
management (TQM) and its impact on firm performance; research concluded that human 789
resource, quality culture, motivational leadership and relationship management are
important constructs that contribute to TQM validity. Tezel et al. (2018) evaluated the
adoption of lean thinking in the UK construction industry and found that the existence of
strong external motivational factors for lean thinking such as clients’ push and companies’
expectation of winning more contracts alongside lean’s operational benefits. Zegarra and
Alarcon (2019) investigated the coordination of teams and processes in construction projects
using a lean complex adaptive mechanism and suggested behaviour involves complex,
flexible and push features, focussed on execution. Meng (2019) studied lean management in
the context of construction supply chains in the UK industry and the study concluded that
lean could be enhanced if it synergises with supply chain collaboration. Demirkesen (2020)
measured the impact of lean implementation on construction safety and concluded that
implementing lean practices achieves better safety performance.
Table 3 illustrates 28 key barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs, as detailed in
extant literature. This research seeks the opinions of an expert panel to rank, analyse and
prioritise barriers recognised in the extant literature, to aid key stakeholders and decision
makers in the construction industry, and to emphasise the most significant challenges
hindering the integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs.
This research validates barriers of integrating LeanIPD&GID with industry experts,
then arranged the barriers into clustered factors. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews via
a video conference communications approach and focus group technique were adopted to
validate barriers of integrating LeanIPD&GID with a heterogenous cluster consisting of
nine construction experts from various disciplines in the AEC industry. Table 4 illustrates
the FC structure of barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs; these barriers were
categorised into six FC: FC1, technical-related barriers; FC2, attitude-related barriers; FC3,
education and knowledge barriers; FC4, legal barriers; FC5, project objectives-related
barriers; and FC6, market-related barriers.
The construction industry indicates a lack of collaboration and coordination that has led
to barriers to LeanBIM synergy (Zhang et al., 2018; Sacks et al., 2010; Dave et al., 2013; Evans
et al., 2020b). Olatunji et al. (2017) and Chan et al. (2019) debated support from senior
management and that a collaborative work environment would lead to enhancing BIM
benefits in construction practice. Nevertheless, the construction industry needs to confront
numerous challenges and barriers related to the application of BIM tools, LC principles and
LeanBIM (Chan et al., 2019; Azhar et al., 2012; Hong et al., 2018; Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2017;
Zahoor et al., 2017). BIM is considered a facilitating tool to the construction industry that
meets emerging challenges (Hamzeh et al., 2016; Olawumi and Chan, 2019a). The level of
readiness to implement BIM technologies varies from organisation to organisation, country
to country and region to region (Azhar et al., 2012). Abanda et al. (2015) and Olawumi et al.
(2018) observed resistance to change from conventional practices. These challenges hindered
optimum implementation of BIM technologies, LC principles and diminished full integration
between LC and BIM (Olawumi and Chan, 2019a; Ozorhon and Karahan, 2017). Despite
growing research and studies in LeanBIM initiatives, the construction industry has focussed
JEDT Code Barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID Reference
21,3
B1 Increased workload for model development 1, 2, 7, 11, 13 and 22
B2 Lack of legal frameworks and contract uncertainties of BIM and LC 1, 11, 6, 3 and 23
B3 Incompatibility issues between various software packages 4, 24, 16, 1 and 13
B4 Varied market readiness across organisations and geographic locations 6, 26, 11, 14 and 26
B5 Resistance of industry to change from traditional working practices 5, 27, 11, 25 and 18
790 B6 Societal reluctance to change from traditional values or cultures 7, 11, 2, 27 and 28
B7 Lack of insurance applicable to BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption 9, 11, 2 and 9
B8 Lack of initiatives and hesitance on future investments 8, 28,11 and 2
B9 Organisational challenges, project strategies and policies 10, 11 and 6
B10 Immature dispute resolution mechanisms for BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption 19, 29, 2 and 9
B11 Lack of awareness and collaboration amongst project stakeholders 13, 2, 27 and 26
B12 Fragmented nature of construction industry 20, 30, 2, 15, 20 and 21
B13 Negative attitudes towards data sharing 11, 2, 3, 6, 4 and 5
B14 User-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programmes 2, 11, 10 and 31
B15 Lack of a well-established BIM, LC and LeanBIM workflows 15, 10, 17 and 27
B16 High costs of BIM software licenses 14, 11, 27 and 28
B17 Ambiguous economic benefits 18, 27, 28 and 2
B18 High initial investment in statraining costs of BIM 21, 27 and 28
B19 Lack of mandatory BIM and LC industry standards and regulations by 12, 11, 27, 28 and 9
governments
B20 Lack of involvement and support of governments 12, 11, 26 and 9
B21 Lack of supporting LC analysis tools and software 12, 11, 27, 16 and 18
B22 High training and implementation costs and time of BIM 16, 11, 27, 31 and 22
B23 Intellectual properties rights, associated disputed and risks 17, 11, 23 and 3
B24 Lack of senior management commitment and clients demand 12, 24 and 25
B25 Difficulty in adapting to BIM technologies and processes 22, 25, 28 and 27
B26 Low level of research in industry and academia 25, 14, 10, 4 and 5
B27 Difficulty in allocating and sharing LC, BIM and LeanBIM risks 31, 13, 30 and 6
B28 Shortage of cross-field specialists in BIM, LC and LeanBIM 12, 9, 11, 8 and 22

Notes: 1 = Abanda et al. (2015); 2 = Azhar et al. (2012); 3 = Bradley et al. (2016); 4 = Bui (2016); 5 = Cao
et al. (2015); 6 = Chan (2014); 7 = Chan et al. (2019); 8 = Chen et al. (2015); 9 = Dave et al. (2013); 10 = Ding
et al. (2015); 11 = Sacks et al. (2018a, 2018b); 12 = Elhendawi et al. (2019); 13 = Ghaffarianhoseini et al.
Table 3. (2017); 14 = Hamzeh et al. (2016); 15 = Hong et al. (2018); 16 = Hsu et al. (2015); 17 = Jin et al. (2017); 18 =
Barriers to Olatunji et al. (2017); 19 = Olawumi et al. (2017); 20 = Olawumi et al. (2018); 21 = Olawumi and Chan (2018);
integrating 22 = Olawumi and Chan (2019a); 23 = Olawumi and Chan (2019b); 24 = Ozorhon and Karahan (2017);
LeanIPD&GID 25 = Rogers et al. (2015); 26 = Sacks et al. (2010); 27 = Sacks et al. (2009); 28 = Salleh and Phui Fung (2014);
on CMPs 29 = Shirowzhan et al. (2020); 30 = Tan et al. (2019); 31 = Zhang et al. (2018)

on particular aspects without paying attention to holistic views to achieve utmost LeanBIM
synergy (Azhar et al., 2012). The current approach in LeanBIM assessment is still immature
and requires further research (Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2017).

3. Research methodology
The research attempts to investigate barriers to integrating LC practices and IPD on CMPs
towards the GID transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational AEC
organisations. It compares the research aim, objectives and characteristics with the aim,
objectives and characteristics of different research approaches (Farrell, 2016). This research
is both descriptive and inferential in nature and adopts an applied approach to achieve its
aim and objectives. Quantitative and qualitative techniques were used for data collection
and analysis. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews and the focus group technique via
Code FCs structure for barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID
Barriers to
integrating
FC1 Technical-related barriers lean
B1 Increased workload for model development
B3 Incompatibility issues between various software packages construction
B14 User-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programmes
B16 High cost of BIM software licenses
B21 Lack of supporting LC analysis tools and software 791
FC2 Attitude-related barriers
B6 Societal reluctance to change from traditional values or cultures
B11 Lack of awareness and collaboration amongst project stakeholders
B20 Lack of involvement and support of governments
FC3 Education and knowledge related barriers
B15 Lack of a well-established BIM, LC and LeanBIM workflows
B25 Difficulty in adapting to BIM technologies and processes
B26 Low level of research in industry and academia
B28 Shortage of cross-field specialists in BIM, LC and LeanBIM
FC4 Legal barriers
B2 Lack of legal framework and contract uncertainties of BIM and LC
B7 Lack of insurance applicable to BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption
B10 Immature dispute resolution mechanisms for BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption
B19 Lack of mandatory BIM and LC industry standards and regulations by governments
B23 Intellectual properties rights, associated disputed and risks
B27 Difficulty in allocating and sharing LC, BIM and LeanBIM risks
FC5 Project objectives related barriers
B8 Lack of initiative and hesitance on future investments
B9 Organisational challenges, project strategies and policies
B13 Negative attitude towards data sharing
B24 Lack of senior management commitment and clients demand
FC6 Market-related barriers
B4 Varied market readiness across organisations and geographic locations
B5 Resistance of industry to change from traditional working practices Table 4.
B12 Fragmented nature of construction industry FCs structure for
B17 Ambiguous economic benefits
B18 High initial investment in sta training costs of BIM
barriers to
B22 High training and implementation costs and time of BIM integrating
LeanIPD&GID
Note: FC = factor cluster(s) on CMPs

video conference communications was adopted as it indicates a high degree of reliability,

high level of item response rate and gives opportunities to interviewers to explain complex
questions and mitigate inappropriate responses (Farrell, 2016). Semi-structured face-to-face
interview are discussions, usually one-on-one between interviewers and interviewees, meant
to gather information on a specific set of topics, whilst focus groups are dynamic group
discussions used to collect information (Harrell and Bradley, 2009). This strategy reduces
the risk and bias associated with using specific methods (Fellows and Liu, 2015; Farrell,
2016; Bernard, 2000). To achieve the research goals, a two-stage research methodology is
adopted. Stage 1 is qualitative research and Stage 2 is quantitative. Figure 3 demonstrates
the research methodology stages.

