跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 韋薩米
Veerakumar Rangasamy
論文名稱： Development of Systemic Framework for Overcoming Barriers to Prefabricated Construction: An Emprical Study in Taiwan
指導教授： 楊智斌
Jyh-Bin Yang
口試委員:
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 工學院 - 土木系營建管理碩士班
Master's Program in Construction Management, Department of Civil Engineering
論文出版年： 2025
畢業學年度： 113
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 140
中文關鍵詞： 預鑄工法 、永續營建 、關鍵障礙 、策略解決方案 、產業創新 、台灣
外文關鍵詞： Prefabricated construction, Sustainable construction, Critical barriers, Strategic solutions, Industrial advancement, Taiwan
相關次數： 點閱：20  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 營建產業正逐漸轉向採用高效、永續和技術創新的施工方法，因為傳統施工方法常因材料浪費大、碳排多、勞動力需求大和工期長而受到批評，在日益嚴峻的環境和經濟挑戰中變得不受歡迎。相較之下，預鑄工法是一種現代化的施工方法，透過減少浪費、優化資源和能源消耗來提高永續性。美國、英國、中國和新加坡等國家已成功將預鑄工法融入其產業中。然而，儘管預鑄工法擁有前述優勢，包括台灣在內的國家和地區仍然面臨阻礙預鑄工法大規模採用的多重障礙，限制了其對產業永續的貢獻。
    本研究提出了一種系統化的方法來識別、分析和克服台灣採用預鑄工法的主要障礙。透過廣泛的文獻分析，確定了41個全球性的障礙，並透過專家的協助針對台灣的市場環境進行調整。本研究進一步利用Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) - matrice d'impacts croisés-multiplication appliquée à un classement (MICMAC) 和 Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) 相互結合的方法來克服個別方法的局限性，以分析預鑄工法採用的系統性挑戰。本研究利用ISM-MICMAC方法定性地反應了障礙的層次結構和相互依賴性，並根據其驅動力和依賴性進行分類。為了驗證和量化這些關係，本研究進一步採用PLS-SEM方法，以提供統計性資訊並測量因子間的因果影響強度。
    研究結果顯示，投資限制、供應鏈分散、設計流程不靈活、技能和知識落差、監管不一致是阻礙台灣預鑄工法廣泛應用的最大障礙。此外，ISM-MICMAC方法確定了政府支持不足和標準化差距等關鍵基礎驅動因素，而PLS-SEM方法則證實了技能和勞動力相關、技術和科技以及政策和監管障礙的關鍵影響。基於這些發現，本研究提出以下策略性方向：增加投資和整合供應鏈、改善採購系統和監管架購、落實靈活的設計作法、透過BIM、AI和IoT等技術加強數位化、加強勞動力培訓和教育、改善現場施工與供應鏈之協作、並透過有目的性的研發計畫促進創新。
    本研究認為透過採用系統化、結構化的方法可以減少預鑄工法應用之障礙，進而使台灣可以加速預鑄工法的採用，以發展更具有彈性、永續的營建產業。期待本研究提供的發現與建議，可為促進台灣及類似營建市場的永續預鑄工法發展提供清晰可參考的路徑圖。

    The construction industry is shifting toward efficient, sustainable, and technologically advanced methods, as traditional practices are criticized for high material waste, carbon emissions, labor shortages, and prolonged timelines, making them less viable amid growing environmental and economic challenges. In contrast, Prefabricated Construction (PC), a modern construction method, enhances sustainability by reducing waste, optimizing resources, and energy consumption. Countries include the US, China, and Singapore have successfully integrated PC into their construction practices. However, despite these advantages, countries including Taiwan continues to face multiple barriers hindering the large-scale adoption of PC, limiting its contribution to sustainable industrial advancement.
    This study presents a systemic approach to identifying, analyzing, and overcoming key barriers to PC adoption in Taiwan. Through an extensive literature review, 41 barriers were identified from a global perspective and tailored to local market by expert validation, covering economic, technological, regulatory, and workforce-related challenges. A combined Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)- matrice d'impacts croisés-multiplication appliquée à un classement (MICMAC) and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) approach was adopted to address the limitations of each method and provides a holistic understanding of the systemic challenges to PC adoption. ISM-MICMAC qualitatively mapped the hierarchical structure and interdependencies of barriers, classifying them by their dependence and driving power. To validate and quantify these relationships, PLS-SEM was employed, offering statistical support and measuring the strength of causal influence among constructs.
