Sensor adoption in the construction industry: Barriers, opportunities, and strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the underutilization of sensors in the construction industry despite their significant potential for improving performance. A systematic review was conducted on research published between 2004 and 2024, identifying 11 key barriers such as the need for advanced skill sets and user-centric design, lack of standardized practices, and challenges in data networks and management. The study applied both quantitative descriptive analysis and qualitative content analysis to explore these barriers across five stages of sensor adoption. A total of 63 articles were thoroughly reviewed to identify thematic patterns and chronological trends. The findings highlight critical areas that require attention, including the development of standardized protocols, enhancing data-driven decision-making with advanced analytics, and fostering industry-wide training programs. Additionally, leveraging Lean Construction 4.0 principles is proposed to address these challenges. The insights from this research aim to support the construction industry in integrating sensor technologies more effectively, leading to greater efficiency and improved performance. • Identified 11 key barriers to sensor adoption in construction. • Analyzed barriers' interrelations across five stages of sensor signal transmission. • Proposed strategic directions for overcoming sensor adoption barriers. • Utilized mixed-methods approach for comprehensive barrier analysis. • Highlighted Lean Construction 4.0 principles to advance sensor integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".