3.1 Stage 1: Qualitative research methodology

The qualitative research method comprises a five-step research methodology as suggested
by Farrell (2016). Step 1.1 is a comprehensive literature review to define key parameters and
JEDT Stage 1: Qualitative research
21,3
Step 1.1: Literature review

Step 1.2: Identify

f barriers/FC to integrating LC,
792 BIM, LeanBIM, IPD, LeanIPD and GID, FOW
Concepts

Step 1.3 External validation

(Focus group & semi-stru
r ctu
t red interviews)
semi-structured

Step 1.4: § Proposed conceptu

t alisation, defi
conceptualisation, f ne,
define,
redefi
f ne BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD, LeanIPD and
redefine
GID
§ GID strategy placements
§ FOW global initatives

Step 1.5: External validation of concepts &

GID strategy placements
(Focus group technique & semi-structured
semi-stru
r ctu
t red
interviews)

Stage 2: Quantitative research

Step 2.1: Survey design

Step 2.2: Pilot survey & identify

f participants

Step 2.3: Collect data

Figure 3.
Research
Step 2.4: Analysis, evaluation and
methodology discussion of results

criteria affecting barriers to integrating LC practices and IPD on CMPs towards the GID
transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational AEC organisations. Step 1.2
identifies barriers to integrating LC, BIM, LeanBIM, IPD, LeanIPD and GID and integrate
barriers to LeanIPD&GID into structured FCs. Evans and Farrell (2020) carried out research
to investigate CBFs that hinders integration between BIM and LC practices on CMPs and
adopted a Delphi technique. The research identified 28 barriers to integrating
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs which were then categorised into six FCs. Step 1.3 is based on the
critical review, outcomes were piloted with eight industry expert practitioners and senior
academic researchers through semi-structured face-to-face interviews and the focus group
technique to validate determined factors and interactions (Farrell, 2016; Taylor et al., 2015;
Harrell and Bradley, 2009). The response from professionals highlighted a lack of systematic
exploration of all parameters in the literature and mixing concepts from production, quality,
sustainability and safety, and led to a repeat of Steps 1.2 and 1.3 for multiple validations. In
Step 1.4, there was conceptualisation, definition and redefinition of BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD,
LeanIPD and GID. Step 1.5 encompasses multiple validations of concepts and GID strategy Barriers to
placements through semi-structured face-to-face interviews and focus group technique. integrating
Concepts and GID strategy placements were validated by ten professionals – six industry
experts and four academic researchers – to qualify their relevance, correlation, logic and
lean
importance to the construction industry, specifically to CMPs. GID strategy placements construction
encompass definition, benefits and integration between business units, geographic location,
cultural difference, time zone leverages and analytics and cost comparison to identify the
best locations for business units in GID. The experts selected for both semi-structured 793
interviews and the focus group represented senior-level construction industry practitioners
and academics based in Qatar. Experts were selected with more than 15 years of experience
of successful delivery of CMPs, the level of seniority in experience, proficiency in project
delivery methods, software familiarity, experience with various forms of contracts and
knowledge of BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD, LeanIPD and GID. The participants have
construction experience in many other countries, including, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman,
KSA, Egypt, China, Germany, Spain, UK, Canada and the USA. The participants have
awareness of LC, IPD and LeanIPD. This indicated that their responses shape a suitable idea
of the LC, IPD and LeanIPD adoption in CMPs and its limitations.

3.2 Stage 2: Quantitative research methodology

Stage 2 encompasses a four-step quantitative research methodology. Step 2.1 comprises the
design of a survey based on the literature review in Stage 1 of the research (Step 1.1). Table 3
lists barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs, whilst Table 4 structured FCs of
LeanIPD&GID integration barriers. Step 2.2 involves the pilot survey and identification of
respondents. Step 2.3 is the collection of data. Step 2.4 comprises analysis, evaluation and
discussion of results.
3.2.1 Survey design. The questionnaire was arranged into two sections. The first section
was used to collect professional data on participants such as areas of expertise, relevant
experience, current position within their organisations and the size of projects that they are
involved in. Additionally, the degree of awareness of BIM, LC practices and IPD principles,
and the extent of implementation and integration of BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD and LeanIPD
on the largest current project (Tanner, 2018; Taylor et al., 2015). The second section reflected
barriers in integration between LeanIPD&GID on CMPs that came from literature and
interviews (Malhotra and Dash, 2019).
The 28 identified barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs, which were organised
into six FCs (Farrell, 2016; Brown and Hauenstein, 2005; Fellows and Liu, 2015). Participants
were asked to rate factors on a seven-point Likert scale: 0 = very strongly disagree,
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = not sure or don’t know, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
and 6 = very strongly agree. Participants were given the opportunity to add any additional
factors or remarks at end of the questionnaire. Scores are developed on the Likert scale,
developed by the American Psychologist Rensis Likert (1903–1981). The seven-point Likert
scale has been shown to be more accurate, easier to use and a better reflection of a
respondent’s true evaluation. In light of all these advantages, even when compared to
higher-order items, seven-point items appear to be the best solution for questionnaires such
as those used in perception evaluations. Whether academic and industry practitioners are
developing a new summative scale, a satisfaction survey or a simple one-item post-test
evaluation item, accordingly, research adopted to use a seven-point rather than a five-point
scale (Farrell, 2016).
The sample size is important to obtain representative results. The population of this
study comprised construction experts that have experience in BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD,
JEDT LeanIPD and LeanIPD&GID on CMPs. Cochran’s sample size formula for categorical data
21,3 (Cochran, 2007) was used to establish the sample size that is seeking maximum possible
responses within affordability.

ðt2 Þ  ð pÞ  ðqÞ
n¼ (1)
ðd 2 Þ
794
where n is initial sample size estimate, t is confidence factor (1·96 for confidence level 0·95), p
is population proportion (0·5), q is (1  p) and d is margin of error (0·1). Upon calculating
[equation (1)] using assumed data (t = 1·96, p = 0·5, q = 0·5, d = 0·1) a sample size of 96 was
determined.
The responses were obtained through an online questionnaire designed using “Google
Forms” and distributed using various tools; i.e. e-mail, LinkedIn, WhatsApp and Microsoft
teams. To ensure compliance with ethical protocols, a note preceded the questionnaire to
provide guidance on the aims and objectives of the research, estimated duration to complete, to
assure participants of their anonymity and confidentiality, and to advise that reply was not
compulsory. A research ethics checklist was also used to ensure there was no breach of
institutional codes. It was deemed there was no requirement to refer data collection instrument
for board approval and informed consent was implied by participation. Requests were sent to
383 industry practitioners, and there were 230 (60%) replies from those with a variety of
responsibilities such as owners, consultants, contractors and subcontractors organisations.
Fellows and Liu (2015) indicated that “large number statistics require n  32; and a usable data
set of 100 responses for factor analysis;” given that 230 responses were received, it is asserted
that results from the sample can be used to make valid inference back to the population. The
requests were sent to construction industry practitioners in CMPs in Qatar, Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) countries and the MENA region with good knowledge of BIM, LC, LeanBIM,
IPD, LeanIPD and LeanIPD&GID (Farrell, 2016; Hasson et al., 2000; Grisham, 2009).
3.2.2 Data analysis statistical tools. Several statistical tools and methods were used in
analysing the data collected in course of the study. These include: Cronbach’s alpha (a)
reliability test; “Shapiro-Wilk” test of normality; mean score ranking and standard deviation
(SD); inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance (ANOVA), post hoc Tukey’s
tests and correlation analysis; percentage score analysis and factor analysis – principal
component analysis (PCA) – and FCs significant (Farrell, 2016; Fellows and Liu, 2015; Field,
2018; Fang et al., 2004; LeBreton and Senter, 2008). To accomplish research objectives IBMV
R

SPSSV Statistics (SPSS) Version 27, MicrosoftV Excel, MicrosoftV Word software were used.
R R R

Reliability testing. The Cronbach’s a reliability test is mainly used to verify internal
consistency or reliability of construct of the questionnaire items under the adopted Likert
scale of measurement. The range of Cronbach’s a reliability coefficient is from 0 to 1, it
implies that the larger the a-value, the better the reliability of the scale or the generated
result (Cronbach, 1951; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Hollander et al., 2014; Field, 2018).
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) recommended a minimum Cronbach’s a value of 0.70.
Cronbach’s a is computed from equation (2):
0 Xn 1
n @ s 2i A
a¼ 1 i¼1
(2)
n1 s 2X

where n is the number of variables, s 2i is the score variations on each variable and s 2X is the
total variance of the overall score.
 Mean score ranking and SD. The arithmetic mean is a measure of central tendency which Barriers to
indicates the average values of a set of figures [equation (3)]. Whilst SD [equation (4)] is a integrating
quantitative measure of the differences of each value from the mean and it is a measure of
variability. A low SD indicates that the values are close to the mean, whereas a high SD
lean
implies the data points are spread out over a large range of values. construction
X
x 795
X ¼ (3)
n

Equation
uX
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u ð xX Þ 2
t
SD ¼ (4)
n1

Equation where
X = mean score;
Rx = aggregated score of a set of values;
x = individual factor value;
n = number of values (this is, the number of respondents in this study); and
SD = standards deviation.
For the mean ranking, if two or more factors have the same mean value, the SD values are
used to rank them; the factor with the lower SD value is ranked higher, however, if they have
the same mean and SD value, they will have the same rank (Hollander et al., 2014; Field, 2018).
ANOVA test. The ANOVA is an inferential statistical tool used to determine whether
any statistically significant differences exist between the means of two or more independent
data groups. Parametric ANOVAs requires normally distributed data points (Field, 2018).
The post hoc Tukey’s test is regarded as a posteriori test because it is only needed to confirm
and reveal where the differences occurred between groups after an ANOVA analysis has
identified statistically significant different groups.
Percentage score analysis. A score on a 0–100-point scale. The percentage score for
questions and individual participants can be calculated according to (Farrell, 2016), for ease
of interpretation. On the seven-point scale of 0 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly
agree), very strongly disagree becomes 0% and very strongly agree becomes 100%. The
intermediate points are 1 = approximately 16%, 2 = 33%, 3 = 50%, 4 = 67% and 5 = 84%.
Similar principles are used in the multiple scoring scale. An overall low percentage score,
thus indicates disagreement and a high score indicates agreement.

