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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1471-4175.htm

CI
24,4 Structuration of lean-agile
integrated factors for
construction projects
986 Vijayeta Malla
School of Construction Management, National Institute of Construction
Received 4 May 2022 Management and Research, Hyderabad, India
Revised 24 October 2022
Accepted 13 December 2022

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to analyze and understand mutual relationships between lean and agile
enabling factors in the context of the construction domain and put forth the most driving and dependent
enablers for a hybrid lean–agile system (HLAS).
Design/methodology/approach – A threefold research flow is adopted. First, the content analysis of
literature stemmed from the identification of preliminary enablers (n = 26). Second, a questionnaire survey
(n = 101) is administered to downsize enablers to ten using the relative importance index. Further, in the third
phase, interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and the cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to
classification analysis were performed amid the ten key enablers through pairwise interactions from subject
matter experts (n = 19). Hierarchical representation of enablers has been presented, which facilitates a
conceptual model for application in the construction industry.
Findings – The ISM model demonstrates a three leveled classification structure that showcases direct and
transitive relationships among various enablers. “Use of project management tools” is the driving enabler,
followed by “collaborative and common data platform working” and “institution of team training” are critical
enablers to HLAS adoption.
Originality/value – A structured way of identification of interdependent among lean–agile is a vital
unique contribution to this study. The results serve as a knowledge base for practical adoption of HLAS and
may prove to be influential in developing a framework for easier adoption in developing countries.
Keywords Lean, Agile, Construction projects, Interdependency, Systems,
Interpretive structural modelling
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Although, the construction sector significantly contributes toward the economic uplifting of
a nation, the industry faces pressure on cost optimization from stringent public budgets and
generation of affordable housing aspects. Also, a study reported by McKinsey (2020)
ascertained that $69.4tn is essential for global infrastructure upgrading by 2035 to bolster
the expected GDP growth. The rise of cost and affordability issues amplified with the onset
of pandemic-induced economic fallouts for the construction ecosystem. Moreover, a report
from Statista research department suggests an upsurge in construction industry is predicted
to reach around US$14tn by 2025. With increased construction activity in private sector
investment in construction and infrastructure, the complexity of projects has been rising.
This increased complexity, in turn, causes the project to fail the boundaries of the
Construction Innovation
deliverables, majorly, the triple constraints. The project triangle, representing time, cost and
Vol. 24 No. 4, 2024
pp. 986-1004
quality, fails as more and more projects experience time and cost overruns and breaches of
© Emerald Publishing Limited quality in instances. These may also be accompanied by lowered stakeholder satisfaction
1471-4175
DOI 10.1108/CI-05-2022-0105 and diminished returns of investments. Studies have been conducted to address the causes
of failure, and they cover a variety of reasons owing to these failure criteria. Substantial Lean–agile
studies that relied on conventional waterfall project management facets failed to deal with integrated
complex business environments, leading to the insufficiency of classical methods in
resolving complex prone scenarios (AlSehaimi and Koskela, 2008; Thomas and
factors
Sudhakumar, 2015). This conventional attitude and resistance to change comes from the
capital-intensive nature of construction projects. However, this very attitude and practical
strategy for dealing with projects nowadays make them prone to failure in terms of violation
of the triangle of the project and disappointment of the stakeholders in question. 987
Construction workers are pressured to adapt to flexible construction systems by fluctuating
customer requirements, rapid project deliveries and technical advances in competitive
market conditions.
It is also essential to provide successful frameworks that understand that projects are
regularly launched under immense vulnerabilities to later changes to reinforce the daunting
function of organizing, preparing and managing building project work. Several approaches
in the design and implementation process boost efficiency, and there is an undoubted need
for it. Hence, this research emphasizes identifying and interrelationships among the drivers
of lean and agile blended approaches for adaptation to the construction industry. The
current study is synthesized into six sections, inclusive of the introduction. It begins with
introduction, followed by literature review with the search strategy of lean and agile related
articles belonging to the construction domain. Subsequently, the research design and
methodology is explained. Then, the data collection and analysis the findings, are further
sub-divided, such as identifying preliminary and final enablers, interpretive structural
modeling process, demographic characteristics of the structured survey, pairwise
interdependency evaluation by experts and ISM model development and digraph. In
subsequent section, the discussion and the importance of classification of enablers and
hierarchical structuring of the enablers is illustrated. Following section deals with
managerial implications and how the findings align with the existing theory. And, finally,
the paper concludes with recommendations for further study.

Literature review
Background of lean construction
The lean tenets adoption in construction has been adapted from production, and their prime
objective (Koskela, 1997), was to reduce waste by transforming the physical input into
output. Also, the lean construction approach in the building environment design and
development phase lead to reduced wasted efforts and resources, ultimately turning in value
enhancement (Koskela and Howell, 2002; Koskela, 2004). In addition, the lean approach was
introduced and set into functional structures, such as Ballard and Howell’s Last Planner
SystemV produced in 1992, stressed the minimization of the stoic unpredictable variables
R

that impede the work process flow that was neglected in conventional waterfall project
management (Ballard and Howell, 2003). Traditional project management has been dealing
with managing and operating projects through non-linear and complex milieu systems and
construed as sophisticated and dynamic (Bertelsen and Koskela, 2004). The lessons learned
were used to concentrate on reducing waste in the building sector and advocated for
continual quality improvement.