    The findings reveal that investment limitations, fragmented supply chains, inflexible design processes, skills and knowledge gaps, and regulatory inconsistencies are the most influential barriers obstructing sustainable PC advancement in Taiwan. ISM-MICMAC identified key foundational drivers such as inadequate government support and standardization gaps, while PLS-SEM confirmed the critical impact of skills and labor-related, technical and technological, and policy and regulatory barriers. Based on these insights, the study proposes strategic directions focused on increasing investment and integrating supply chains, reforming procurement systems and regulatory frameworks, enabling flexible design practices, strengthening digitalization through BIM, AI, and IoT technologies, enhancing workforce training and education, improving site and logistics coordination, and promoting innovation through targeted R&D initiatives.
    By adopting a systemic, structured approach to barrier mitigation, Taiwan can accelerate PC adoption, reduce its environmental footprint, and develop a resilient, sustainable construction industry. The study offers valuable insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers, providing a clear roadmap for fostering sustainable PC in Taiwan and similar markets.

    摘要 i Abstract iii Acknowledgments v Table of Contents vi List of Figures x List of Tables xi List of Abbreviations xii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background 1 1.1.1 Advancement Requirement of Construction Industry 1 1.1.2 Prefabricated Construction 1 1.1.3 Prefabricated Construction Vs Conventional Construction 3 1.1.4 PC in Sustainable Construction 4 1.1.5 PC’s Role in UN Sustainable Development Goals 5 1.1.6 PC at Global Stage 7 1.1.7 PC’s Status in Taiwan 9 1.2 Research Motivation and Problem statement 10 1.2.1 Motivation and Relevance 10 1.2.2 Research Significance 11 1.2.3 Problem Statement and Research Gap 12 1.3 Research Objectives 13 1.4 Scope and Limitations 13 1.5 Overview of Thesis Structure 14 1.6 Disclosure of Publications 15 2 Literature Review and Conceptual Foundation 17 2.1 Studies Related to Strategic Advantages of PC 17 2.2 Related Studies to PC barriers 20 2.2.1 Literature Search Strategy 20 2.2.2 Related Studies 20 2.3 Barriers to PC and its Categorization 22 2.3.1 Attitudinal Barriers (AB) 22 2.3.2 Technical and Technological Barriers (TTB) 23 2.3.3 Knowledge and Awareness Barriers (KAB) 24 2.3.4 Financial and Cost Barriers 25 2.3.5 Skills and Labor-related Barriers (SLB) 27 2.3.6 Logistics and Transportation Barriers (LTB) 28 2.3.7 Policy and Regulatory Barriers (PRB) 29 2.4 Validation of Barriers and categorization 31 2.5 Review on Related Research Methods 34 2.6 Summary 36 3 Research Design and Framework 38 3.1 Data Collection and Barrier identification 39 3.2 Questionnaire and Sampling 39 3.2.1 Questionnaire Development 39 3.2.2 Sampling Technique 40 3.3 Mixed Approach and its Rationale 41 3.3.1 Mixed Research Approach 41 3.3.2 Rationale for the Mixed Approach 42 3.4 ISM-MICMAC Framework 42 3.4.1 Determining the crucial barriers 42 3.4.2 Interpretive Structural Modeling 42 3.4.3 MICMAC Approach 44 3.4.4 Suggestions and Validations 45 3.5 PLS-SEM Methodology 45 3.5.1 Hypothesis Development and Conceptual Model 46 3.5.2 Measurement Model Procedure 48 3.5.3 Structural Model Procedure 49 3.6 Ethical Considerations 50 3.7 Summary 51 4 Hierarchical Structural Exploration: An ISM-MICMAC Analysis 53 4.1 Respondents Demographic Profile 53 4.2 Ranking and Determining the Crucial barriers 53 4.3 ISM Framework 56 4.3.1 Structural Self-Interaction Matrix 56 4.3.2 Reachability Matrix Development 56 4.3.3 Level Partitioning 57 4.3.4 Digraph and ISM Hierarchical Model 60 4.4 MICMAC Results 62 4.5 Interpretation of Results and its Discussions 63 4.6 Actionable Strategies 64 4.6.1 Investment and Supply Chain 65 4.6.2 Contracts and Government Policies 66 4.6.3 Technical Limitations and Regulations 66 4.6.4 Training and Knowledge Development 66 4.6.5 Labor Skills and Managerial Challenges 67 4.6.6 Site Accessibility and Management 67 4.6.7 Advanced Technology and Innovation 68 5 Empirical Validation: A PLS-SEM Modeling 71 5.1 Measurement Model Assessment 71 5.1.1 Internal Consistency 71 5.1.2 Convergent Validity 72 5.1.3 Discriminant Validity 72 5.2 Structural Model Assessment 76 5.2.1 Check for Collinearity 77 5.2.2 Validation of Hypothesis 77 5.2.3 Coefficient of Determination 