3.3 Factor analysis

The study adopted factor analysis to reduce a large number of the barrier factors to a
relatively set of variables by investigating the interrelationships between the variables (Hair
et al., 2010). There are two types of factor analysis, PCA and Promax rotation method
(Thompson, 2004); the PCA was used in this study. According to Field (2018), factor analysis –
PCA – is a statistical technique used to identify the underlying clustered factors that define
the relationships amongst sets of interrelated variables; and can be used to interpret
“nonrelated clusters” of factors (Fang et al., 2004) and explain complex concepts (Thompson,
2004). Meanwhile, before subjecting the 28 barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs
JEDT to factor analysis, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted as recommended by Field
21,3 (2018) and Hair et al. (2010) who noted that these statistical method helps to eliminate the
existence of any multiplier effects amongst the variables. Hence, the correlations of these
factors were assessed. The PCA was conducted using the varimax rotation method (an
orthogonal rotation method) on the 28 non-correlated barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID
on CMPs from a sample of 230 responses.
796
3.4 Summary of respondent demographics
This section describes and analyses the study’s questionnaire survey form regarding the
respondents’ demographics. The respondents are from 23 countries working under diverse
organisational types. The majority of survey participants are from consultant organisations
(98, 42.61%), with the remaining respondents from contractors (72, 31.30%), clients (39,
16.96%) and academics (21, 9.23%). The diversity of the respondents’ groups allows the
capture of differing views from different perspectives. Moreover, on average, respondents
have more than 15 years of working experience in construction. This result explains the fact
that respondents not only have theoretical knowledge of operations in the AEC industry but
also they have brought such knowledge into practice. Respondents were classified
according to their career level: senior management (19, 8.26%), managers (56, 24.25%),
senior-level resident engineers or client’s consultants (97, 42.17%), mid-level engineering (35,
15.22%) and junior level engineering (23, 10.00%).
Meanwhile, respondents were asked about their level of awareness of BIM concepts and
processes; the findings revealed the level of knowledge of BIM as follows: experts (32,
13.91%); very knowledgeable (37, 16.09%); good knowledge (44, 19.31%); some knowledge
(78, 33.91%); little knowledge (23, 10.00%); and no knowledge (16, 6.96%). Figure 4 illustrates
the awareness of BIM, knowledge of LC and knowledge of IPD. Respondents were asked
about their level of awareness of LC practices; the findings revealed the level of knowledge of
LC as follows: experts (18, 7.83%); very knowledgeable (20, 8.70%); good knowledge (23,
10.00%); some knowledge (70, 30.43%); little knowledge (57, 24.78%); and no knowledge (42,
18.26%). Respondents were asked about their level of awareness of the IPD; the findings
revealed that the level of knowledge of IPD as follows: expert (13, 5.65%); very
knowledgeable (14, 6.09%); good knowledge (18, 7.83%); some knowledge (32, 13.91%); little
knowledge (81, 35.22%); and no knowledge (72, 31.30%). Results reflected that awareness of
BIM in the MENA region is higher than LC and LC awareness is higher than IPD knowledge.
Respondents were also asked about the extent of implementation and integration of BIM,
LC, LeanBIM, IPD and LeanIPD in their largest current project(s). Results reflected that BIM
adoption in the MENA region is higher than LC, whilst LC is still taking its first steps whilst
IPD is very slightly implemented in the MENA region. Results also revealed that LeanBIM
is slightly integrated, whilst LeanIPD integration is almost not present. Figure 5 illustrates
the extent of implementation/integration of BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD and LeanIPD on
respondent’s current project(s).
Respondents were classified according to the scale of their largest current project(s) to:
megaproject(s) (>US$1bn) (186, 80.87%), large-scale project(s) (>500m to 1bn) (24, 10.43%),
medium-scale project(s) (>100m to 500m) (10, 4.35%), small-scale project(s) (>50m to 100m) (5,
2.17%) and research or project(s) < 50m (5, 2.17%). The survey participants have considerable
professional experience in the construction industry with (65) 28.26% of the respondents
having more than 20 years working experience, the next (45) 19.57% of the respondents have
between 16 to 20 years working experience, whilst (58) 25.22% of the respondents have
between 11 to 15 years of experience, the next (47) 20.43% of the respondents have 5 to 10 years
of experience and (15) 6.52% of the respondents (15) have less than 5 years of experience.
 Barriers to
Awareness of BIM, knowledge of LC, and integrating
knowledge of IPD lean
construction

35.22%, 81
33.91%, 78
90

31.30%, 72
30.43%, 70
80
BIM
797
LC
70

24.78%, 57
IPD
RESPONDENT’S RATING (%, NO.)

60
19.13%, 44

18.26%, 42
50
16.09%, 37
13.91%, 32

13.91%, 32
40
10.00%, 23

10.00%, 23
8.70%, 20

30
7.83%, 18

7.83%, 18

6.96%, 16
6.09%, 14
5.65%, 13

20

10

0
(2) Very
(3) Good (4) Some (5) Lile (6) No
(1) Expert knowledgeabl
knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge
e
Figure 4.
BIM 32 37 44 78 23 16
LC 18 20 23 70 57 42
Awareness of BIM,
IPD 13 14 18 32 81 72
knowledge of LC and
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS (TOTAL NO. = 230) knowledge of IPD

Respondents were classified according to the type of the largest current project to:
infrastructure (101, 43.91%), metro/light rail transit (95, 41.30%), building (24, 10.43%),
industrial (4, 1.74%) and other types of projects (6, 2.61%). Respondents were classified
according to the type of contract or procurement on their largest current project(s) to: lump sum
contracts (26, 11.30%), measurement contracts (3, 1.30%), cost reimbursed contracts (3, 1.30%),
design and build procurement (190, 82.61%) and other types of contracts (8, 3.48%).
The lead researcher consulted with industry professionals via semi-structured face-to-
face interviews via video conference communications in the MENA region about GID
implementation. The research concluded that some international AEC organisations
working on megaproject are implementing GID through coordination with different
branches to create BIM models and architectural, structural and MEP designs and taking
advantages of the cost savings and improve project financials combining scalable costs and
time zone benefits. International AEC organisations are taking advantage of carrying out
designs in various branches in the MENA to distribute work and financial advantages. Also,
international AEC organisations try to take advantage of cost benefits and time zone
benefits in branches in Australia, India, the Philippines and GCC regions. For a decade, some
giant local AEC organisations have started to create branches overseas for mainly
JEDT
21,3 Extent of implementaon/integraon of BIM,
LC, LeanBIM, IPD, LeanIPD on respondent’s
current project(s)
9.13%, 21
23.04%, 53
798 (1) < 20% 33.04%, 76
41.74%, 96
47.83%, 110

12.17%, 28
16.09%, 37
(2) 21%-40% 18.70%, 43
25.22%, 58
29.13%, 67
RESPONDENT’S RATING

19.13%, 44
BIM
16.09%, 37
(3) 41%-60% 16.96%, 39 LC
15.22%, 35 LeanBIM
10.87%, 25
IPD
27.83%, 64 LeanIPD
20.87%, 48
(4) 61%-80% 13.48%, 31
10.00%, 23
6.96%, 16

31.74%, 73
23.91%, 55
(5) >80% to 100% 17.83%, 41
7.83%, 18
5.22%, 12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 5.
Extent of (5) >80% to 100% (4) 61%-80% (3) 41%-60% (2) 21%-40% (1) < 20%
implementation/ BIM 73 64 44 28 21
integration of BIM, LC 55 48 37 37 53
LC, LeanBIM, IPD LeanBIM 41 31 39 43 76
and LeanIPD on IPD 18 23 35 58 96
respondent’s current LeanIPD 12 16 25 67 110
project(s)
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS (NO = 230)

V
R
AutoCAD drafting and later BIM production in the Philippines, Egypt and some extended
locations in the GCC to attain cost savings. Research also revealed that attempts to take
advantages of GID are still at their start and focus on cost-saving in BIM and production
only, but does not yet reach implementation, nor integration between the three principles
BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD and LeanIPD on CMPs.

4. Global integrated delivery transformative initiatives and future of work

global initiatives
This section discusses GID strategy placements, FOW global initiatives proposed in this study.
4.1 Global integrated delivery strategy placements for LeanIPD&GID transformative Barriers to
initiatives integrating
The research conducted semi-structural interviews and focus group techniques with
industry professionals and academics to discuss pillars of GID strategy, GID strategy
lean
placements for LeanIPD&GID transformative initiatives and how to maximise benefits and construction
tackle challenges. The research introduced proposed GID strategy placements which consist
of 4 core foundations: GID basics, culture and language, tools and communication.
Enterprise business solution (EBS) harmonises systems, processes and tools. EBS may
799
establish a GID steering committee to manage the entire GID transformation processes. The
strategy brings people, processes and technology together in harmony to improve IPD. The
first GID strategy foundation is GID basics which invests heavily in work-sharing;
workshare takes time and effort, that require establishing clear expectation, building
relationships and encouraging and celebrating success. Culture and language are very
crucial; organisations should work to overcome language barriers, understand office
structures, respect holidays, culture and working hours of each LoB and establish a well-
defined strategy and common practice. Tools are an important pillar in GID strategy; project
stakeholders must agree on software and hardware as early as possible, uses collaborative
tools, use or develop tools that help streamline processes and or establish project templates
or Web-based applications. Communication is the fourth pillar of GID strategy and
organisations should establish consistency, structured meetings, use visual communication
between LoB via modern telecommunications, communicate clear and consistent
instructions and create action lists and task owners; this could be facilitated by developing a
dedicated GID Web-based application. Figure 6 demonstrates GID strategy placements.
Locations of GID centres and the geographic region or market sector that centres cover is
a strategic decision; this decision should be an outcome of work between the GID Steering
Committee and operation leads. There are three main considerations to select GID centres as
follows: the market sector and availability of talent in the centre, leverage of time zones to

GID basics Communicaon

» Workshare takes effort » Have consistent,
and me structured meengs
» Establish clear » Ulitse visual
expectaons communicaon
» Build relashipnships » Create acon lists and
» Celeberate success task owners
» Communicate clear and
concise instrucons

Tools Cultures/Language
» Agree on soware and » Work to overcome
hardware early langague barriers
» Ulise the collaborave » Understand office
tools structure
» Use tools that healp » Respect holidays and
streamline processes work hours
» Establish project » Establish common work
templates Figure 6.
GID strategy
placements
JEDT extend working hours with reasonable overlaps between GID centres and other business
21,3 units and financial consideration to combine scalable solutions for competitive pricing. GID
Steering Committees should balance these three items, which could be described as the
“Project Management Triangle” or “Triple Constraint” or the “Iron Triangle” (PMI, 2017).
Research through multiple interviews with industry professionals validated the GID
strategy and discussed the best location in the globe for business centres that balances the
800 triple constraints. Research puts Egypt and India at the heart of GID. This research divided
the globe into five lead regions as follows: America, Europe, Asia, MENA and Australia and
New Zealand. The research proposes five GID centres as the best fit that balance triple
constrains thus: Egypt, India, Poland, Malaysia and the Philippines. There may be other
locations on the globe that may balance triple constraints, so each AEC organisation should
investigate possible options. Egypt should be at the heart of the GID strategy of any
international AEC organisation due to its strategic location at the heart of the globe,
availability of qualified talent, other resources and competitive cost compared to the
Americas, Australia and Europe. Egypt is the largest country in the MENA due to its
political weight and population of more than 100 million people. Egypt has an excellent
record of achievement in CMPs. Proposed GID centres locations in Egypt could be Cairo,
Alexandria, Port Said, Mansoura, Minya and Aswan. India is the second-most populous
country in the world and the seventh-largest country by land area. India GID centres could
serve the Asia region, with the proposed locations in India being New Delhi, Mumbai,
Hyderabad, Kolkata, Pune and Bangalore. Poland could lead Europe; GID centres could be
in Krakow (traditional know as Cracow), Warsaw and Łodz (written in English as Lodz).
Malaysia in southeast Asia could have a GID centre in the national capital Kuala Lumpur. A
Philippines GID centre could be in Manila. Figure 7 demonstrates proposed global delivery
centres (GDC).