Need for integration of lean and agile tenets in the construction industry
Classical project management theoretical aspects have been fortified with the guiding
principles of Project Management Body of Knowledge of Project Management Institute
(PMI, 2004). These controlling ideologies were likely to be ineffective in the current era.
CI Precisely, the construction projects of complex, schedule constrained, fast track and
24,4 uncertain bounded natured, the frontier ideologies such as “lean” and “agile” propel
improvement in managerial conditions. Also, the traditional way of managing projects used
a transformational approach to control. Nevertheless, its practical application over such
volatile scope and uncertain constrained projects seemed to be questionable (Koskela and
Howell, 2002). The integrated philosophies of lean, agile and project management have been
988 evolved in late 2000. Lean has been associated with the industrial sector, whereas agile
emerged from the software business. These philosophies evolved from the manufacturing
sector’s explosion from the adoption of quality management pioneer Deming in Japan. Lean
has been a proponent of value maximization through waste elimination, and lean focused on
instantaneous reaction to periodic changes or ensured an adaptive environment (Dove, 1994;
Sanchez and Nagi, 2001). Agile project management was formulated on two propositions
such as:

P1. value and transformational flow; and

P2. managing projects similar to organizations through planning, implementation and
controlling principles (Fernandez and Fernandez, 2008).
A typical communication achieved from the agile manifesto (Beck et al., 2001a) and
interdependency protocol. The consolidated tenets of lean and agile in the construction
domain were investigated by taking a cue from organizational theories, which demonstrated
their effectiveness in conceptual and design phases was successful (Owen and Koskela,
2006). Perspectives from environmental impacts of the construction industry specifically for
reducing construction wastes and value anticipated activities have been explored
(Sertyesilisik, 2014). Region-specific applications of lean and agile in Iraqi construction
projects (Mohammed and Jasim, 2018) and complex projects through interface management
processes were investigated (Chen et al., 2007).
Proficient networking and connection among the owner, manufacturer, suppliers and
customers fostered a mutual realization strategy based on Deming’s 14 guidelines (Deming,
2000). For agile grounded projects, this was particularly applicable wherein an interface
between designer and manufacturer has been coordinated through efficient communication.
Agile projects were substantially involved with human interactions, and this aspect was
dependent on human collaboration aspects. Hence, APM’s regular and sustained iterative-
oriented project outcomes were facilitated through trans-disciplinary collaborative
information. The extant literature highlights individual tenets of lean and agile application
in construction. There were studies on coalesced concepts of lean and agile. However, the
interdependency nature of enablers of this hybrid concept has not been studied holistically.
The current study identifies the critical success determinants to hybrid lean–agile system
(HLAS) and evaluates the interdependencies among the identified determinants. This
integrated tenets study is imperative for prioritizing an organization’s decision-making
body while adapting to HLAS. Thus, this research builds a corpus of key determinants on
the application of HLAS to construction. Additionally, it investigates the interrelationship
and classification of the determinants.
Agile methodology has its origins from the software development industry. Several
researchers have been reviewing flexible mechanisms before, but the agile manifesto was
how agile was coined. It gave the guidelines for agile processes, including client
engagement, adaptive change embracement, recurrent and incremental strategies and
operating software programs as metrics over detailed documents (Beck et al., 2001b). The
current approach has grown over the years and has become a great success in software
development. While construction and information systems in terms of project management Lean–agile
are considered different, there were certain parallels in the industries, such as the need to integrated
identify requirements and the realization of value in the utilization phase (Owen and
Koskela, 2006). This propelled the institution of agile methods to the world of construction.
factors
Agile project management appears to be effective as adaptability and responsiveness are
characterized by ambiguity and complexity (Fernandez and Fernandez, 2008). Agile project
management works best in the planning process, as the activities become interdependent,
but has been challenging to implement in the execution phase because of the cultural inertia 989
in the building organization and the unstructured disposition of most workers (Owen et al.,
2006). Agility promotes creativity and welcomes plan modifications and makes it more
immune to variations with greater flexibility from the plan initially agreed upon (Han and
Qin, 2013).

Association of lean and agile methodology from developing research and empirical evidence
Studies showed that convergence of lean with agile methodologies aimed to build a
framework that works for waste avoidance and the optimization of procedures while
embracing improvements and making the process more dynamic. There were parallels
between a few aspects of the Last Planner System and the agile methodology. The possibly
missing link between lean and agile has been observed to be Kanban, and it was assumed
that the capacity integrated the dual practices and organized into as LeAgile (Suhail Iqbal,
2015).
The hybrid application of lean and agile approaches eliminated the dynamic
characteristics of the project and resolved the limitations found with lean construction alone
(Sohi et al., 2016). When a lean and agile management synergy was applied on a case study
in Poland on column concreting, it simplified the process and managed to produce
substantial outcomes in time reduction and cost savings (Nowotarski and Pasławski, 2016).
In comparison, a project in the UK concerning hospital construction used lean integrated
agile systems for operational works such as structural and assembly, setting the stage for
better on-site health and safety, improved ergonomics, decreased on-site workforce,
improved quality and refined quality productivity because of waste disposal. This led to a
noticeable increase in the project’s on-time execution and cost savings (Pasquire and Gibb,
2009).
The extant literature possesses scarce investigations on analyzing the drivers of hybrid
lean and agile philosophies in construction environments. This study explores the following
research questions:

RQ1. What are the critical enablers of hybrid lean–agile systems (HLAS) architecture
engineering and construction (AEC) sector?
RQ2. What are the driving and dependent enablers to HLAS implementation?
The study has two-fold objectives: first, to understand the lean–agile enabled construction
framework interactions of pairwise critical enablers, and second, to recognize the driving
enablers and dependent enablers.

Research methodology
Toward the achievement of the said objectives, a three-step hybrid methodology was used in
for the research. First, an analysis of literature and expert opinion was prepared to recognize
tentative enablers that may influence the coalescence of lean and agile practice in the
construction industry. Second, a structured questionnaire assessment was conducted with
CI construction professionals and academia inputs to screen critical enablers impacting the
24,4 institution of lean and agile blended approaches. It would aid in establishing the
relationships between these enablers in terms of relational pairs. When aggregated, these
responses form the groundwork for creating the initial reachability matrix. Subsequently, an
interpretive structural modeling (ISM)-based model is used to investigate pairwise
interrelationships amongst shortlisted enablers. Then, from the building practitioners,
990 expert advice is availed for such interactions between enablers. A power analysis has been
performed until after the transitivity evaluations have been calculated to arrive at the final
reachability matrix (FRM). The expert perspectives were then hierarchically ordered. The
final stage involves classifying these enablers through an approach called multiplication of
cross-impact matrix applied to classification (MICMAC) based on driving forces and
dependent powers. The following figure represents the flow of research data throughout the
study (Figure 1).

