Enabling Industry 4.0 Technologies to Drive Sustainable Housing Delivery across the Housing Supply Value Chain in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and Prospects

Abstract

The Saudi government has launched the Saudi Vision 2030 that aims to increase the home ownership rate to 70% by 2030 by taking the different sustainability goals into consideration. However, several challenges such as rapid urbanization and the gap between housing supply and demand are facing this goal. This study attributes the housing supply gap to KSA’s reductionist approach to the housing supply value chain (HSVC) and proposes adopting Industry 4.0 technologies. The study explores the challenges and prospects of integrating these technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC. Through action research, data were gathered via random sampling and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science version 24, incorporating a principal component analysis (PCA). The findings from the analysis identify key challenges such as data management infrastructure, construction industry regulations, uncertain housing delivery policies, and resistance to change. Despite these challenges, there is a strong potential for adopting Industry 4.0 technologies to achieve sustainable housing delivery. This study offers a blueprint for policymakers and housing industry leaders to develop a comprehensive strategy for adopting 4IR technologies in housing delivery, enhancing collaboration and driving progress towards Saudi Arabia’s sustainable housing goals.

1. Introduction

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) stands out as a significant leader in housing delivery among other countries within the Arabian peninsula [1,2]. Additionally, the main goal of the government in the housing sector is to provide its citizens with decent, affordable, and safe housing units so as to increase the home-ownership rate. This goal had been stated clearly in all National Development Plans (NDPs) until the establishment of the Ministry of Housing, and recently in more detail and focus on the Housing Program of Saudi Vision 2030. This program sets several goals in order to improve the housing market in KSA, and the main aims that are related to home-ownership are: (i) increase the home ownership rate among Saudi citizens from 50% to 70% by 2030, and (ii) to provide more affordable and sustainable housing options for the citizens [3,4,5,6,7]. Alqahtany [3] believed that the KSA stood out as a significant leader in housing delivery because of the kingdom’s ambition and significant financial investments aimed at addressing housing challenges and enhancing living conditions. Alattas et al. [4] indicated that the kingdom’s prestigious housing vision for 2030, which focused on increasing home ownership to 70% by 2030, was borne out of the KSA’s financial investments in housing. Prior to Vision 2030, Al-Mayouf and Al-Khayyal [8] affirmed that the KSA had adopted numerous housing delivery strategies aimed at ensuring sustainable housing delivery. The strategies included ARAMCO housing programs, the AI-Malaz program, a real estate development fund, an enabling approach, Sakani, and national housing corporation, and others [9,10]. Regardless of the policies and delivery strategies, Alattas, Kalogianni, Alzahrani, Zlatanova, and van Oosterom [4] affirmed that there are several challenges facing the delivery of sustainable housing in KSA.

Alhubashi and Roca Cladera [11] opined that Saudi Arabia is facing challenges related to supplying sustainable housing, however, the situation might be more challenging as KSA owing to the rapid urbanization and accelerated urban development [12]. Alasmari [13] asserted that the rapid population growth witnessed by Saudi Arabia in recent decades has posed a persistent challenge in meeting housing demands. This surge in population growth has resulted in overcrowding and the expansion of numerous cities and urban centers [5]. Similarly, Gamboa [9] avowed that Saudi Arabia’s cities are experiencing the most rapid growth in the Middle East. Over the last three to four decades, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has undergone significant economic development, largely due to the discovery and exploitation of oil resources in the 1930s [2]. This economic transformation has led to the expansion of urban areas across all major cities in Saudi Arabia. Alhajri [6] reported that the transformation is responsible for a notable increase in the disparity between the supply and demand for housing units.

Towards reducing the disparity in supply and demand, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia introduced the National Housing Company [14]. This entity aimed to improve the housing sector by implementing an enabling strategy that emphasized promoting public–private partnerships (PPP) for housing provision [6,7]. Mohammed et al. [15] outlined the enabling approach, which involved various incentives such as the Wafi program, facilitating the sale of housing during the design or construction phase. Additionally, measures were taken to expedite approval processes for private developers, impose fees on unused residential land to increase availability, and tailor housing applications to the socioeconomic status of applicants [15]. Although the contribution and efforts by the government towards improving homeowner-ship have been significant, there are several sustainable housing challenges that KSA is currently facing.