4.2 Future of work global initiatives

As the AEC industry continue its journey of transformation and growth, during the COVID-
19 pandemic, there is a reflection point to innovate and create new ways of working. There
are significant changes for enhancements of employees’ experience, prioritising their
professional development, well-being and benefits. During the COVID-19, many
organisations have made substantial changes to how people live and work. However, before

Figure 7.
Proposed GDC
locations [vector
artwork design using
AdobeV Illustrator
R

software]
that, experts understood the importance of technological advancements and globalisation Barriers to
and the impacts regarding the evolution in working systems. The FOW global initiatives is integrating
transforming the behaviours, technologies and physical and virtual spaces as workplaces
that influence working methods, creating modern, flexible work platforms tailored to
lean
people’s unique needs. To attract and retain world-class talent, the AEC industry must construction
provide flexibility: this includes a choice-based, work-anywhere approach in addition to
dynamic work environments that encourage and enable collaboration and connection. The
FOW rests on a foundation of three elements – culture, place and tools. Each of these 801
elements is vital to creating effective work environments as follows:

Culture of caring and inclusion is a foundation, organisation can celebrate the
differences that drive collective strength. There is no limit to who you can be and
what we can achieve.

Place determines identity, imbues culture and connects people. The FOW is people-
centric and requires places that prioritise work activities that are group focussed.

Tools workstream is dedicated to exploring and defining the digital infrastructure
to allow us to create, capture, track and deliver solutions across our markets and
lines of business to support an increasingly distributed workforce.

People-centric work platforms fully embrace the culture of inclusivity by giving people the
flexibility to choose how and where they want to work based on their needs, teams and
clients. Traditional offices were “invented” to solve a problem: organisations needed to host
several people in one place to enable both easy communication and access to documents and
other information. Today, the technology effectively addresses most of those needs, so it is
time for the purpose and function of offices to evolve along with that. Adopting a
combination of physical hardware and new interactive virtual platforms will allow people to
engage across organisations as never before and enhance the entire employee experience.
These tools will improve the ability to meaningfully engage with colleagues and clients
whilst helping to be more productive. This also reinforces the need to effectively store and
share knowledge across the enterprise. Figure 8 represents employee “work modes;
distributed by location and “the destinations” where it is a physical and virtual way to work.
In the past, people were often dedicated to individual workstations; whilst post-COVID-
19 thinking shifting the use of space to support groups and teams at a variety of
workstations that will be technology-enabled. This transformation journey will take several
years as the AEC industry progresses from traditional systems to FOW systems and
procedures. To achieve the aim of the research; the lead researchers consulted with various
teams working in the AEC industry such as architects, disciplines engineers and
practitioners, planners, IT specialists, focus groups across lines businesses and corporates
functions. FOW concept divided the type of work in AEC organisations into five “work
modes” ranges from active to focussed. The five “work modes” are structured as follows:
(1) Learning/mentoring. Group or one on one interactions, where employee training or
learning takes place.
(2) Group/team. Meeting place for group work, idea sharing and presentations.
(3) Social interaction. Acts as a hub for both employees and the surrounding
community fostering social connections.
(4) Decompress. Where an employee can unplug, unwind and seek respite from work.
(5) Focussed. Typically, individual heads-down tasks, where independent and deep
work occurs.
JEDT
21,3

802

Figure 8.
The destinations and
“work modes”
distributed by
locations

FOW concept designated some key office “destinations” associated with the five “work
modes” – the porch, the park, the classroom, the lab and the library. The porch is a welcoming,
inviting and safe landing point. A park is a place where you connect and socialise. The
classroom is for teaching, learning, mentoring and connecting. A lab is a place for innovation,
collaboration and ideation. Whilst the library is for heads down and individual work. The
destinations are a range of settings and choice-based environment, whilst the “work modes”
no longer need to be tied to a physical place and space type. The “destinations” are places that
are furnished with appropriate furniture to accommodate different “work modes”, such as
power and Wi-Fi connectivity. There should be storytelling and brand integration in each
space and modular components for flexibility, speed and sustainability. Acoustic and
absorptive materials should be used and other materials and products that support
sustainability goals. Tools are required to connect people virtually and physically to
collaborate, innovate, learn and engage. Tools will serve people and places, such as upon
entering “the porch” a contactless touch identification allows users to enter the space without
human contact. “The park” could be equipped with virtual reality capabilities, broadcasts
large gathering such as “town hall meetings”. Whilst “the lab” will be equipped with tools that
allow BIM, 3D design, full-scale virtual modelling supports real-time drawing, sharing, design
and manufacturing and computer programming and coding for robotic construction arms.
Furniture will offer a range of setting and choice-base environment. A conceptual floor
plan for focus work such as “the library” may be furnished with a combination of
community tables with monitors incorporated, semi-open booths with monitors, mobile Barriers to
tables with monitors and task chairs, height adjustable desks and task chairs and individual integrating
focus desks. Collaborative work space floor plans may be furnished with a combination of
lean
communal tables with benches and chairs, semi-open 4 persons railway carriage booths,
enclosed co-creations, full enclosed 1–2 person pods, semi-open 3–4 person technology- construction
enabled, movable touch screen monitors and banquette seating. The comfort of employees is
essential so specific considerations to office location is important, such as accessibility, gym/
803
shower facilities, proximity to clients, outdoor space, cafes, restaurants, gender-neutral
washrooms, lounges, parking and proximity to þ15 walkway network (pedestrian skywalk
systems, the system is so named because the skywalks are approximately 15 feet
[approximately 4.5 m] above street level).

5. Research analysis, findings and discussion of results

This section discusses the results of the data collected via the questionnaire surveys and the
findings of the statistical tools used in the study.

5.1 Reliability and normality testing

“Cronbach’s a” reliability test was engaged in assessing the questionnaire tools and scale
reliability to confirm that it gauges the accurate hypothesis and assesses its internal
consistency. The Cronbach’s a value for the survey was 0.958 and the scale is therefore
found to be highly internally reliable. Furthermore, the “Shapiro-Wilk” test for normality
was undertaken to work out the distribution of the data set and whether there is a normal
distribution or not. The significance value (p-value) of the Shapiro-Wilk test is greater than
0.05; the data complies with the normal distribution.

5.2 Descriptive statistical tests and percentage score analysis

Percentage score indicates a score on a 0–100-point scale. The percentage score for questions
and individual participants are calculated. Barrier 19 has an overall mean score of 5.24 given
a range of 0 to 6. The percentage score values of “all respondents” was calculated for all
barriers and included in Table 5; it ranges from 57.75% to 85.14%. The most significant
barriers resulted from percentage score analysis matches the outcomes of the method of
ranking the means used earlier. For example, barrier 19 overall percentage score is 85.14%
as the most significant barrier whilst barrier 4 overall percentage score is 57.75% as the
least significant barrier.
Mean scores – x “x-bar” or m “mu” – was used as a basis of ranking the 28 LeanIPD
barriers and if two or more elements had an identical mean score m , the SD – s “Greek letter
Sigma” – is used in the ranking. Descriptive analysis of “variance” – s 2 “Greek letter Sigma
Squared” – was also considered. Mean score, m , values of the survey for the 28 barriers to
integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs are indicated in Table 3 and categorised in FCs in
Table 4. For the 28 identified barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs, the overall
mean values range from 4.11 to 4.99 given a range of 0 to 6. Table 6 illustrates the
significance of barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs ranked in descending
order. Results show that “all respondents” rated the most significant challenges as follows:

B19: Lack of mandatory BIM and LC industry standards and regulations by the
governments.

B20: Lack of involvement and support of the governments.

B16: High cost of BIM software licenses.
JEDT Lean IPD&GID Consultants Contractors Clients Academics Overall
21,3 barriers m R m R m R m R m s % score R F Sig