78 5.2.4 Effect Size 79 5.2.5 Predictive Relevance 80 5.3 Discussions and Suggestions 82 5.3.1 Attitudinal Barriers 82 5.3.2 Financial and Cost Barriers 84 5.3.3 Knowledge and Awareness Barriers 85 5.3.4 Logistics and Transportation Barriers 86 5.3.5 Policy and Regulatory Barriers 87 5.3.6 Skills and Labor-related Barriers 89 5.3.7 Technical and Technological Barriers 90 5.4 Results Comparison (ISM-MICMAC vs PLS-SEM) 91 5.5 Comparison of Systemic Framework Vs Convention Framework 92 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 95 6.1 Conclusion 95 6.2 Contribution 96 6.2.1 Theoretical Contributions 96 6.2.2 Practical Contributions 96 6.3 Implications 97 6.3.1 Theoretical Implications 97 6.3.2 Practical Implications 98 6.4 Limitations and Future Research Directions 99 Appendices 102 Appendix A: List of Publications 102 Appendix B: Sample Questionnaire 106

    REFERENCES

    1. Durdyev S, et.al. (2018). A Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) of Barriers to Sustainable Construction in Malaysia. Journal of cleaner production, 204. 564-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.304.
    2. Blanco J.L R D, Sanghvi A and Torres A. From start-up to scale-up: Accelerating growth in construction technology. McKinsey & Company. [cited 2025 04.04.2025]; Available from: https://shorturl.at/8eOMJ.
    3. Rahman M M. (2014). Barriers of Implementing Modern Methods of Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30:(1). 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000173.
    4. Pan W, Gibb A F, and Dainty A R J. (2007). Perspective of UK Housebuilders on the Use of Offsite Modern Methods of Construction. Construction Management and Economics, 25:(2). 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827058.
    5. Zhang S, Zhongfu L, Tianxin L, and Mengqi Y. (2021). A Holistic Literature Review of Building Information Modeling for Prefabricated Construction. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27:(7). 485-499. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.15600
    6. Navaratnam S, et.al. (2022). The Challenges Confronting the Growth of Sustainable Prefabricated Building Construction in Australia: Construction Industry Views. Journal of Building Engineering, 48. 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103935.
    7. Agapiou A. (2022). Barriers to Offsite Construction Adoption: A Quantitative Study among Housing Associations in England. Buildings, 12:(3). 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030283.
    8. Qi B, et.al. (2021). A Systematic Review of Emerging Technologies in Industrialized Construction. Journal of Building Engineering, 39. 102265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102265.
    9. Ribeiro A M, Arantes A, and Cruz C O. (2022). Barriers to the Adoption of Modular Construction in Portugal: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. Buildings, 12:(10). 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101509.
    10. Hwang B G, Shan M, and Looi K Y. (2018). Key Constraints and Mitigation Strategies for Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183. 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.136.
    11. Hwang B-G, Shan M, and Looi K-Y. (2018). Knowledge-based Decision Support System for Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction. Automation in Construction, 94. 168-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.06.016.
    12. Ferdous W, et.al. (2019). New Advancements, Challenges and Opportunities of Multi-Storey Modular Buildings – A State-of-the-art Review. Engineering Structures, 183. 883-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.061.
    13. Rangasamy V and Yang J-B. (2024). The Convergence of BIM, AI and IoT: Reshaping the Future of Prefabricated Construction. Journal of Building Engineering, 84. 108606. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108606.
    14. Jaillon L and Poon C S. (2009). The Evolution of Prefabricated Residential Building Systems in Hong Kong: A Review of the Public and the Private Sector. Automation in Construction, 18:(3). 239-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.09.002.
    15. Rangasamy V and Yang J-B. (2025). Interpreting Crucial Barriers to Advancing Prefabricated Construction: An Empirical Study in Taiwan Using ISM-MICMAC Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 144702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144702.