Earlier on, Akinwande and Hui [16] avowed that ensuring affordable housing for the urban poor is a critical criterion for determining the sustainability of a housing delivery plan adopted by a nation. Notable authors like [17,18] have identified sustainable housing delivery as a strategy that ensures that all the activities involved with housing development minimize negative environmental impacts, promote social equity, and ensure economic viability. This implies that sustainable housing delivery would ensure that a nation achieves goal 11 of the United Nations SDGs. Meeting this goal, which aims to create inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements could be challenging for the KSA due to rapid urbanization and other sustainable challenges [11]. This underscores the urgent necessity for improved planning and management to achieve sustainable housing delivery. While many scholars have explored housing delivery globally, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [5,8,19,20], the development of sustainable housing across the housing supply value chain (HSVC) remains a significant challenge.

Achieving an effective HSVC that encompasses housing finance, land acquisition, and housing construction has been a global challenge [16]. The challenge emanates from the reductionist approach towards the value chain, as most past literature related to sustainable housing delivery has only focused on a component within the housing supply value chain [17]. This study proposes the adoption of technologies driven by Industry 4.0 or the fourth industrial revolution as a tool for ensuring a holistic view of the HSVC aimed at delivering sustainable housing. The technologies driven by the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) have been adopted in past research for providing a holistic view across value and supply chain [21,22]. Earlier on, Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Thwala, and Molusiwa [21] modelled the technology driven by the 4IR in ensuring resilience within the construction supply chain. Thus, it can be implied that the technologies driven by the 4IR hold the potential to optimize the HSVC.

Due to the potential of the technologies driven by the 4IR, it has attracted numerous research and garnered global attention. Kazeem et al. [23] investigated the implementation of Industry 4.0 technology within the construction process in Hong Kong. Dallasega et al. [24] and Fatorachian and Kazemi [25] advocated for the integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into the management of the supply chain. However, there remains a gap in research concerning the challenge of integrating Industry 4.0 technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the housing supply value chain (HSVC). Although some similar studies [4,26] made a case for the adoption of 4IR technology for sustainable housing development, they only focused on the critical success factors or drivers of the 4IR technology application for sustainable housing delivery and failed to examine the challenges confronting the application of the technology. Also, they did not appraise the prospect of the application of 4IR technology across the HSVC. Understanding the challenges is germane to the development of a policy that would support the application of the technologies. Therefore, this study is aimed at appraising the challenges confronting the application of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the value chain in Saudi Arabia. This study would contribute to the development of policies and regulations that would support the achievement of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.

2. Housing Delivery Strategies across the Housing Supply Chain in Saudi Arabia

Housing is a fundamental right and a critical component for the growth of any nation, including Saudi Arabia [7]. Al-Mayouf and Al-Khayyal [8] reported that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) acknowledges housing as a vital element of urban development, impacting socioeconomic status, politics, security, and the lives of individuals. Susilawati and Al Surf [27] and Mulliner and Algrnas [28] attributed that although the initial cost of sustainable housing tools or approaches could be high, but the long run financial benefits are significant. However, such high cost has discouraged people from implementing new ‘expensive’ sustainable housing tools. Gamboa [9] revealed that the high cost of living originated from the 1970s oil boom phase and persisted in the face of rapid population growth.

Towards providing decent housing in the face of rapid population growth, the Saudi Government has provided numerous housing delivery strategies. A review of literature [9,29] revealed that the housing delivery strategy in the KSA has experienced a notable shift towards implementing social housing policies. Social housing stands as a widely adopted housing model to cater to vulnerable demographic segments, signifying a governmental commitment to assisting low-income families in securing suitable housing [1]. Alhubashi and Roca Cladera [11] avowed that the social housing delivery strategy in the KSA has witnessed significant institutional restructuring and the adoption of various delivery approaches and initiatives to address escalating urbanization and housing needs. It can be deduced that the progression of the KSA’s social housing policy framework can be delineated into several distinct phases.

The first phase was referred to as the pre-unification phase, which started around the 1930s [1]. At this stage, the KSA lacked development in construction and planning with its inhabitants, which led to a nomadic lifestyle characterized by high mobility and instability. However, notable exceptions were the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, which witnessed rapid population growth and sporadic housing development by religious settlers from other regions [8]. During the pre-unification stage, Abu-Ghazzeh [30] reported that a formal planning system was absent, meaning that urban areas lacked essential urban services. After the unification phase, the next phase was called the resource-dependent path (1931–1969). During this phase, the KSA discovered oil, which attracted immigrants to the cities in search of greener pastures [31]. This immigration led to the development of informal housing settlements and shantytowns, because the local housing market could not respond to the housing demand. Towards tackling the informal settlements, the KSA launched its first housing delivery strategies by partnering with Aramco (an oil firm) company to deliver housing to the citizens [29,32].