B1 3.82 28 4.22 27 3.96 27 3.80 26 3.97 1.285 76.01 27 .971 0.119

B2 4.64 11 4.95 9 4.71 9 4.86 7 4.77 1.046 69.28 11 1.885 0.133
B3 4.24 18 4.65 18 4.37 18 4.53 14 4.42 1.149 80.07 18 2.601 0.053
B4 3.93 26 3.93 28 3.56 27 3.51 28 3.83 1.324 57.75 28 1.726 0.162
804 B5 4.91 4 5.08 2 4.86 3 5.10 3 4.97 0.958 65.00 4 1.025 0.382
B6 4.05 25 4.55 23 3.98 25 4.12 25 4.20 1.115 61.59 25 4.979 0.002
B7 3.92 27 4.32 26 3.91 26 3.71 27 4.03 1.230 70.51 26 3.067 0.029
B8 4.33 16 4.69 16 4.48 16 4.49 14 4.48 1.165 75.22 16 1.829 0.143
B9 4.61 12 4.94 9 4.59 13 4.77 9 4.72 1.064 66.01 12 2.189 0.090
B10 4.11 23 4.55 25 4.09 24 4.20 24 4.25 1.095 71.01 24 3.658 0.013
B11 4.38 15 4.71 15 4.44 17 4.53 14 4.51 1.141 67.68 15 1.692 0.170
B12 4.15 22 4.59 22 4.26 22 4.49 22 4.34 1.100 71.67 22 3.518 0.016
B13 4.39 14 4.75 14 4.55 14 4.53 14 4.54 1.114 68.41 14 1.986 0.117
B14 4.18 20 4.62 20 4.33 20 4.53 14 4.37 1.120 76.30 20 3.188 0.025
B15 4.70 10 4.93 11 4.71 9 4.82 7 4.78 1.024 82.17 10 1.094 0.353
B16 5.07 3 5.17 2 4.99 3 5.06 3 5.08 0.828 66.74 3 0.588 0.623
B17 4.13 23 4.57 23 4.16 23 4.33 23 4.29 1.096 81.52 23 3.519 0.016
B18 4.99 6 5.17 5 4.96 7 5.10 2 5.05 0.862 83.62 5 1.046 0.373
B19 5.27 1 5.18 2 5.23 1 5.26 1 5.24 0.621 85.14 1 0.466 0.707
B20 5.17 2 5.21 1 5.07 2 5.06 5 5.16 0.753 76.52 2 0.551 0.648
B21 4.74 9 4.93 11 4.71 9 4.73 11 4.79 1.010 78.55 9 0.879 0.453
B22 4.94 5 4.98 6 4.79 5 4.65 6 4.89 1.047 70.22 6 0.936 0.424
B23 4.29 17 4.68 17 4.51 14 4.53 14 4.47 1.146 77.90 17 2.316 0.077
B24 4.80 8 5.01 8 4.79 8 4.77 11 4.86 0.963 74.49 8 1.139 0.334
B25 4.54 13 4.92 11 4.68 9 4.61 13 4.69 1.072 68.91 13 2.433 0.066
Table 5. B26 4.22 19 4.63 19 4.37 18 4.53 14 4.40 1.135 68.33 19 2.722 0.045
Barriers to B27 4.18 20 4.62 20 4.29 21 4.57 14 4.37 1.127 79.49 21 3.354 0.020
B28 4.91 7 5.06 6 4.90 6 4.77 9 4.95 0.946 76.01 7 0.865 0.460
integrating Average percentage scoring = 72.52
LeanIPD&GID on
CMPs: inter-group Notes: m = mean; R = rank; s = standard deviation; Sig = significance “p”; F = ANOVA F test “group
comparison means significance”

B5: Resistance of industry to change from traditional working practices.

B18: High initial investment in sta training costs of BIM.

5.3 Inferential statistical tests based on organisational setup

To further investigate differences in perception of respondents (consultants, contractors,
clients and academics), an ANOVA was used to analyse the 28 identified barriers to
integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs. Siegel and Castellan (1988) recommended that a post
hoc Tukey’s test be conducted on factors that are significant at p < 0.05.
The ANOVA analysis conducted on the results at the significance level (p) # 5% showed
some significant agreement in the opinions of respondents from diverse organisational
setups on all factors such as “B26: low level of research in industry and academia” [F(26,
229) = 3.658 p = 0.020]; “B10: immature dispute resolution mechanisms for BIM, LC and
LeanBIM adoption” [F(10, 229) = 1.692 p = 0.013]; “B6: societal reluctance to change from
traditional values or cultures” [F(6, 229) = 4.979 p = 0.002]; “B14: user-unfriendliness of BIM
analysis software programs” [F(14, 229) = 3.188 p = 0.025]; “B12: fragmented nature of
Code Significance of barriers to integrating LeanIPD&GID Ranking
Barriers to
integrating
B19 Lack of mandatory BIM and LC industry standards and regulations by governments 1 lean
B20 Lack of involvement and support of governments 2
B16 High costs of BIM software licenses 3 construction
B5 Resistance of industry to change from traditional working practices 4
B18 High initial investment in sta training costs of BIM 5
B22 High training and implementation costs and time of BIM 6 805
B28 Shortage of cross-field specialists in BIM, LC and LeanBIM 7
B24 Lack of senior management commitment and clients demand 8
B21 Lack of supporting LC analysis tools and software 9
B15 Lack of a well-established BIM, LC and LeanBIM workflows 10
B2 Lack of legal framework, and contract uncertainties of BIM and LC 11
B9 Organisational challenges, project strategies and policies 12
B25 Difficulty in adapting to BIM technologies and processes 13
B13 Negative attitudes towards data sharing 14
B11 Lack of awareness and collaboration amongst project stakeholders 15
B8 Lack of initiatives and hesitance on future investments 16
B23 Intellectual properties rights, associated disputed and risks 17
B3 Incompatibility issues between various software packages 18
B26 Low level of research in industry and academia 19
B14 User-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programmes 20
B27 Difficulty in allocating and sharing LC, BIM and LeanBIM risks 21 Table 6.
B12 Fragmented nature of construction industry 22 Significance of
B17 Ambiguous economic benefits 23
barriers to
B10 Immature dispute resolution mechanisms for BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption 24
B6 Societal reluctance to change from traditional values or cultures 25 integration of
B7 Lack of insurance applicable to BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption 26 LeanIPD&GID on
B1 Increased workload for model development 27 CMPs ranked in
B4 Varied market readiness across organisations and geographic locations 28 descending order

construction industry” [F(12, 229) = 3.518 p = 0.016] amongst others (Table 5). Moreover,
based on the post hoc Tukey’s test evaluation of significant barriers, 17 barriers were found
to be more important (p > 0.05). These include “B11: lack of awareness and collaboration
amongst project stakeholders” with a moderate significance (p = 0.170) of which the
respondents from the private clients (M = 4.25, SD = 1.141).

5.4 Factor analysis for factor clusters of LeanIPD&GID integration barriers

The results of the factor analysis are shown in Table 7, whilst the column “factor loading”
illustrates the total variance explained by each factor. Field (2018) recommended that the
sample size must be considered sufficient in the ratio of 1:5 (number of variables:sample
size) which the current study fulfilled. That is, 28 barrier factors multiplied by 5 samples
required for each factor = at least 140 samples needed to proceed with the factor analysis.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) tests for sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
(BTS) was used to examine the appropriateness of PCA for factor extraction (Field, 2018;
Fang et al., 2004).
The KMO value for the study’s factor analysis is 0.926, which shows an “excellent”
degree of common variance (Field, 2018; Green and Salkind, 2016; Siegel and Castellan,1988)
and above the acceptable threshold of 0.50 (Field, 2018). More so, according to Field (2018)
and Malhotra and Dash (2019), a KMO value close to 1 indicates that a compact pattern of
correlations and that the PCA will generate distinct and reliable clusters. The BTS analyses
JEDT
Percentage of Cumulative
21,3 FCs of barriers to integrating Factor variance percentage of
Code LeanIPD&GID Meanloading Eigenvalue explained variance explained

FC1 Technical-related barriers 4.53 13.724 49.015 49.015

B1 Increased workload for model 0.655
development
806 B3 Incompatibility issues between 0.879
various software packages
B14 User-unfriendliness of BIM analysis 0.909
software programmes
B16 High cost of BIM software licenses 0.35
B21 Lack of supporting LC analysis tools 0.672
and software
FC2 Attitude-related barriers 4.62 5.335 19.055 68.07
B6 Societal reluctance to change from 0.849
traditional values or culture
B11 Lack of awareness and collaboration 0.866
amongst project stakeholders
B20 Lack of involvement and support of 0.418
governments
FC3 Education and knowledge related 4.70 2.003 7.154 75.224
barriers
B15 Lack of a well-established BIM, LC 0.891
and LeanBIM workflows
B25 Difficulty in adapting to BIM 0.852
technology and processes
B26 Low level of research in industry and 0.734
academia
B28 Shortage of cross-field specialists in 0.76
BIM, LC and LeanBIM
FC4 Legal barriers 4.52 1.343 4.798 80.022
B2 Lack of legal framework, and 0.649
contract uncertainties of BIM and LC
B7 Lack of insurance applicable to BIM, 0.758
LC and LeanBIM adoption
B10 Immature dispute resolution 0.897
mechanisms for BIM, LC and
LeanBIM adoption
B19 Lack of mandatory BIM and LC 0.135
industry standards and regulations
by governments
B23 Intellectual properties rights, 0.848
associated disputed and risks
B27 Difficulty in allocating and sharing 0.919
LC, BIM and LeanBIM risks
FC5 Project objectives related barriers 4.65 0.989 4.798 83.553
B8 Lack of initiative and hesitance on 0.859
Table 7.
future investments
Factor structure for B9 Organisational challenges, project 0.854
the PCA analysis of strategy and policy
barriers to B13 Negative attitude towards data 0.913
integration of sharing
LeanIPD&GID on (continued)
CMPs
 Barriers to
Percentage of Cumulative
FCs of barriers to integrating Factor variance percentage of integrating
Code LeanIPD&GID Meanloading Eigenvalue explained variance explained lean
B24 Lack of senior management 0.664
construction
commitment and clients demand
FC6 Market-related barriers 4.56 0.652 2.329 85.882
B4 Varied market readiness across 0.365 807
organisations and geographic
locations
B5 Resistance of industry to change 0.803
from traditional working practices
B12 Fragmented nature of construction 0.679
industry
B17 Ambiguous economic benefits 0.66
B18 High initial investment in sta 0.758
training costs of BIM
B22 High training and implementation 0.781
cost and time of BIM Table 7.

revealed a substantial test statistic value (Chi-square = 9304.945) and a small significance
value (p = 0.000, degrees of freedom (df) = 378) which per Field (2018) implies that the
correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Therefore, as the various requirements needed
to proceed with a factor analysis have been met, the PCA can be applied in this study for
further investigation and discussion. This ensures the research can be conducted with better
reliability and confidence. Six underlying clusters factors were extracted using PCA which
represent 85.882% of the total variance in responses (Table 7) which is above the minimum
threshold of 60% (Hair et al., 2010; Malhotra and Dash, 2019).
The 28 barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs are represented in one of the 6
underlying grouped factors and all the factor loadings of each barrier factors are close to 0.5
or higher as suggested by Malhotra and Dash (2019). According to Hair et al. (2010), the
higher the value of the factor loading of an individual factor (which is a maximum of 1.0), the
higher the significance of the factor to the underlying clustered factors. The factor loading
values also reflect how each factor contributes to its underlying clustered factors (Hair et al.,
2010; Fang et al., 2004). The findings reveal a consistent and reliable factor loading and
interpretation of the extracted individual factor.