    16. Warszawski A. (2003). Industrialized and Automated Building Systems: A Managerial Approach. Routledge. ISBN:0203223691
    17. Boyd N, Khalfan M M A, and Maqsood T. (2013). Off-Site Construction of Apartment Buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 19:(1). 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000091.
    18. Rangasamy V and Yang J-B. (2023). Generative Design for Prefabricated Structures using BIM and IoT applications–Approaches and Requirements. in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. 645-652. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2023/0090.
    19. Razkenari M, et.al. (2020). Perceptions of Offsite Construction in the United States: An Investigation of Current Practices. Journal of Building Engineering, 29. 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101138.
    20. Dang P, et.al. (2020). Critical Factors Influencing the Sustainable Construction Capability in Prefabrication of Chinese Construction Enterprises. Sustainability, 12:(21). 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218996.
    21. Bendi D, et.al. (2021). Understanding Off-site Readiness in Indian Construction Organisations. Construction Innovation, 21:(1). 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2020-0016.
    22. Cao X, Li X, Zhu Y, and Zhang Z. (2015). A Comparative Study of Environmental Performance between Prefabricated and Traditional Residential Buildings in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109. 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.120.
    23. Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Gunawardena T, and Henderson D. (2019). Performance Review of Prefabricated Building Systems and Future Research in Australia. Buildings, 9:(2). 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9020038.
    24. Wuni I Y and Shen G Q. (2020). Barriers to the Adoption of Modular Integrated Construction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Integrated Conceptual Framework, and Strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119347.
    25. Chen T-L and Chang H-S. (2018). The Effects of Zoning Regulations along Fault Zone Areas on Land Development and Property Values after the 921 Chi-Chi Earthquake in Taiwan. Sustainability, 10:(4). 1175.
    26. Hu X, et.al. (2024). Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Prefabricated Columns Connected Using a Novel Dry Sleeve. Buildings, 14:(1). 249.
    27. Zhang A-l, et.al. (2021). Cyclic Loading Tests of Earthquake-Resilient Prefabricated Steel Cross Joints with Different FCP Connections. Structures, 32. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.059.
    28. Abanda F H, Tah J H M, and Cheung F K T. (2017). BIM in Off-site Manufacturing for Buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 14. 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.002.
    29. Kibert C J. (1994). Establishing Principles and a Model for Sustainable Construction. in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction. 6-9.
    30. Ali A H, et.al. (2023). Identifying and Assessing Modular Construction Implementation Barriers in Developing Nations for Sustainable Building Development. Sustainable Development, 31:(5). 3346-3364. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2589.
    31. Feldmann F G, Birkel H, and Hartmann E. (2022). Exploring Barriers Towards Modular Construction – A Developer Perspective using Fuzzy DEMATEL. Journal of Cleaner Production, 367:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133023.
    32. Zhang W, Lee M W, Jaillon L, and Poon C S. (2018). The Hindrance to Using Prefabrication in Hong Kong's Building Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204. 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.190.
    33. Tam V W Y, Tam C M, Zeng S X, and Ng W C Y. (2007). Towards Adoption of Prefabrication in Construction. Building and Environment, 42:(10). 3642-3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.003.
    34. Gan X, et.al. (2018). Barriers to the Transition Towards Off-site Construction in China: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197. 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.184.
    35. Jayawardana J, et.al. (2024). Key Barriers and Mitigation Strategies Towards Sustainable Prefabricated Construction–A Case of Developing Economies. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2023-0978.
    36. Fei W, et.al. (2021). The Critical Role of the Construction Industry in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering Projects for the Common Good. Sustainability, 13:(16). 9112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169112.
    37. Kamali M, Hewage K, and Milani A S. (2018). Life Cycle Sustainability Performance Assessment Framework for Residential Modular Buildings: Aggregated Sustainability Indices. Building and Environment, 138. 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.019.
    38. Daly M, Kempton L, and McCarthy T. (2025). Sustainability of Prefabricated Construction in Australia: Industry Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Building Engineering, 102. 111805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.111805.
    39. Modular & Prefabricated Construction Market Size & Forecast, 2023-2032. Global Market Insights. [cited 2023 September 18]; Available from: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/modular-and-prefabricated-construction-market.
    40. More V. Global Prefabricated Buildings Market Overview. Market Research Future. Available from: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/prefabricated-buildings-market-5171.