Table 1. Housing delivery strategies in Saudi Arabia.

Phases	Phase Description	Housing Delivery Strategies
Pre-unification phase	This phase witnessed an absence of a formal planning system, which meant that housing was delivered without proper strategies [1,30].	None
Resource dependence phase (1931–1969)	This phase was driven by the discovery of oil in the KSA, which attracted immigrants looking for greener pastures [8,31]. The KSA proposed a public partnership with private oil companies to create formal housing delivery strategies [10]. This period witnessed the establishment of a housing ecosystem.	ARAMCO housing programs. AI-Malaz project
Evolving housing strategy (1970–1995)	This phase witnessed a shift from direct housing to indirect housing delivery strategies through the establishment of the Real Estate Development Fund (REDF) [27].	Real estate development fund Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MPWH) Land grants Government staff housing
Neo-liberalism era (1995–2005)	This era experienced the high involvement of the private sector in housing provision, owing to the sixth national five-year development plan (1995–2000) [1,29]. The private sector was encouraged to provide loans due to a decline in housing subsidies [32]. This period is also called the fall of the public housing era.	Housing loans through REDF
Institutional transformation (2005–2015)	During this period, the government of Saudi Arabia aimed to revive the public housing sector. This era witnessed the dissolution of the MPWH to pave the way for the General Housing Authority (GHA) [8,9]. The GHA was focused on increasing homeownership by sustaining the supply of residential land [12].	General Housing Authority (GHA) Ministry of housing
Vision 2030 (2016–present)	The KSA established Vision 2030 after identifying the incompatibility between the housing supply and demand [1,29]. During this era, the REDF faced critical financing issue, and there was a challenge in delivering housing for low and middle-income Saudis [10]. Vision 2030 introduced the concept of developmental housing, which encourages contributions from the non-profit sector [33]. The Saudi government also focused on achieving 70% home ownership [5].	Vision 2030 aimed at achieving sustainable housing delivery.

Source: authors’ review of literature.

presents other housing delivery strategies adopted during this phase.

The next phase was triggered by the economic boom brought about by the rise of oil prices. This phase was called the evolving housing strategy (1970–1995) [8]. This phase witnessed a shift from direct housing to indirect housing delivery strategies through the establishment of the Real Estate Development Fund (REDF) [3]. It can be deduced that the housing delivery strategy at this phase focused on only a single component (finance) of the HSVC, which led to several challenges specially for of the REDF such as the long waiting list of the applicants. In response to such challenges of the REDF, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MPWH) was established to deal with such challenges by offering several housing initiatives such as free land initiative [1,31].

Sohail [12] avowed that the rise in population from 2005 to 2015 witnessed the development of the general housing authority. To cater to the steady rise in the population, the KSA established Vision 2030, aimed at achieving 70% homeownership, and to provide better affordable and sustainable housing options for the citizens [7]. It can be deduced from the review of the housing delivery strategies presented in Table 1 that the gap in the housing supply and demand in the KSA is due to the absence of a delivery strategy that provides a holistic view across the HSVC.

2.1. Industry 4.0 and Sustainable Housing Delivery across the Housing Supply Value Chain

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) or Industry 4.0 is reshaping the global landscape with its technological progressions, sparking increasing curiosity about its implications for sustainable housing provision [4,34]. Dallasega, Rauch, and Linder [24] attributed the increased curiosity to the emerging technologies associated with 4IR, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT), that are fundamentally altering the housing industry. Lekan et al. [35] and Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Thwala, and Molusiwa [21] believe that the technological advancements of the 4IR hold the possibilities for heightened efficiency, productivity, and sustainability across housing design, construction, and administration. For instance, Aghimien, et al. [36] revealed that 3D printing holds the potential for waste reduction and accelerated construction timelines. Additionally, smart homes and buildings can optimize energy usage and improve overall living conditions [37]. This implies that the technologies driven by the 4IR hold the potential of revolutionizing sustainable housing delivery.