5.5 Discussion of key factor clusters after factor analysis

The FCs are analysed in Figure 9 and ranked in descending order of significance towards
interpreting the individual factors linked to them. An identifiable and collective label is
attached to each grouped factor of high correlation coefficients; which are themselves a
cluster of individual factors. The FCs are ranked using their factor scale rating. The factor
scale rating is the ratio of the mean of individual factors within a cluster divided by the
number of factors in the cluster. Discussion of the key FCs focusses on the most significant
FCs. Also, one of the purposes of using the factor scale rating analysis is to highlight more
significant FCs with relatively higher rating values for further discussion. The FCs
representing the relationship amongst the underlying factors are designated with
identifiable and collective labels to aid their description (Thompson, 2004). A metric known
as factor scale rating was used to rank the FCs in descending order of relevance (Hair et al.,
2010). The factor scale rating (Table 7) adds up the mean scores of each underlying factor of
JEDT Ranking results of the factor scale rang
21,3 for the key factor clusters
4 40
4.40 4 45
4.45 4 50
4.50 4
4.55 4 60
4.60 4.65 4.70 4.75

Factor 4 - Legal barriers 4.52

808 Factor 1 - Technical-related barriers 4.53

Factor 6 - Market-related barriers 4.56

Factor 2 - Atude-related barriers 4.62

Factor 5 - Project objecves related

4.65
barriers

Factor 3 - Educaon and knowledge

4.70
related barriers

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Factor 3 -
Factor 5 -
Educaon Factor 2 - Factor 6 - Factor 1 -
Project Factor 4 -
and Atude- Market- Technical-
Figure 9. knowledge
objecves
related related related
Legal
related barriers
Factor scale rating related
barriers
barriers barriers barriers
ranking for the FCs of barriers
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6
barriers to integration
Factor Scale Rang 4.70 4.65 4.62 4.56 4.53 4.52
of LeanIPD&GID
on CMPs Rank Factor Scale Rang

each cluster and divides the total mean score by the number of the underlying factor
(Thompson, 2004).
5.5.1 Education and knowledge-related barriers. FC 3, this cluster consisting of four
barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs (B15, B25, B26 and B28), is the highest-
rated clustered factor with a factor scale rating of M = 4.70. The cluster is related to the
experience and knowledge of construction organisation staff, the steep learning curve,
inadequate understanding of smart, sustainable practices processes and the shortage of
cross-field specialists in smart, sustainable practices. Whilst, Evans and Farrell (2020) rated
the “education, knowledge and learning” class of barriers as the third class of significance
after “legal” and “technical and software financing”. Gu and London (2010) observed
through their study that little or no attention has been placed on the training of construction
professionals to improve their understanding and skills in the adoption of new technologies.
Hence, professional bodies and construction firms should collaborate to improve the
skillsets and capacity of their members and staff in smart, sustainable practices. Aibinu and
Venkatesh (2014) noted that rapid technological change has reduced the ability of the
workforce to adapt and that despite the benefits of these concepts, the current skills shortage
in the industry has reduced the potential positive impact on construction processes.
Factors in this cluster are related to insufficient experience and lack of knowledge on
approaches of BIM and LC and IPD, whereas a barrier factor relates to the lack of experience
and specialism in software and technologies used in the simulation of LC parameters and
creation of BIM models. Hence, there is a demand for corporate organisations and
professionals to increase the aptitude, capability and quality of LC, BIM and IPD industry
practitioners in the construction industry. Also, the establishment of capacity development Barriers to
and opportunity for skill programmes, such as seminars, extensive training and workshops, integrating
where industry practitioners can share experience and information in these two initiatives to lean
assist in the mitigation of obstacles. Moreover, the government can support this initiative by
training its staff in construction-related departments and parastatals and providing
construction
financial subsidies to private firms in the training of their workforce.
5.5.2 Project objectives-related barriers. FC 5, comprises of four barriers to integration of 809
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs with a factor scale rating (B8, B9, B13 and B24) of M = 4.65. Project
objectives-related factors are related to construction firms’ hesitance to plan for future
investments, challenges related to organisational policies and strategies, fragmented nature
of the industry and the difficulties in implementing BIM and LC in CMPs. The BIM
concepts, LC and IPD principles, despite its revolutionary effects on the built environment
still requires the integration of human efforts and strategies which when lacking, can
amplify its non-implementation in construction projects. The lack of investment in most
organisations has affected their adoption of BIM, LC and IPD practices. Evans et al. (2020a,
2020b) addressed the uncollaborative environment nature of the industry and ineffective
organisation strategies that have hindered the implementation of these concepts. Olawumi
et al. (2018) revealed the lack of investment in most organisations, which has affected the
adoption of smart, sustainable practices. Anton and Díaz (2014) described the construction
industry as a project-based sector. The availability of BIM, LC and IPD related software and
data is pivotal to the decision-making process of project stakeholders; whilst there is a need
for the government and professional bodies to subsidise the cost of procuring related BIM,
LC and IPD practices software to aid its adoption. Overall, the need for the development of
sound and effective strategies by construction firms and stakeholders towards the adoption
of smart, sustainable practices cannot be over emphasised.
5.5.3 Attitude-related barriers. FC 2 comprises of three barriers to integration of
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs with a factor scale rating (B6, B11 and B20) of M = 4.62. Attitude-
related barriers are related to stakeholder attitude towards the adoption and integration of
BIM, LC and IPD practices. The resistance to change of construction organisations and key
stakeholders in the built environment is a key impediment to the implementation of
innovative concepts such as BIM, LC and IPD in CMPs. This has led to a disproportionate
level of implementation and integration of BIM, LC and IPD practices in CMPs. Resistance to
change has negatively impacted the skills, knowledge and experience of project
stakeholders as regard BIM, LC and IPD practices and its adoption in a built environment.
Hence, for the built environment to experience a full implementation of these concepts in
CMPs, a significant change in stakeholders’ attitude and perception is needed to increase the
uptake of BIM, LC and IPD practices. Despite numerous advantages of implementing BIM
and adopting LC in the built environment, there has been too little development in its
implementation in the MENA region. It is essential to bear in mind that a lack of senior
management and client commitment and the perpetual barrier of resistance to change still
plays an important role in hindering the integration of BIM, LC and IPD initiatives.
Therefore, this research recommends that construction key stakeholders such as senior
management, clients, main contractors and engineering firms diminish their resistance and
adopt dynamic and positive attitudes to change in the construction industry. Owners, clients
and real-estate developers of CMPs are advised to be proactive in adopting BIM and LC
approaches in their projects to improve LeanBIM synergy and to integrate LeanBIM with
IPD towards GID.
JEDT 6. Conclusion
21,3 The AEC industry encounters substantial risks and challenges in its evolution towards
sustainable development. International businesses, multinational AEC organisations,
technical professional, architecture, engineering, construction, project and portfolio
management organisations face global connectivity challenges between business units,
especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, to manage CMPs. That raises the need to
810 manage global connectivity as a main strategic goal of global organisations. This research
investigates barriers to integrating LC practices and IPD on CMPs towards the GID
transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational AEC organisations. Although
BIM, LC and IPD principles are being increasingly adopted in the USA and other parts of the
world, the integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs in the MENA region has not begun.
Despite the numerous advantages that integration of BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD, LeanIPD and
LeanIPD&GID provides, no sign of its implementation nor integration can be identified in
the MENA region. Moreover, no extensive research has been completed in this region. A
total of 28 barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs were identified via a desktop
literature review and factors outlined in a questionnaire which was ranked by 230
respondents from 23 countries who have direct and extensive experience in the construction
industry. The survey participants came from diverse professional disciplines and
organisational backgrounds, which lends credence to the data collected. The study
conducted a comparative assessment of perceptions of study participants based on their
organisational backgrounds towards establishing patterns of difference.
This research introduced GID as transformative initiatives in contemporary organisations
and FOW global initiatives. The research defined, redefined and conceptualised concepts
have been introduced in this research from an integrative perspective, such as GID, IPD, LC
practices, BIM, LeanBIM, LeanIPD, LeanIPD&GID, governance of portfolio, programmes,
projects, CMPs and stakeholders. The most significant barriers to integration of
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs were “lack of mandatory BIM and LC industry standards and
regulations by governments”, “lack of involvement and support of governments”, “high costs
of BIM software licenses”, “resistance of industry to change from traditional working
practices” and “high initial investment in sta training costs of BIM”. Whilst least significant
critical barriers were “varied market readiness across organisations and geographic
locations”, “increased workload for model development”, “lack of insurance applicable to
BIM, LC and LeanBIM adoption”, “societal reluctance to change from traditional values or
cultures”, and “immature dispute resolution mechanisms for BIM, LC and LeanBIM
adoption”. Research then clustered barriers to integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs to six-
FCs. PCA concluded that the most significant FCs were education and knowledge-related
barriers, project objectives-related barriers and attitude-related barriers.
A profound research finding is that awareness of BIM in the MENA region is higher than
LC and LC awareness is higher than IPD knowledge. BIM adoption in the MENA region is
higher than LC, whilst LC is still taking its first steps. IPD is only slightly implemented in
the MENA region. LeanBIM is slightly integrated, whilst LeanIPD integration is almost not
present. The research concludes that some international AEC organisations working on
megaproject are partially implementing GID through coordination with different branches
to create BIM models and discipline designs such as architecture, structural and MEP
designs and taking advantages of the cost savings and improve project financials
combining scalable costs and time zone benefits. International AEC organisations carry out
the design in various branches in the MENA to distribute work and financial advantages.
International AEC organisations use branches in Australia, India, the Philippines and the
GCC regions. Another profound research finding is that for a decade, some giant local AEC
organisations have started to create branches overseas for mainly AutoCADV drafting and
R
Barriers to
later BIM production in the Philippines, Egypt and extended locations in the GCC. The integrating
research revealed that attempts to take advantage of GID are still at the early stages of
development and focus on cost-saving in BIM and production only, but do not yet reach
lean
implementation, nor integration between the three principles BIM, LC, LeanBIM, IPD and construction
LeanIPD on CMPs.
811
7. Recommendations
Accordingly, the research comes to the following recommendations to industry key
stakeholders, clients, governments and key decision makers to tackle barriers to integration
of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs:

Governments to provide and issue incentives, policies, regulations or legal
frameworks to encourage the AEC industry to adopt and integrate BIM, LC, IPD
towards LeanIPD&GID;

Governments raise client awareness of benefits and strategies to integrate LeanIPD
towards GID amongst key stakeholders;

Governments and institutions to raise awareness to organisation’s senior
management and clients about commitment to an IPD, LeanIPD, approaches and
GID, LeanIPD&GID initiatives;

Governments and key industry stakeholders to raise construction industry
awareness about the advantages of the integration of LeanIPD&GID to minimise
the resistance of industry to change from traditional procurement to LeanIPD&GID;

Governments to adopt the integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs and adopt pilot
projects in each country to provide successful examples of the benefits gained
through the adoption of LeanIPD; and

Governments to provide training programmes, technologies, infrastructure and
resources to enhance the technical skills of architects, design and construction
managers for managing challenges of integrating LeanIPD&GID on CMPs.