Results
Preliminary identification of enabling factors
Concerning the lean–agile enabled construction system (HLAS), the collected preliminary
data consisting of enabling factors driving the implementation process are illustrated in
Figure 2. The literature review was conducted out by using keywords such as “Lean,”
“Agile,” “Construction,” “LeAgile,” “Agilean,” “Enabler” by browsing and assessing the
multiple research journals, conference proceedings and theses.

Extraction of key enablers

To shape the final critical lean–agile enabled construction framework (HLAS) enablers in
the construction industry, previously defined preliminary enablers were further downsized
before the ISM review. The rationale behind choosing the top ten factors depending on the
relative importance index (RII) is that the complexity of performing ISM analysis gets
amplified (Attri et al., 2013). A standardized questionnaire survey was undertaken to
downsize the enablers to collect expert opinions from 19 experts and scholars in the
construction sector whose average professional experience is 14 years. Participants were
requested to denote on a seven-point Likert Scale. Eventually, 101 valid responses were
obtained from a total of 225 questionnaires that were distributed (rate of response as
44.89%). These correct responses were then analyzed by the SPSS review tool to confirm the
internal consistency and the reliability of the information captured. The outcomes of the
study showed promising results as follows:

The Cronbach alpha value obtained was 0.975, indicating the data set’s high
internal consistency.

Figure 1.
Research flow
 Lean–agile
integrated
factors

991

Figure 2.
Mapping of enabling
factors from literature
through Sankey flow
diagram

Figure 2 maps the authors with the lean and agile enabling factors from their respective research
studies represented visually through the Sankey diagram. The interpretation of the Sankey
diagram wherein the lines or the links that align reaching the factors on the right-hand side
represent the frequency. For instance, the factor’ “continuous improvement” on the right-hand
side has frequency number 12, indicating that 12 authors on the left-hand side have investigated
CI the factor ‘continuous improvement’ factor. Similarly, the authors on the left-hand side with
24,4 numbers indicate that the respective author explored the same number of factors. To illustrate
with an example, the authors Erikkson et al. (2016) on the left-hand side of Figure 2 possess the
number “1” wherein they have probed research on the factor’ continuous improvement.’

Demographic data of respondents

992 The respondents belong to several Indian construction industry organizations. Their
designations vary from multiple planning, billing, inspection, profile management, etc. In
addition, a summary of respondents’ demographics is represented in Table 1 below.

Establishment of key enablers

To shortlist the main enabling factors, the results gathered from the survey have been used.
Based on the RII threshold value greater than 0.85, derived from the responses to the
standardized questionnaire of the established preliminary enablers, the authors decided to
downscale the final enablers. Therefore, ten enablers for executing the ISM procedure were
chosen, keeping in mind that they fulfilled the requirements (where RII > 0.85), shown
below in Table 2. All the enabling factors were analyzed for their RII scores to do so. The RII
is an indicator of a factor’s significance centered on the Likert Scale’s weighted responses
and calculated as per the below equation:
X
X
RII ¼ . . . (4.1)
ðY  N Þ

where:
X = weight of rating by respondent on Likert scale;
Y = maximum weight on chosen Likert Scale; and
N = total number of respondents.

Frequency of
Dimension Category respondents (%)

Gender Male 81 80.2

Female 20 19.8
Educational background Diploma 0 0
Bachelors of Engineering 39 38.6
Masters of Engineering 50 49.5
Degree/Bcom/BSc 0 0
Post Graduation 7 6.9
MBA 1 0.9
Years of academic/professional experience Academia 29 28.7
<4 years 55 54.4
5–10 years 13 12.8
11–15 years 1 0.9
16–20 years 1 0.9
21–25 years 2 1.9
Table 1. No. of employees in your organization 0–50 37 36.6
Summary of 51–200 18 17.8
respondents’ 201–500 9 8.9
demographic profile Above 500 37 36.6
HLAS RII
Lean–agile
enabler IDs Description of HLAS enablers RII metrics ranking integrated
factors
K10 Organizational Commitment to Learning 0.88 1
K9 Continual Improvement 0.88 2
K8 Usage of CAD Drafting and Project Management Tools 0.87 3
K7 Organizational Flexibility 0.87 4
K6 Training and Education for Teams 0.87 5 993
K5 Bench-Marking and Standardisation 0.86 6
K4 Proactive Continuing Adaptation to Modifications 0.86 7
K3 Concurrent Realization of Stages of Planning and 0.85 8 Table 2.
Construction Key enabling factors
K2 Working in Collaboration and Dispersed Management 0.85 9 for hybrid lean–agile
K1 Transparency of Processes 0.85 10 system (HLAS)

Interpretive structural modeling approach

There are sufficient multicriteria decision-making methods to evaluate the relationships
between variables in a complex system. However, the tussle to capture dependencies,
structured hierarchical mode of representation of variables and power analysis. In particular,
when integrating ANP, there is no convergence of dependencies between variables that
impedes interactions between the variables (Wu, 2008). In addition to incorporating lean
concepts, emergent theory such as agile being applied to building leads to a dynamic
environment. And, as the ISM approach requires enabling expert expertise to analyze
interrelationships and solve dynamic structures by considering interactions between
variables, this ISM paradigm helps to solve the complicated network of lean and agile hybrid
integrated enablers. Therefore, the authors choose the ISM application that fits the current
research objectives. ISM explores the direct and ancillary interrelationships between
variables (Warfield, 1974). ISM encourages expert understanding to be rooted in the overt
and indirect interaction of different rankings and direction variables (Thakkar et al., 2005).
In construction management, ISM application extended to determine the driving factors
for worker productivity (Sandbhor and Botre, 2014), determining interconnectedness among
the barriers to interface management (Malla and Delhi, 2022), risk factors evaluation during
the engineering phase (Tavakolan and Etemadinia, 2017) and BIM adoption barriers to
prefabrication (Tan et al., 2019). This study applies ISM technique to model interconnections
structurally within HLAS enablers.