    41. Freed S. The Nordic Track. Offsite Builder. [cited 2025 04.04.2025]; Available from: https://offsitebuilder.com/the-nordic-track/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
    42. Maqbool R, Namaghi J R, Rashid Y, and Altuwaim A. (2023). How Modern Methods of Construction would Support to Meet the Sustainable Construction 2025 Targets, the Answer is Still Unclear. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14:(4). 101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101943.
    43. Li Z, Zhang S, Meng Q, and Hu X. (2021). Barriers to the development of prefabricated buildings in China: a news coverage analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28:(10). 2884-2903. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2020-0195.
    44. Marinelli M, Konanahalli A, Dwarapudi R, and Janardhanan M. (2022). Assessment of Barriers and Strategies for the Enhancement of Off-Site Construction in India: An ISM Approach. Sustainability, 14:(11)https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116595.
    45. Taiwan Prefabricated Construction Industry Business and Investment Opportunities Databook. ConsTrack360, Market Research. [cited 2023 September 16]; Available from: https://www.marketresearch.com/ConsTrack360-v4128/Taiwan-Prefabricated-Construction-Business-Investment-33620877/.
    46. Construction Industry Economic Overview Survey. Construction Planning Agency, Minitry of Interior: Taiwan. Available from: https://www.nlma.gov.tw/.
    47. Developemt H R. Industry's Talent Shortages: The Current Situation and Policy Response. National Development Council- Taiwan. 05.04.2025]; Available from: https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/Content_List.aspx?n=0229104B3512BB61.
    48. Chen J H, Yang L R, and Tai H W. (2016). Process Reengineering and Improvement for Building Precast Production. Automation in Construction, 68. 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.05.015.
    49. Hsieh T Y. (1997). The Economic Implications of Subcontracting Practice on Building Prefabrication. Automation in Construction, 6:(3). 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(97)00001-0.
    50. Wang Y, Wang F, Sang P, and Song H. (2021). Analysing Factors Affecting Developers’ Behaviour Towards the Adoption of Prefabricated Buildings in China. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23:(10). 14245-14263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01265-8.
    51. Key Innovative Industries in Taiwan - Circular Economy. M.o.E.A. Department of Investment Services, Taiwan. [cited 2023 September 16]; Available from: https://circular-taiwan.org/en/city/taiwan/.
    52. Hosseini M R, et.al. (2018). Critical evaluation of off-site construction Research: A Scientometric Analysis. Automation in construction, 87. 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.002.
    53. Abdelmageed S and Zayed T. (2020). A Study of Literature in Modular Integrated Construction - Critical Review and Future Directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277. 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124044.
    54. Hong J, et.al. (2018). Barriers to Promoting Prefabricated Construction in China: A Cost–Benefit Analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172. 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.171.
    55. Azhar S, Lukkad M Y, and Ahmad I. (2013). An Investigation of Critical Factors and Constraints for Selecting Modular Construction over Conventional Stick-Built Technique. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 9:(3). 203-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2012.723115.
    56. Chiang Y-H, Chan E H-W, and Lok L K-L. (2006). Prefabrication and Barriers to Entry-A Case Study of Public Housing and Institutional Buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat international, 30:(3). 482-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.12.004.
    57. Sherfudeen A P, et.al. (2016). Promoting Precast Concrete for Affordable Housing -An Overview on Promotional Policies Worldwide and Challenges and Possibilities in India. Indian Concrete Journal, 90:(5). 13-24.
    58. Han Y and Wang L. (2018). Identifying Barriers to Off-site Construction Using Grey DEMATEL Approach: Case of China. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 24:(5). 364-377. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2018.5181.
    59. Jiang L, Li Z, Li L, and Gao Y. (2018). Constraints on the Promotion of Prefabricated Construction in China. Sustainability, 10:(7). 2516. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072516.
    60. Mao C, Shen Q, Pan W, and Ye K. (2015). Major Barriers to Off-site Construction: The Developer's Perspective in China. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31:(3)https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000246.
    61. Pimentel M, Arantes A, and Cruz C O. (2022). Barriers to the Adoption of Reverse Logistics in the Construction Industry: A Combined ISM and MICMAC Approach. Sustainability, 14:(23). 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315786.
    62. Sritharan S, et.al. (2015). Precast Concrete Wall with End Columns (PreWEC) for Earthquake Rresistant Design. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44:(12). 2075-2092. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2576.