The research identified the current underlying gap of literature of the integrative nature of
adoption of BIM, LC and IPD concepts and integration of LeanBIM, LeanIPD on CMPs. This
research introduced GID as transformative initiatives and FOW global initiatives in
contemporary organisations and investigated integration between LeanIPD on CMPs towards
GID transformative initiatives in contemporary multinational AEC organisations. More
research in this domain is still required, and a framework for managing barriers to integrating
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs is essential to create systems in which continuous improvement can
be achieved in a well-organised and efficient way and conceptual combination developed to
promote performance improvements. The research addresses barriers to integration of
LeanIPD&GID on CMPs in the MENA region as one area and focussed on a comparison
between inter groups of contractual parties, i.e. consultants, contractors, clients and academics.
Academics may carry out studies and divide the MENA region to more manageable divisions
such as country by country or to GCC countries, Egypt and North Africa or carrying out
comparative studies of challenges integration of LeanIPD&GID on CMPs in GCC and Egypt.
The GID transformative initiatives and FOW global initiatives are essential elements of
the LeanIPD&GID concept. Egypt should be at the heart of the GID strategies of
international AEC organisations. The construction industry in Egypt has had long periods
of growth due to stability, development, comprehensive renaissance, safety and security.
JEDT Egypt is characterised by talented experience in many industries and trades and has
21,3 potential for stable investments. Considering GID transformation, due to its strategic
geographic location, availability of talents and resources, especially AEC engineering and a
good record of achievement in CMPs staring from the Pyramids of Giza and the giant and
impressive temples of Medinet Habu, Kom Ombo, Philae, Edfu, Seti I, Hatshepsut, Luxor
Abu Simble, Karnak to the contemporary CMPs of the Suez Canal expansion, Dabaa Nuclear
812 Power Plant, Bernice Military Base, Concentrated Solar Power plants and many other
megaprojects. For the reasons mentioned above, this research recommends that Egypt is
placed at the heart of the GID transformative initiatives.