Correlation establishment amongst the enablers

A further questionnaire survey was performed after downsizing to ten enablers (after merging
two common factors from ten shortlisted factors) to collect the experts’ opinions on establishing
interrelationships between these enablers. Through LinkedIn and email, the authors contacted 50
experts pertinent to their expertise related to Lean and Agile comprehension to finally get 19
valid responses (response rate of 38%). The makeup of the experts also consisted of a few from
the academic sector who have comprehensive knowledge and practical exposure to research
projects driven by Lean. A profile of the expert respondents is represented in Table 3.

Development of structural self-interaction matrix

All 19 specialists evaluated the interrelationship between pair of enablers. The ratings
obtained from the contextual interdependencies between the enablers were transformed into
CI Work
24,4 Type of experience
Expert organization Designation Designation (in years)

Expert_1 Academia Associate Professor Research 33

Expert_2 Contractor Proprietor Execution 30
Expert_3 Consultant Assistant General Manager Project 27
994 Management
Expert_4 Contractor Executive Engineer Execution 18
Expert_5 Contractor Project Engineer Execution 15
Expert_6 Academia Assistant Professor Research 15
Expert_7 Contractor Manager Procurement 14
Expert_8 Academia Assistant Professor Research 14
Expert_9 Academia Associate Professor Research 14
Expert_10 Contractor Assistant General Manager Planning and 12
Monitoring
Expert_11 Contractor Project Controls Manager Project Controls 11
Expert_12 Contractor Assistant Construction Manager Civil Works 11
Expert_13 Academia Research Scholar Civil Engineering 11
Expert_14 Contractor Senior Engineer Quality Assurance 10
and Quality
Control
Expert_15 Contractor Director Execution 9
Expert_16 Contractor Proprietor Execution 9
Expert_17 Contractor Assistant Manager Engineering 8
Table 3. Expert_18 Academia Research Scholar Research 7
Profile of expert Expert_19 Contractor Assistant Manager Quantity Survey 6
respondents and Contracts

a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM). With notations, the interrelationships between

the enablers u and v were represented as follows:

V = enabler u leads to the achievement Enabler v but not vice versa;

A = Enabler v leads to the achievement Enabler u but not vice versa;

X = enabler u and v lead to the achievement/alleviate each other (feedback effect);
and

O = enabler u and v are unrelated.

In scenarios of considerable disagreement, the experts’ distinguishing decision was based on

the “majority rule” judgment principle in determining the final decision concerning mutual
relationship between two enablers (Shen et al., 2016; Gan et al., 2018). Consequently, based on
the understanding of the relationship between variables provided by the experts, contextual
relations between the ten enablers were carried out and tabulated in a SSIM (Table 4).

Development of initial and final reachability matrices

The ratings provided by the experts are transformed to binary values from SSIM where “V”
indicates the reachability from “u” to “v” is 1 and “v to “u” will be “0.” A implies the reachability
from “u” to “v” is 0 and “v to “u” will be “1.” “X” indicates the reachability from “u” to “v” is 1
and “v to “u” will be “1.” “O” indicates the reachability from “u” to “v” is “0” and “v to “u” will
be “0.” According to the rules alluded, the creation of an initial usability matrix is used to
demonstrate the interrelationships between each of the ten enablers and FRM is shown in
Table 5. Then, transitivity tests were integrated using the power iteration protocols to produce Lean–agile
the final reachability. The notion of indirect relationships parallels the transitivity tests. For integrated
example, if enabler “A” leads to “B” and enabler “B” leads to enabler “C” achievement, then it
can be deduced that enabler “A” eventually leads to enabler “C” achievement.
factors

Partitioning of levels
The following stage is the partitioning of levels after the FRM has been established. This
development aims to achieve an ISM diagraph and model. The sets representing its
995
reachability and antecedent were collected using the final reachability grid for every enabler.
The reachability set encompasses any single enabler and specific other enablers that it
may prompt, if there exist some. In contrast, the antecedent set comprises any particular
enabler and other enablers that may prompt it to be accomplished, it should be obeyed. The
reachability and antecedent sets for all enablers is inferred. The enablers consisting of
identical reachability and intersection set are considered and substantially possess an
influential degree of importance of the ISM hierarchy, indicating that these enablers will
influence other enablers. Once the enabler is set up at a critical stage, it would be shed from
the other enablers’ reachability set. A similar process is iterated to attain enablers until the
ISM HLAS enablers hierarchy is set.

Enabler v
Enabler u K10 K9 K8 K7 K6 K5 K4 K3 K2 K1

K1 V V A X A O V V V –
K2 V V A V A V V A –
K3 A V A O A V X –
K4 V X A V X O –
K5 V V A V A –
K6 V V X O –
K7 V V O – Table 4.
K8 V V – Structural
K9 A – self-interaction
K10 – matrix (SSIM)

Enabler j
Enabler i K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 Driving power

K1 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 0 1 1 9
K2 1* 1 1* 1 1 1* 1 0 1 1 9
K3 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 1 1 9
K4 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1 1 1* 1 1 10
K5 1* 0 1* 1* 1 0 1 0 1 1 7
K6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 10
K7 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1 0 1 1 9
K8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 10
K9 1* 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1 1 10
K10 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1 1 10
Dependence power 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 5 10 10 Table 5.
Final reachability
Note: 1* represents transitive links matrix
CI Establishing interpretive structural modeling diagraph and model
24,4 The findings from the level partitioning, ten critical enablers were arranged to establish
initial diagraph for displaying causation of HLAS enablers. A link pointing from enabler u
to enabler v indicates enabler u resulting in enabler v, and a two-way link symbolizes a
reciprocal effect. Transitivity expresses these interinfluence relationships among enablers;
the diagram contains both direct and indirect transitivity connections. The ISM model is
996 developed by substituting the diagraph nodes with HLAS enabler descriptors (Figure 3).
The ten enablers categorized into three levels.