Despite the potential of available 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery, the majority of the existing studies on the use of the technologies for sustainable housing delivery are limited in their coverage. For example, some studies focus solely on individual technologies, such as IoT, 3D printing, and virtual and augmented reality [38,39,40]. Others examine the combined application of technologies such as BIM and IoT [41] or BIM and cloud computing [42] in housing delivery without providing a holistic overview of all the technologies driven by the 4IR. Although some studies [34,43] comprehensively explore the application of the entire Industry 4.0 Technologies for sustainable housing delivery, they fail to examine the impact across the HSVC. Assessing the impact across the HSVC is crucial, because a review of [5,11,44] reveals that the absence of a comprehensive management of the HSVC is the major challenge in confronting sustainable housing delivery in Saudi Arabia.

The housing supply value chain (HSVC) adopted in this study originates from the idea of [45], which identified the value chain as the complete spectrum of activities necessary for creating a product or providing a service. It encompasses the entire process through which a producer enhances the value of their product, spanning production, marketing, and all post-sales activities. In this study, sustainable housing is regarded as a product that requires numerous activities contributing to its value chain. Akinwande and Hui [16] affirmed that, regarding the HSVC, the activities that contribute to sustainable housing (product) encompass housing finance, construction, and land acquisition. Thus, it implies that sustainable housing can only be achieved by optimizing all the components within the HSVC. Unfortunately, existing studies related to 4IR technologies and sustainable housing, such as [34], do not examine the suitability of 4IR technologies to optimize the activities within the entire HSVC.

2.2. Challenges in Adopting Industry 4.0 for Sustainable Housing Delivery

Housing is often perceived as mere structures or residences where individuals reside [18]. A review of the current literature [16,27] identified housing as extending beyond the scope of mere dwellings and encompassing the provision of social, environmental, and economic needs. This implies that the delivery or development of housing must encompass social, environmental, and economic needs. In support of this assertion, Winkler et al. [46] and Ali et al. [47] affirmed that housing delivery is considered sustainable if it meets social, economic, and environmental criteria.

The environmental test includes the ability of the housing delivery strategy to minimize negative impacts on the environment [30]. An environmentally friendly housing delivery strategy aims to deliver houses that reduce the ecological footprint and promote a healthier living environment. A housing delivery strategy is deemed to have passed the social test if it can accommodate the urban poor and the vulnerable [18]. On the other hand, the economic housing delivery test is based on the ability of the housing delivery strategy to provide affordable housing that is economically viable and sustainable over the long term [21]. In Saudi Arabia, however, the conventional housing delivery system has not passed the sustainable delivery test [1]. Al Obaid [10] reported that the housing delivery system in Saudi Arabia has negative impacts on the economy, society, and the environment. Gamboa [9] and Sohail [12] avowed that the housing delivery strategies have failed to keep pace with the rapid population growth, but they also lack important social elements.

Towards ensuring that the housing delivery strategies in Saudi Arabia are sustainable, Alattas, Kalogianni, Alzahrani, Zlatanova, and van Oosterom [4] recommended the integration of technologies driven by the 4IR with the delivery strategies. The genesis of Industry 4.0 emerged from the manufacturing domain, aiming for full digitization within the industry, as underscored by studies conducted by Dallasega, Rauch, and Linder [24]. Nimawat and Gidwani [48] suggest that the utilization of 4IR technologies in manufacturing closely parallels their application in other sectors, including construction. Nonetheless, disparities arise in the application nature, scope, and regulatory frameworks. Past studies [25,34,38] have revealed that the technologies driven by the fourth industrial revolution hold significant potential for ensuring sustainable housing delivery. This potential includes the possibility of creating a digital model of housing, with a neighborhood aimed at predicting energy and resource consumption to alleviate the impact of housing delivery on the environment. Despite the potential of technologies driven by the 4IR to ensure sustainable housing delivery, there are numerous challenges affecting its deployment.

Table 2. Challenges hindering the adoption of 4IR technology for sustainable housing across the HSVC.