    63. Lopez R, Chong H Y, and Pereira C. (2022). Obstacles Preventing the Off-Site Prefabrication of Timber and MEP Services: Qualitative Analyses from Builders and Suppliers in Australia. Buildings, 12:(7). 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12071044.
    64. Blismas N G, Pendlebury M, Gibb A, and Pasquire C. (2005). Constraints to the Use of Off-site Production on Construction Projects. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 1:(3). 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2005.9684590.
    65. Choi J O, Chen X B, and Kim T W. (2019). Opportunities and Challenges of Modular Methods in Dense Urban Environment. International Journal of Construction Management, 19:(2). 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382093.
    66. Wuni I Y and Shen G Q. (2020). Critical Success Factors for Modular Integrated Construction Projects: A Review. Building Research & Information, 48:(7). 763-784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1669009.
    67. Chiang Y H, Hon-Wan Chan E, and Ka-Leung Lok L. (2006). Prefabrication and Barriers to Entry-A Case Study of Public Housing and Institutional Buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 30:(3). 482-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.12.004.
    68. Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Gunawardena T, and Henderson D. (2019). Performance Review of Prefabricated Building Systems and Future Research in Australia. Buildings, 9:(2). 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9020038.
    69. Ren X, Li Y, and Guo M. (2023). Dynamically Identifying and Evaluating Key Barriers to Promoting Prefabricated Buildings: Text Mining Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149:(9). 04023075. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-13285.
    70. Wuni I Y and Shen G Q P. (2019). Holistic Review and Conceptual Framework for the Drivers of Offsite Construction: A Total Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Buildings, 9:(5). 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9050117.
    71. Khan A, et.al. (2022). Drivers Towards Adopting Modular Integrated Construction for Affordable Sustainable Housing: A Total Interpretive Structural Modelling (TISM) Method. Buildings, 12:(5). 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050637.
    72. Wu G B, et.al. (2019). Factors Influencing the Application of Prefabricated Construction in China: From Perspectives of Technology Promotion and Cleaner Production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219. 753-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.110.
    73. Shin J, et.al. (2022). Extended Technology Acceptance Model to Explain the Mechanism of Modular Construction Adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 342. 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130963.
    74. Hair J F, Risher J J, Sarstedt M, and Ringle C M. (2019). When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31:(1). 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
    75. Ott R and Longnecker M. (2016). An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Cengage Learning. ISBN:1305269470
    76. Cohen J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112:(1)https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.
    77. Verma J P and Verma P. (2020). Use of G*Power Software, in Determining Sample Size and Power in Research Studies: A Manual for Researchers, J.P. Verma and P. Verma, Editors. 2020, Springer Singapore: Singapore. 55-60.
    78. Thakkar J, Deshmukh S, Gupta A, and Shankar R. (2006). Development of a Balanced Scorecard: An Integrated Approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56:(1). 25-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400710717073.
    79. Gündüz M, Nielsen Y, and Özdemir M. (2013). Quantification of Delay Factors using the Relative Importance Index Method for Construction Projects n Turkey. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29:(2). 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000129.
    80. Warfield J N. (1974). Toward Interpretation of Complex Structural Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-4:(5). 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1974.4309336.
    81. Sushil. (2012). Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13. 87-106.
    82. Abuzeinab A, Arif M, and Qadri M A. (2017). Barriers to MNEs Green Business Models in the UK Construction Sector: An ISM Analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 160. 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.003.
    83. Luthra S, et.al. (2014). Adoption of Smart Grid Technologies: An Analysis of Interactions Among Barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33. 554-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.02.030.
    84. Janes F. (1988). Interpretive Structural Modelling: A Methodology for Structuring Complex Issues. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 10:(3). 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331288010003.
    85. Shen L, et.al. (2016). Interpretive Structural Modeling based Factor Analysis on the Implementation of Emission Trading System in the Chinese Building Sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127. 214-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.151.
    86. Saxena J, Sushil, and Vrat P. (1990). Impact of Indirect Relationships in Classification of Variables-A MICMAC Analysis for Energy Conservation. Systems Research, 7:(4). 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3850070404.
    87. Yeh D-Y and Cheng C-H. (2015). Recommendation System for Popular Tourist Attractions in Taiwan using Delphi Panel and Repertory Grid Techniques. Tourism Management, 46. 164-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.002.