Hybrid lean–agile system enabler classification adopting multiplication of cross-impact

matrix applied to classification analysis
Identifying key enablers would not suffice to classify the HLAS enablers to driving and
dependency forces a MICMAC analysis is deployed. This study focuses on identifying
the key enablers in a range of classes that drive the model. This research is also
considered an expedition to the gray field. This study supports the ISM methodology in
a complementary manner by analyzing requirements that generally apply to the ISM
technique: it discusses the “yes” or “no” relationship and overlooks the alleged gray
condition somewhere in the 0 and 1 scale. The investigation of MICMAC promotes
establishing a graph that arranges factors in driving force and power of dependency.
To arrive at their conclusions and resolutions, the MICMAC analysis is used to classify
the variables and authorize the interpretive underlying model components in the
examination.
The enablers are grouped into four classes following the grouping accepted by previous
researchers (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994), explained as below and illustrated in Figure 3:
(1) autonomous enablers which showcase low reliance as well as driving forces;
(2) dependent enablers which showcase high reliance power yet a low driving force;
(3) independent enablers which showcase a low reliance power but high driving force; and
(4) linkage enablers which showcase high reliance as well as driving forces.

Figure 3.
MICMAC Analysis of
HLAS enablers
implementation
Discussions Lean–agile
Some observations from the ISM hierarchy model developed by the study are below: integrated

Level 1 of ISM hierarchy: independent enablers: The results shown in Table 5 and
factors
Figure 4 clearly show that K8 (usage of CAD Drafting and project management
tools) is the enabler that needs to be done more to incorporate the fusion of lean and
agile tenets in construction. It possesses maximum driving force, which means that
all the other enablers will rely on this enabler’s achievement. This observation is 997
significant since it highlights the value of digitizing operations in the design and
construction phases of the project life cycle.

Level 2 of ISM hierarchy: operational enablers: The enablers K2 (collaborative
working and distributed management) and K6 (training and education for teams)
are a part of this level. At this stage, the enablers span the gap between the
established ISM model’s base level and the top level. This result indicates the
necessity of well-defined team structures in the context of collective preparation,
training, education and promotion.

Level 3 of ISM hierarchy: outcome enablers: Enablers K1 (process transparency), K3
(concurrent execution of design and development phases), K4 (proactive continuing
adaptation to modifications), K5 (bench-marking and standardization), K7
(organization flexibility), K9 (continual improvement) and K10 (learning
organization) are those positioned at the topmost level of the structural model.
Moreover, these enablers belong to the dependent category and are responsible for
reaching the enablers at the lower stages. In this finding, we will see the emphasis
on process optimization and the direct effect of the functioning of an enterprise in
terms of how educated all project members are, what the corporate mindset to
improve is, the degree of learning maturity, to name a few.

General findings are made as follows concerning the classification of enablers by MICMAC
Analysis. The following are the categorized HLAS enabler outcomes of the MICMAC
analysis as depicted in Figure 4:

Quadrant I: There are no discernible enablers in Quartile I (autonomous enablers) of
the graph. None of the HLAS enablers are posited in that quadrant, and this implies
that HLAS enablers possess association amongst the enablers.

Quadrant II: No enabler is classified to be an enabler that is dependent. Enablers are
expected to represent a low driving force; however, a high dependency power in
Quadrant II (dependent enablers) means that they are affected by multiple factors

Figure 4.
Theoretical
ratification from the
conceptual model
derived from
empirical study
CI and cannot lead them. As none of the enablers are recognized to be placed in this
24,4 quadrant, we may assume that all the enablers possess medium to a high driving
force, and none show a greater degree of reliance on other enablers.

Quadrant III: This quartile accommodates nine enablers, namely, K1 (transparency of
process), K2 (working in collaboration and dispersed management), K3 (concurrent
realization of stages of planning and construction), K4 (proactive continuing adaptation to
998 modifications), K5 (bench marking and standardisation), K6 (training and education for
teams), K7 (organizational flexibility), K9 (continual improvement) and K10
(organizational commitment to learning). From these, the enablers K1 (process
transparency), K4 (proactive continuing adaptation to modifications) and K9 (continual
improvement) possess the highest driving and dependence forces among all the enablers,
to a degree 10 of influence. This suggests that each enabler would be influenced by every
improvement targeted at these three enablers. However, because of its high dependency
strength and comparatively lower driving power, the enabler K5 (standardization and
bench marking) has a comparatively moderate linking power. Hence, it is evident that all
the enablers that are a part of this quadrant have strong forces of driving and reliance.

This suggests that it is very likely that any intervention taken would be leading to
cascading effect to the other enablers taken into account in this report. Therefore, these
enablers generate a feedback effect on them and can be connoted as linking associations.
Furthermore, as these enablers are volatile, more caution needs to be administered while
implementing HLAS enablers:

Quadrant IV: A member of this quadrant is the enabler K8 (project management
and drafting tool usage). Enablers posited in this quadrant possess strong driving
control and low dependence control. Thus, we can conclude that among the enablers
considered, this enabler presents a dominant role and is less likely to be influenced
in the sample by other enablers. It can also be referred to as a driving enabler.
Therefore, the accomplishment of this enabler will influence the achievement of
other enablers, but it is less likely that the reverse may occur.

