Human-centered design and development framework for autonomous inspection robot systems in Lean Construction 4.0
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The construction industry is undergoing a transformation driven by the need to optimize workflow, maximize value and eliminate waste – principles outlined in the transformation-flow-value (TFV) model, widely regarded as the theoretical cornerstone of Lean Construction. Lean Construction 4.0 builds upon these principles by integrating advanced technologies and digitalization to create a more efficient, responsive and human-centered construction process. Within this context, autonomous inspection robot systems hold immense potential to transform the construction industry by automating essential tasks that are often hazardous and non-value-adding. Design/methodology/approach This paper introduces a human-centered design framework for autonomous inspection robot systems, which is validated through a case study, addressing the need for human-centered design, value-driven development, adaptability and information flow management in robot-driven system development. Findings A case study demonstrates the framework's application, showing that the robot inspection system significantly improved usability, enhanced information flow efficiency, minimized human involvement in hazardous inspection tasks and increased value generation. Originality/value The framework integrates principles of human-centered design, lean startup methodology and agile development, guiding developers through four distinct phases: empathize and define, ideate and prototype, develop and deploy and monitor and improve.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it