References
Abanda, F.H., Vidalakis, C., Oti, A.H. and Tah, J.H. (2015), “A critical analysis of building information
modelling systems used in construction projects”, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 90,
pp. 183-201.
Abdirad, H. (2017), “Metric-based BIM implementation assessment: a review of research and practice”,
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 52-78.
Ahankoob, A., Manley, K., Hon, C. and Drogemuller, R. (2018), “The impact of building information
modelling (BIM) maturity and experience on contractor absorptive capacity”, Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 363-380.
Ahn, Y.H., Kwak, Y.H. and Suk, S.J. (2016), “Contractors’ transformation strategies for adopting building
information modeling”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 05015005.
AIA/AIA CC American Institute of Architects and AIA California Council (2007), “Integrated project
delivery: a guide”, available at: www.aia.org/resources/64146-integrated-project-delivery-a-
guide.pdf (accessed 8 February 2021).
Aibinu, A. and Venkatesh, S. (2014), “Status of BIM adoption and the BIM experience of cost
consultants in Australia”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice,
Vol. 140 No. 3, p. 04013021.
Anton, L.Á. and Díaz, J. (2014), “Integration of LCA and BIM for sustainable construction”,
International journal of social Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 1378-1382.
Azhar, S., Khalfan, M. and Maqsood, T. (2012), “Building information modelling (BIM): now and
beyond”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 15-28.
Ballard, H.G. (2000), “The last planner system of production control”, University of Birmingham, Ph.D,
available at: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/4789/
Bernard, H.R. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, London,
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bradley, A., Li, H., Lark, R. and Dunn, S. (2016), “BIM for infrastructure: an overall review and
constructor perspective”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 71, pp. 139-152.
Bramante, J., Frank, R. and Dolan, J. (2010), “IBM 2000 to 2010: continuously transforming the
corporation while delivering performance”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 35-43, doi:
10.1108/10878571011042096.
Brown, R.D. and Hauenstein, N.M. (2005), “Interrater agreement reconsidered: an alternative to the rwg
indices”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-184.
Bui, N., Merschbrock, C. and Munkvold, B.E. (2016), “A review of building information modelling for
construction in developing countries”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 164, pp. 487-494.
Cao, D., Wang, G., Li, H., Skitmore, M., Huang, T. and Zhang, W. (2015), “Practices and effectiveness of
building information modelling in construction projects in China”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 49, pp. 113-122.
Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamon-Jaramillo, S., Aristizabal-Monsalve, P., Vasquez-Hernandez, A. and Barriers to
Botero, L.F.B. (2019), “Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: positive impacts
of lean practices over sustainability during construction phase”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
integrating
Vol. 234. lean
Chan, C.T. (2014), “Barriers of implementing BIM in construction industry from the designers’ construction
perspective: a Hong Kong experience”, Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 24-40.
Chan, H.L., Chan, D.W. and Lord, W. (2011), “Key risk factors and risk mitigation measures for target 813
cost contracts in construction – a comparison between the West and the East”, Construction Law
Journal.
Chan, D.W., Olawumi, T.O. and Ho, A.M. (2019), “Perceived benefits of and barriers to building
information modelling (BIM) implementation in construction: the case of Hong Kong”, Journal of
Building Engineering, Vol. 25, p. 100764.
Chen, K., Lu, W., Peng, Y., Rowlinson, S. and Huang, G.Q. (2015), “Bridging BIM and building: from a
literature review to an integrated conceptual framework”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1405-1416.
Cochran, W.G. (2007), Sampling Techniques, New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Dave, B., Koskela, L., Kiviniemi, A., Owen, R.L. and Tzortzopoulis Fazenda, P. (2013), “Implementing
lean in construction: lean construction and BIM-CIRIA guide C725”, CIRIA – Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, London.
Demirkesen, S. (2020), “Measuring impact of lean implementation on construction safety performance: a
structural equation model”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 412-433.
Ding, Z., Zuo, J., Wu, J. and Wang, J.Y. (2015), “Key factors for the BIM adoption by architects: a
China study”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 732-748.
Dubey, R. and Gunasekaran, A. (2015), “Exploring soft TQM dimensions and their impact on firm
performance: some exploratory empirical results”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 371-382.
Elhendawi, A., Omar, H., Elbeltagi, E. and Smith, A. (2019), “Practical approach for paving the way to
motivate BIM non-users to adopt BIM”, International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 01-22.
Evans, M. and Farrell, P. (2020), “Barriers to integrating building information modelling (BIM) and lean
construction practices on construction mega-projects: a delphi study”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2.
Evans, M. and Farrell, P. (2021), “A strategic framework managing challenges of integrating lean
construction and integrated project delivery on construction megaprojects towards global
integrated delivery transformative initiatives in multinational organisations”, Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology.
Evans, M., Farrell, P., Elbeltagi, E., Mashali, A. and Dion, H. (2021b), “Key drivers to integrating lean
construction and integrated project delivery (IPD) on construction mega-projects towards future
of work (FOW) global initiatives in multinational engineering organisations”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal.
Evans, M., Farrell, P. and Mashali, A. (2020a), “Influence of partnering on stakeholder’s behaviour
in construction mega-projects”, The Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 116-137.
Evans, M., Farrell, P., Mashali, A. and Zewein, W. (2021a), “Analysis of partnering agreements
associated with BIM adoption on stakeholder’s behaviour in construction mega-projects”,
International Journal of BIM and Engineering Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
JEDT Evans, M., Farrell, P., Mashali, A. and Zewein, W. (2020c), “Critical success factors for adopting
building information modelling (BIM) and lean construction practices on construction
21,3 mega-projects: a delphi survey”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2.
Evans, M., Farrell, P., Mashali, A. and Zewein, W. (2021a), “Analysis framework for the interactions
between building information modelling (BIM) and lean construction on construction mega-
projects”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
814 Fang, D.P., Xie, F., Huang, X.Y. and Li, H. (2004), “Factor analysis-based studies on construction
workplace safety management in China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 43-49.
Farrell, P. (2016), Writing Built Environment Dissertations and Projects: Practical Guidance and
Examples, Oxford, John Wiley and Sons.
Fellows, R.F. and Liu, A.M. (2015), Research Methods for Construction, Oxford, John Wiley and Sons
Field, A. (2018), Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed., London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014), “What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 6-19.
Forbes, L.H. and Ahmed, S.M. (2010), Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated
Practices, Boca Raton, FL, CRC press.
Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Azhar, S., Efimova, O. and
Raahemifar, K. (2017), “Building information modelling (BIM) uptake: clear benefits,
understanding its implementation, risks and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 75, pp. 1046-1053.
Giel, B. and Issa, R.R. (2016), “Framework for evaluating the BIM competencies of facility owners”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 04015024.
Green, S.B. and Salkind, N.J. (2016), Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh, 8th ed., New York, NY,
Pearson.
Grisham, T. (2009), “The delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 112-130.
Gu, N. and London, K. (2010), “Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 988-999.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: International
Version, NJ, Pearson.
Hamzeh, F., Kallassy, J., Lahoud, M. and Azar, R. (2016), “The first extensive implementation of lean
and LPS in Lebanon: results and reflections”, In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Boston, EE. UU, Boston, MA, sect.6, pp. 33-42.
Hamzeh, F., Rached, F., Hraoui, Y., Karam, A.J., Malaeb, Z., El Asmar, M. and Abbas, Y. (2019),
“Integrated project delivery as an enabler for collaboration: a Middle East perspective”, Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 334-347.
Hamzeh, F., Saab, I., Tommelein, I. and Ballard, G. (2015), “Understanding the role of ‘tasks
anticipated’ in lookahead planning through simulation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 49,
pp. 18-26.
Harper, C.M., Molenaar, K.R. and Cannon, J.P. (2016), “Measuring constructs of relational contracting in
construction projects: the owner’s perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 142 No. 10, p. 04016053.
Harrell, M.C. and Bradley, M.A. (2009), “Data collection methods: semi-structured interviews and focus
groups”, Santa Monica, Rand National Defense Research Institution, available at: www.rand.org/
content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR718.pdf (accessed 28 February 2021)
Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000), “Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique”,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1008-1015.
Hollander, M., Wolfe, D.A. and Chicken, E. (2014), Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 3rd ed., NJ, John Barriers to
Wiley and Sons.
integrating
Hong, J., Shen, G.Q., Li, Z., Zhang, B. and Zhang, W. (2018), “Barriers to promoting prefabricated
construction in China: a cost–benefit analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 649-660.
lean
Howell, G.A. and Koskela, L. (2000), “Reforming project management: the role of lean construction”,
construction
Proceedings of the 8th annual conference of the international group for lean construction,
Brighton.
Hsu, K.M., Hsieh, T.Y. and Chen, J.H. (2015), “Legal risks incurred under the application of BIM in Taiwan”,
815
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Forensic Engineering, Vol. 168 No. 3, pp. 127-133.
IBM and the Lisbon Council (2007), “Living longer, living better”, IBM global social segment report,
IBM, Armonk, New York, NY.
IBM100 (2006), “The globally integrated enterprise”, available at: www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/
us/en/icons/globalbiz/transform/ (accessed 1 February 2021).
Ibrahim, A.R.B., Roy, M.H., Ahmed, Z. and Imtiaz, G. (2010a), “An investigation of the status of the
Malaysian construction industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 294-308.
Ibrahim, A.R.B., Roy, M.H., Ahmed, Z.U. and Imtiaz, G. (2010b), “Analyzing the dynamics of the global
construction industry: past, present and future”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 232-252.
Jin, R., Hancock, C.M., Tang, L. and Wanatowski, D. (2017), “BIM investment, returns, and risks in
China’s AEC industries”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 12,
p. 04017089.
Koskela, L. (2000), An Exploration towards a Production Theory and Its Application to Construction,
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland.
Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2002), “The foundations of lean construction”, in
Best, R. and de Valence, G. (Eds), Design and Construction: Building in Value, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, Elsevier, Vol. 291, pp. 211-226.
Koskela, L., Ferrantelli, A., Niiranen, J., Pikas, E. and Dave, B. (2019), “Epistemological explanation of
lean construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 145 No. 2,
p. 04018131.
LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008), “Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 815-852.
Liker, J.K. (2004), Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer,
New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Lubowe, D., Cipollari, J. and Antoine, P. (2009), “A comprehensive strategy for globally integrated
operations”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 22-30, doi: 10.1108/10878570910986452.
Maerki, H.U. (2008), “The globally integrated enterprise and its role in global governance”, Corporate
Governance, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 368-373, doi: 10.1108/14720700810899112.
Malhotra, N.K. and Dash, S. (2019), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 7th ed., Delhi, India,
Pearson.
Meng, X. (2019), “Lean management in the context of construction supply chains”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 3784-3798.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olatunji, S.O., Olawumi, T.O. and Aje, I.O. (2017), “Rethinking partnering among quantity-surveying
firms in Nigeria”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 11,
p. 05017018.
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W. (2018), “Identifying and prioritizing the benefits of integrating BIM and
sustainability practices in construction projects: a delphi survey of international experts”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 40, pp. 16-27.
JEDT Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W. (2019a), “Critical success factors for implementing building information
modeling and sustainability practices in construction projects: a delphi survey”, Sustainable
21,3 Development, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 587-602.
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W. (2019b), “Development of a benchmarking model for BIM
implementation in developing countries”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 1210-1232.
816 Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W. (2020), “Concomitant impediments to the implementation of smart
sustainable practices in the built environment”, Sustainable Production and Consumption,
Vol. 21, pp. 239-251.
Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W. and Wong, J.K. (2017), “Evolution in the intellectual structure of BIM
research: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 1060-1081.
Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W., Wong, J.K. and Chan, A.P. (2018), “Barriers to the integration of BIM and
sustainability practices in construction projects: a delphi survey of international experts”,
Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 60-71.
Ozorhon, B. and Karahan, U. (2017), “Critical success factors of building information modeling
implementation”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 3, p. 04016054.
Palmisano, J.S. (2006), “The globally integrated enterprise”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 127-136.
Pmi, A. (2017), Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK Guide), Newtown Square,
PA, Project Management Institute.
Rached, F., Hraoui, Y., Karam, A. and Hamzeh, F. (2014), “Implementation of IPD in the Middle East
and its challenges”, Proceedings International Group for Lean Construction, Olso, Norway,
Proceedings IGLC-22, pp. 293-304.
Rogers, J., Chong, H.Y. and Preece, C. (2015), “Adoption of building information modelling technology
(BIM)”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 424-445.
Sacks, R. (2013), “Modern construction: lean project delivery and integrated practices”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 394-396.
Sacks, R., Treckmann, M. and Rozenfeld, O. (2009), “Visualization of work flow to support lean
construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 12, pp. 1307-1315.
Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G. and Teicholz, P. (2018a), BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
Information Modeling for Owners, Designers, Engineers, Contractors, and Facility Managers,
New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons.
Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G. and Teicholz, P. (2018b), BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
Information Modeling for Owners, Designers, Engineers, Contractors, and Facility Managers, NJ,
New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons.
Sacks, R., Koskela, L., Dave, B.A. and Owen, R. (2010), “Interaction of lean and building information
modeling in construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 9,
pp. 968-980.
Saieg, P., Sotelino, E.D., Nascimento, D. and Caiado, R.G.G. (2018), “Interactions of building information
modeling, lean and sustainability on the architectural, engineering and construction industry: a
systematic review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 788-806.
Salleh, H. and Phui Fung, W. (2014), “Building information modelling application: focus-group
discussion”, Građevinar, Vol. 66 No. 08, pp. 705-714.
Shirowzhan, S., Sepasgozar, S.M., Edwards, D.J., Li, H. and Wang, C. (2020), “BIM compatibility and its
differentiation with interoperability challenges as an innovation factor”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 112, p. 103086.
Shuquan, L., Yanqing, F. and Xiuyu, W. (2020), “A systematic review of lean construction in mainland
China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, p. 120581.
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N.J. (1988), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., New Barriers to
York, NY, McGraw-Hill. p. 266.
integrating
Solaimani, S. and Sedighi, M. (2020), “Toward a holistic view on lean sustainable construction: a
literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 248, p. 119213.
lean
Tan, T., Chen, K., Xue, F. and Lu, W. (2019), “Barriers to building information modeling (BIM)
construction
implementation in China’s prefabricated construction: an interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 219, pp. 949-959.
Tanner, K. (2018), “Survey designs”, Research Methods, Chandos Publishing, pp. 159-192.
817
Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M. (2015), “Introduction to qualitative research methods”, A
Guidebook and Resource, John Wiley and Sons.
Tezel, A., Koskela, L. and Aziz, Z. (2018), “Lean thinking in the highways construction sector:
motivation, implementation and barriers”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 247-269.
Thompson, B. (2004), Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, 1st ed., Washington, DC,
American Psychological Association.
van Lith, J., Voordijk, H., Castano, J.M. and Vos, B. (2015), “Assessing maturity development of
purchasing management in construction”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 1033-1057.
Zahoor, H., Chan, A.P., Gao, R. and Utama, W.P. (2017), “The factors contributing to construction
accidents in Pakistan”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 463-485.
Zegarra, O. and Alarcon, L.F. (2019), “Coordination of teams, meetings, and managerial processes in
construction projects: using a lean and complex adaptive mechanism”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 736-763.
Zhang, X., Azhar, S., Nadeem, A. and Khalfan, M. (2018), “Using building information modelling to
achieve lean principles by improving efficiency of work teams”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 293-300.

Further reading
Boktor, J., Hanna, A. and Menassa, C.C. (2014), “State of practice of building information modeling in
the mechanical construction industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 78-85.
Mashali, A., Elbeltagi, E., Motawa, I. and Elshikh, M. (2020a), “Assessment of response strategy in
mega construction projects”, 2020a. International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and
Construction (CIC 2020), Doha, Qatar, 2-5 February 2020.
Mashali, A., Elbeltagi, E., Motawa, I. and Elshikh, M. (2020b), “Stakeholder management: an insightful
overview of issues”, 2020b. International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction
(CIC 2020), Doha, Qatar, 2-5 February 2020.
Matthews, J., Love, P.E., Mewburn, J., Stobaus, C. and Ramanayaka, C. (2018), “Building information
modelling in construction: insights from collaboration and change management perspectives”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 202-216.

About the authors

Martin Evans, BSc, MEng, MBA, CEng, MICE, PMP is currently a PhD candidate at the University of
Bolton, UK. He has a BSc in Civil Engineering followed by an MBA from Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, UK and MEng in Civil Engineering from the University of Calgary, Canada. He is a PMP
Certified (Project Management Institute, USA), registered PL (Eng.) Alberta, Canada and Chartered
Engineer CEng, UK. He has been contributing to the successful delivery of signature international
CMPs for over 20 years. Mr Evans has several publications on CMPs, GID transformative initiatives,
JEDT IPD, LC, leadership, organisational behaviour, people and places solutions and organisation solutions
and technology in top tier journals. Martin Evans is the corresponding author and can be contacted
21,3 at: martin.evans@ucalgary.ca
Emad Elbeltagi, PhD, PEng is a Professor of Construction Management at Structural Engineering
Department, Mansoura University, Egypt. For further information please refer to http://osp.mans.
edu.eg/elbeltagi/.
Peter Farrell, MSc, PhD, FRICS, FCIOB is a reader in construction management at the University
818 of Bolton, UK. He has delivered undergraduate and postgraduate modules in construction
management, commercial management and research methods over 25 years. He is currently involved
in research and development in the field of postgraduate supervision, doctoral education, research
methodology and academic writing and has successfully supervised many MSc and PhD students.
His industry training was in construction planning and quantity surveying and his post-qualification
experience was working as a contractor’s site manager.
Helen Dion, Postgraduate Diploma from The University of Edinburgh. Dr Helen has several
publications on leadership, organisational behaviour and people and places solutions in top tier
journals.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.