Managerial implications
A three-level conceptual model is developed to analyze the Interdependency of HLAS
enablers from Figure 4, which resonates with the organizational learning theory (OLT)
(Drejer, 2000). The system should concentrate on the enablers given at the foundational level
of the developed ISM Model. The inclusion of digital initiatives like project management
software programs and tools to retain all stakeholders on the same page and real-time
information would ensure successful implementation of lean and agile methodologies in the
construction industry.
The enablers at this level III are the driving factors that include the workforce’s capacity
building and the change management in an organization toward adopting these tools, which
otherwise were change resistant in the construction industry because of its capital-intensive
nature. This level resembles the first stage of OLT that warrants the tool or data acquisition,
which is an action-output-based link. These links are updated continuously as per the
environmental conditions. As per level II, the project team should be prepared and trained to
integrate these systems and guidance should be offered to address the elements of these new
philosophies. To get rehashed input and minimized interfaces, the members of this team can
operate in an increasingly cooperative and constructive manner. This level II aligns with the
second stage of OLT that expects a change in actions in a team on acquiring. However,
studies also point out that learning’s does not necessarily mandate a change in actions. The Lean–agile
governance or decision-making power around the team should be appropriated in integrated
challenging circumstances to empower them and contribute to successful decision-making. factors
This level requires encouragement from committed employees and management.
The strategy is geared toward the third and final level of the ISM hierarchy’s highest
level. At this stage, the openness of the process for its stakeholders is an important feature
that will allow HLAS to be successfully enforced. It is essential to establish standardization 999
for repetitive construction operations, such as processes and set benchmarks that are
deducible to quality and consistency. Around the same time, considering the volatile nature
of the global construction environment, the company should adjust and figure out a way
through certain dynamic environmental factors that may impede the project’s development.
This third level bears a resemblance to the third stage of OLT wherein adaptation/action are
necessary. At this stage of OLT, a continual adaptation is earmarked by standardisation,
benchmarking and transparent processes to all phases. To ensure the simultaneous
realization of the design and development processes, teamwork must be built such that each
step can be an iteration that delivers value.
The company should cultivate the mindset and methodology of developing corporate
learning structures and implementing the equivalent to improving persistently and
consistently. Throughout project life, the general approach of companies toward
improvements must be proactively accommodating in nature; the focus here is organized to
transform the enterprise and how it approaches tasks and procedures. This level requires
upper management commitment since the mind-set and procedures that follow need to
change. Such steps, consecutively put together, will help achieve a functional, consistent and
efficient HLAS.

Conclusions
Routine projects characterized by classical waterfall approaches, amidst complex, uncertain
and competing for environmental factors necessitates a call for hybrid lean and agile
blended managing of projects. Extant literature investigated individual usage of lean and
agile principles. However, limited research exists on integrated lean and agile tenets, which
offer practical solutions on unified than deployed individually. This research approached a
HLAS model to create a practically applicable framework for the construction sector. Thus,
according to the opinions of subject matter experts, after a survey review by construction
sector practitioners, an ISM model was developed for the critical ten enabling factors
selected according to their relative importance.
The outcomes of this investigative analysis demonstrate that a significant number of critical
enablers linked to team and process characteristics have a highly dependent reciprocal relationship
and will progress an organization toward adopting organizational level enablers after achieving
them. The findings are an effort to expound on the interrelationships and interdependencies
between primary enablers of HLAS for the academic and professional. There is minimal research
into such an arrangement for the implementation of the same in the construction industry, and
hence, this research could contribute to the knowledge base for the same.