    88. Keith T Z. (2019). Multiple Regression and Beyond: An Introduction to Multiple Regression and Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge. ISBN:1315162342
    89. Adabre M A, Chan A P, Edwards D J, and Adinyira E. (2021). Assessing Critical Risk Factors (CRFs) to Sustainable Housing: The Perspective of a Sub-Saharan African Country. Journal of Building Engineering, 41. 102385.
    90. Dash G and Paul J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM Methods for Research in Social Sciences and Technology Forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173. 121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092.
    91. Olsson U H, Foss T, Troye S V, and Howell R D. (2000). The Performance of ML, GLS, and WLS Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling Under Conditions of Misspecification and Nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling, 7:(4). 557-595. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_3.
    92. Daoud A O, Omar H, Othman A A E, and Ebohon O J. (2023). Integrated Framework Towards Construction Waste Reduction: The Case of Egypt. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 21:(5). 695-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00793-2.
    93. Hair Jr J F, Hult G T M, Ringle C M, and Sarstedt M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed.: Sage. ISBN:9781483377445
    94. Nunnally J C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill. ISBN:9780070474659
    95. Fornell C and Larcker D F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18:(1). 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
    96. Henseler J, Ringle C M, and Sarstedt M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43. 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
    97. Shmueli G and Koppius O R. (2011). Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research. MIS quarterly. 553-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042796.
    98. Striefel S. (2001). Ethical Research Issues: Going Beyond the Declaration of Helsinki. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 26. 39-59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009515621157.
    99. Holt G D. (2014). Asking Questions, Analysing Answers: Relative Importance Revisited. Construction Innovation, 14:(1). 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-06-2012-0035.
    100. Ahmad N and Qahmash A. (2021). Smartism: Implementation and Assessment of Interpretive Structural Modeling. Sustainability, 13:(16). 8801. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168801.
    101. Zhai X, Reed R, and Mills A. (2014). Factors Impeding the Offsite Production of Housing Construction in China: An Investigation of Current Practice. Construction management and economics, 32:(1-2). 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.787491.
    102. Polat G. (2008). Factors Affecting the Use of Precast Concrete Systems in the United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134:(3). 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:3(169).
    103. Arditi D, Ergin U, and Günhan S. (2000). Factors Affecting the Use of Precast Concrete Systems. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 6:(3). 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2000)6:3(79).
    104. Pan W, Gibb A G F, and Dainty A R J. (2008). Leading UK Housebuilders' Utilization of Offsite Construction Methods. Building Research & Information, 36:(1). 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701204013.
    105. Wu Z, et.al. (2021). An Analysis on Promoting Prefabrication Implementation in Construction Industry Towards Sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18:(21). 11493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111493.
    106. Rady M, Kineber A F, Hamed M M, and Daoud A O. (2023). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling of Constraint Factors Affecting Project Performance in the Egyptian Building Industry. Mathematics, 11:(3). 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11030497.
    107. Hair Jr J F, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, and Kuppelwieser V G. (2014). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research. European Business Review, 26:(2). 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
    108. Sarstedt M, Ringle C M, and Hair J F. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, in Handbook of Market Research. 2021, Springer. 587-632.
    109. Shmueli G, et.al. (2019). Predictive Model Assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53:(11). 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-018.
    110. Shmueli G, Ray S, Velasquez Estrada J M, and Chatla S B. (2016). The Elephant in the Room: Predictive Performance of PLS Models. Journal of Business Research, 69:(10). 4552-4564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049.
    111. Yang J-B and Chou H-Y. (2018). Mixed Approach to Government BIM Implementation Policy: An Empirical Study of Taiwan. Journal of Building Engineering, 20. 337-343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.08.007.
    112. Wu G, et.al. (2019). Factors Influencing the Application of Prefabricated Construction in China: From Perspectives of Technology Promotion and Cleaner Production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219. 753-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.110.
    113. National Development Council T. Building a Healthy Real Estate Market. Available from: https://english.ey.gov.tw/News3/9E5540D592A5FECD/7fa646f0-8e84-4213-b624-09e346769bb8.
    114. Turton M, Rebuilding Taiwan’s Construction Industry, in Taiper Times. 2024: Taiwan 13]. pp. Available from: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2024/07/22/2003821139.
    115. Institute T C R. BIM Technology Management of Social Housing to Improve Operational Efficiency. Available from: https://www.tcri.org.tw/tcriWeb/DispNews.aspx?id=375.

    QR CODE
    :::