References
AlSehaimi, A. and Koskela, L. (2008), “What can be learned from studies on delay in construction?”,
Proceedings of IGLC16: 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, pp. 95-106.
CI Attri, R., Dev, N. and Sharma, V. (2013), “Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an
overview”, Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 2319 No. 2, p. 1171.
24,4
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003), “Lean project management”, Building Research and Information,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith,
J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R. and Kern, J. (2001a), “Manifesto for agile software development”.
1000 Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J.,
Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R. and Kern, J. (2001b), “The agile manifesto”.
Bertelsen, S. and Koskela, L. (2004), “Construction beyond lean: a new understanding of construction
management”, Proceedings of the 12 th Annual Conference in the International Group for Lean
Construction, pp. 1-11.
Chen, Q., Reichard, G. and Beliveau, Y. (2007), “Interface management-a facilitator of lean construction
and agile project management”, International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 57-66.
Deming, W.E. (2000), “The new economics for industry, government, education, 2nd”.
Dove, R. (1994), “Best agile practice reference base: challenge models and benchmarks”, Proc. 4th
Annual Agility Conference, Agility Forum, Bethlehem, PA, pp. 1-13.
Drejer, A. (2000), “Organisational learning and competence development”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 206-220.
Eriksson, A., Holden, R.J., Williamsson, A. and Dellve, L. (2016), “A case study of three Swedish
hospitals’ strategies for implementing lean production”, Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 105-131.
Fernandez, D.J. and Fernandez, J.D. (2008), “Agile project management – agilism versus traditional
approaches”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 10-17.
Gan, X., Chang, R. and Wen, T. (2018), “Overcoming barriers to off-site construction through engaging
stakeholders: a two-mode social network analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd.,
Vol. 201, pp. 735-747, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.299.
Han, L. and Qin, R. (2013), “Analysis of project cost control based on lean construction theory”, Journal
of Chengdu University (Natural Science Edition), p. 2.
Koskela, L. (1997), “Lean production in construction, Lean construction”.
Koskela, L.J. (2004), “Moving on-beyond lean thinking”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 24-37.
Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002), “The theory of project management: explanation to novel methods”,
in Proceedings IGLC, pp. 1-11.
McKinsey (2020), “The next normal in construction”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/
industries/capital%20projects%20and%20infrastructure/our%20insights/the%20next%20normal%
20in%20construction/executive-summary_the-next-normal-in-construction.pdf
Malla, V. and Delhi, V.S.K. (2022), “Determining interconnectedness of barriers to interface
management in large construction projects”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22 No. 2.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM)”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, doi: 10.1108/
01443579410062086.
Mohammed, S.R. and Jasim, A.J. (2018), “Examining the values and principles of agile construction
management in Iraqi construction projects”, Journal of Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 114-133.
Nowotarski, P. and Pasławski, J. (2016), “Lean and agile management synergy in construction of high-
rise office building”, Archives of Civil Engineering, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 1-16.
Owen, R. and Koskela, L. (2006), “An agile step forward in project management”, 2nd Specialty
Conference on Leadership and Management in Construction and Engineering, pp. 216-224.
Owen, R., Koskela, L., Henrich, G. and Codinhoto, R. (2006), “Is agile project management applicable to Lean–agile
construction?”, IGLC.
integrated
Pasquire, C.L. and Gibb, A.G. (2009), “A lean and agile construction system as a set of countermeasures
to improve health, safety and productivity in mechanical and electrical construction”, Lean factors
Construction Journal, pp. 61-76.
PMI (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 3rd ed., Project
Management Institute, Newton Square, PA.
Sanchez, L.M. and Nagi, R. (2001), “A review of agile manufacturing systems”, International Journal of
1001
Production Research, Vol. 39 No. 16, pp. 3561-3600.
Sandbhor, S. and Botre, R. (2014), “Applying total interpretive structural modeling to study factors
affecting construction labour productivity”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 20-31.
Sertyesilisik, B. (2014), “Lean and agile construction project management: as a way of reducing
environmental footprint of the construction industry”, Optimization and Control Methods in
Industrial Engineering and Construction, pp. 179-196.
Shen, L., Song, X., Wu, Y., Liao, S. and Zhang, X. (2016), “Interpretive structural modeling based factor
analysis on the implementation of emission trading system in the Chinese building sector”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 127, pp. 214-227.
Sohi, A.J., Hertogh, M., Bosch-Rekveldt, M. and Blom, R. (2016), “Does lean and agile project
management help coping with project complexity?”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 226, pp. 252-259.
Suhail Iqbal (2015), “Leading construction industry to Lean-Agile (LeAgile) project management”, PMI
Global Congress Proceedings, pp. 1-10.
Tan, T., et al. (2019), “Barriers to building information modeling (BIM) implementation in China’s
prefabricated construction: an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 219, pp. 949-959, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.141.
Tavakolan, M. and Etemadinia, H. (2017), “Fuzzy weighted interpretive structural modeling: improved
method for identification of risk interactions in construction projects”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 11, p. 04017084.
Thakkar, J., Deshmukh, S.G., Gupta, A.D. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Selection of third-party
logistics (3PL): a hybrid approach using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and
analytic network process (ANP)”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 32-46.
Thomas, A.V. and Sudhakumar, J. (2015), “Factors influencing construction labour productivity: an
indian case study”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 53-68.
Tomek, R. and Kalinichuk, S. (2015), “Agile PM and BIM: a hybrid scheduling approach for a
technological construction project”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 123, pp. 557-564.
Warfield, J.N. (1974), “Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-4 No. 1, pp. 81-87.
Wu, W.W. (2008), “Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and
DEMATEL approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 828-835.

Further reading
Alnaggar, A. and PapadoniNolaNi, E. (2019), “A proposed model for digital transformation of
requirements management in the design of healthcare facilities”, Proceedings of the 36th CIB
W78 conference (International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and
Construction). 36th CIB W78 2019 Conference.
AlSehaimi, A.O., Tzortzopoulos, P. and Koskela, L. (2009), Last Planner System: Experiences from Pilot
Implementation in the Middle East, IGLC.
CI Arbulu, R. and Zabelle, T. (2006), “Implementing lean in construction: how to succeed”, In Proceedings
for IGLC-14, Santiago, Chile.
24,4
Banerjee, A. and Mukhopadhay, S.K.M. (2016), “A contemporary TOC innovative thinking process in the
backdrop of Leagile supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 3.
Barak, R., et al. (2009), “Unique requirements of building information modeling for cast-in-place
reinforced concrete”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 64-74, doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2009)23:2(64).
1002
Bayhan, H.G., Demirkesen, S. and Jayamanne, E. (2019), “Enablers and barriers of lean implementation
in construction projects”, in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 471
No. 2, p. 022002.
Björnfot, A. (2008), “An engineering perspective on lean construction theory”, Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction: 16/07/2008-18/07/2008, University of Salford,
pp. 15-26.
Chamberlin, K.S., Asadi, S.S. and Chaitanya, D.S. (2017), “Evaluation of latest trends and developments
in lean construction in India: a model study”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 8 No. 10.
Chen, J. (2017), “Agile in construction projects”.
Chinowsky, P.S. and Meredith, J.E. (2000), “Strategic management in construction”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Dallasega, P., Revolti, A., Follini, C., Schimanski, C.P. and Matt, D.T. (2019), ‘“BIM-based construction
progress measurement of non-repetitive HVAC installation works”, Proc. 27th Annual
Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), edited by Pasquire C., and
FR Hamzeh, pp. 819-830.
Dave, B., Kubler, S., Pikas, E., Holmström, J., Singh, V., Främling, K. and Koskela, L. (2015), “Intelligent
products: shifting the production control logic in construction (with lean and BIM)”, Proceedings
of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Perth, Australia.
Desale, S.V. and Deodhar, S.V. (2014), “Identification and eliminating waste in construction by using
lean and six sigma principles”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 285-296.
Dharmawan, F. (2017), “LEAN MANUFACTURING UNTUK MEREDUKSI WASTE PADA
PRODUKSI RAKET MERK SANYO (perusahaan raket abadi malang)”, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Muhammadiyah Malang.
Ghosh, S., Bhattacharjee, S., Pishdad-Bozorgi, P. and Ganapathy, R. (2014), ‘“A case study to examine
environmental benefits of lean construction”, Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the
International Group of Lean Construction (IGLC), pp. 133-144.
Holden, R.J., Eriksson, A., Andreasson, J., Williamsson, A. and Dellve, L. (2015), “Healthcare workers’
perceptions of lean: a context-sensitive, mixed methods study in three Swedish hospitals”,
Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 47, pp. 181-192.
Jagannathan, M., Chowdry, R.K. and Malla, V. (2019), ‘“Construction contracts and lean: mapping
wastes to its sources”, Proceedings of the Third Biennial Indian Lean Construction Conference
ILCC 2019. ‘Bringing up Lean Culture in Indian Construction’, pp. B47-B56.
John, B. (2018), “Framework of agile management’s sprint planning in construction projects-AFD
method”, International Journal of Advance Research and Development, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 88-93.
Kashikar, A., Mehta, D., Motichandani, B. and Dasika, D. (2016), “A case study on agile and lean project
management in construction industry”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 31-39.
Kasiramkumar, T. and Indhu, B. (2016), “An implementation framework for integrated lean
construction system for Indian scenario”, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Vol. 11 No. 15, pp. 9388-9394.
Leksic, I. (2018), “Lean model for construction project effectiveness measurement”, Annals of the Lean–agile
Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
integrated
Martinez, E., Reid, C.K. and Tommelein, I.D. (2019), “Lean construction for affordable housing: a case
study in Latin America”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 1-24.
factors
Masood, R., Gonzalez, V. and Lim, J. (2017), “Value stream mapping: a case study of cold-formed steel
house framing for offsite manufacturing supply chain”, 25th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC).
1003
Meng, X. and Boyd, P. (2017), “The role of the project manager in relationship management”,
International Journal of Project Management. Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 717-728, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.03.001.
Moon, H., Yu, J.H. and Kim, C.D. (2007), “Performance indicators based on TFV theory”, Proceedings of
IGLC-15, MI.
Mostafa, S., Chileshe, N. and Abdelhamid, T. (2016), “Lean and agile integration within offsite
construction using discrete event simulation: a systematic literature review”, Construction
Innovation, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 1-43.
Olatunji, J. (2008), “Lean-in-Nigerian construction: State, barriers, strategies and ‘go-to-gemba’
approach”, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Manchester, pp. 16-18.
Padalkar, M. and Gopinath, S. (2016), “Six decades of project management research: thematic
trends and future opportunities”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34
No. 7, pp. 1305-1321.
Pasquire, C.L., Gibb, A.G.F. and Bower, D. (2005), ‘“Lean as and antidote to labour cost escalation on
complex mechanical and electrical projects”, Proceedings of 13th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 3-11.
Pekuri, A., Herrala, M., Aapaoja, A. and Haapasalo, H. (2012), “Applying lean in construction–
cornerstones for implementation”, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 18-20.
Rasnacis, A. and Berzisa, S. (2017), “Method for adaptation and implementation of agile project
management methodology”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 104, pp. 43-50.
Rauch, E., Damian, A., Holzner, P. and Matt, D.T. (2016), “Lean hospitality-application of lean
management methods in the hotel sector”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 41, pp. 614-619.
Saini, M. (2015), “A framework for transferring and sharing tacit knowledge in construction
supply chains within lean and agile processes”, Doctoral dissertation, University of
Salford.
Meghwani, S., Trivedi, J. and Hrishikesh Joshi, D.G.D. (2019), “Value stream mapping – changing the
perspective in traditional practice”, Proceedings of ILCC.
SARhAN, S. and Fox, A. (2013), “Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK construction
industry”, The Built and Human Environment Review.
Stevens, M. (2014), “Increasing adoption of lean construction by contractors”, Proceedings of the
22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway,
pp. 377-388.
Suetina, T.A., Odinokov, M.Y. and Safina, D.M. (2014), “Benefits of project management at lean
manufacturing tools implementation”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 10 No. 20, p. 62.
Tzortzopoulos, P. and Formoso, C. (1999), “Considerations on application of lean construction principles
to design management”, Proceedings IGLC, pp. 26-28.
Vieira, D.R., Rebaiaia, M.L. and Chain, M.C. (2016), “The application of reliability methods for aircraft
design project management”, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, Vol. 6
No. 9, pp. 967-992.
CI Wandahl, S. (2014), “Lean construction with or without lean – challenges of implementing lean
construction”, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
24,4 Construction, IGLC, Oslo, pp. 97-108.
Wong, J.K.W., Ge, J. and He, S.X. (2018), “Digitisation in facilities management: a literature review and
future research directions”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier BV, Vol. 92, pp. 312-326, doi:
10.1016/j.autcon.2018.04.006.

1004 About the author

Vijayeta Malla is a PMI certified PMPV (Project Management Professional), SAFe 5VAgilist, CSMV,
R R R

LEEDV Green AssociateTM and Certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt with over 15 years of
R

demonstrated history of working in the AECO and Academia industry. She is currently pursuing a
PhD from IIT Bombay and possesses Masters (MTech) from IIT Madras in Construction Technology
and Management. She worked for ten years in “M/s Larsen & Toubro” and 1 year in “M/s Tata
Projects Ltd,” where she majorly worked in Water Infrastructure projects and Minerals and
Metallurgical projects. She is currently working as Faculty in NICMAR, Hyderabad, and her research
interests are Project and Program Management, Digitalization for Built Environment, Interface
Management for Large Construction Projects and Sustainability. Vijayeta Malla can be contacted at:
[email protected]

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: [email protected]