Challenges	Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Thwala, and Molusiwa [21]	Raptis, Passarella, and Conti [43]	Nawari and Ravindran [49]	Dallasega, Rauch, and Linder [24]	Nimawat and Gidwani [48]	Kazeem, Olawumi, and Osunsanmi [23]
High cost of data maintenance	X	X		X
Low technical know-how	X		X			X
Site-based nature of the construction industry		X	X
Complex nature of housing delivery strategies	X				X
Uncertainty of government housing delivery policies		X		X		X
Housing stakeholders’ resistance to change	X		X
Higher requirements for computing equipment		X			X	X
Lack of standards and policies	X			X		X
High implementation cost of data security and protection of internet data			X		X
Data security and protection		X		X
Difficulty in adopting 4IR technology across the HSVC		X			X
High cost of educating stakeholders in the housing sector on the use of the technology	X	X	X	X	X	X
Difficulty in setting housing delivery performance standards within the HSVC	X		X
Difficulty in agreeing to the adoption of 4IR technologies across the HSVC		X			X
Unwillingness to invest in 4IR technology for sustainable housing delivery	X		X	X
Difficulty in creating regulations and procedures supporting the adoption of 4IR technologies in HSVC	X		X			X
Low investment in research on behalf of the construction firm	X					X
Threat of hacking of data		X				X

Source: authors’ review of literature.

presents the challenges affecting the adoption of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery.

Despite the potential benefits, challenges persist throughout the housing supply value chain when implementing Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technologies. These challenges encompass high upfront expenses and affordability concerns in the planning and design phase [21]. Kazeem, Olawumi, and Osunsanmi [23] highlighted another challenge and related it to the restricted standardization and scalability of 4IR technologies in construction: inadequate data and analytics to bolster their implementation in operation and maintenance. Castelo-Branco, Oliveira, Simões-Coelho, Portugal and Filipe [22], and Kazeem, Olawumi, and Osunsanmi [23] raised a concern regarding the ethical considerations for privacy and security in smart homes and buildings developed using technologies driven by the 4IR. Regardless of these challenges, addressing them is crucial to fully unlocking the potential of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery.

3. Research Methodology

The housing delivery strategy is the fundamental right of any citizen and the critical factor contributing to a nation’s development [18]. In response to the crucial nature of housing delivery as a tool for economic growth, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has enacted numerous housing policies [5,19]. The policies are aimed at ensuring sustainable housing delivery for its citizens. On the other hand, a review of literature such as Al-Mayouf and Al-Khayyal [8] revealed that, despite the policies and efforts enacted by the KSA, achieving sustainable housing delivery remains a challenge in the KSA. Mohammed, Maatouk, and Helmi [15] affirmed that the challenge is severe in the face of rapid urbanization and lack of comprehensive management of the housing supply value chain. Alattas, Kalogianni, Alzahrani, Zlatanova, and van Oosterom [4] recognized the technology driven by the 4IR as a critical component for ensuring sustainable housing delivery. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the prospects and challenges for integrating 4IR technologies in ensuring sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC. Thus, this study will assess the prospects and challenges during the integration of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

This study is focused on Riyadh due to numerous reasons ranging from it being the largest city and its unique location within the KSA. Garba [2] and Kyriazis, Balasis, and Patsavos [1] indicated that Riyadh experienced rapid urbanization driven by numerous policies that focus on subsidizing land and buildings. Although commendable, this policy led to a disruption in the property market due to low technological adoption. This factor influenced the selection of stakeholders in housing within the city for this study.

The first step before selecting the construction professionals was to conduct a thorough literature review to uncover the variables used for developing the questionnaire. This step was recommended by Leykum et al. [50] as the first step in conducting action research involving an initial exploratory phase to grasp the problem prior to adopting solutions. Thus, a thorough investigation was conducted into the challenges preventing the adoption of 4IR technology across the HSVC. The challenges were analyzed to identify the components preventing the adoption of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC. This made the adoption of an action research design particularly fitting for this study. Furthermore, the decision to use an action research design was guided by the recognition that other research designs are suitable for hypothesis testing and may not be suitable for this study’s objectives.

To obtain the data used for this study objective, a random sampling method was adopted. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie [51] and Dieronitou [52], random sampling offers significant research benefits. This method enables the estimation of sampling errors, aiding in the selection of credible respondents and facilitating the generalization of findings to the broader population. Although probability sampling methods have drawbacks such as being time-consuming and more costly compared to non-probability sampling methods, they offer significant advantages. For example, they allow for the inclusion of all qualified stakeholders in the sample and enable the estimate of sampling error. This sampling method also ensures that the housing stakeholders who are capable of providing valid answers to the research questions are selected [53]. The use of this sampling method also ensured that the findings emanating from this study can be adopted to other cities in Saudi Arabia.

Random sampling was used in selecting responses from groups of registered housing stakeholders in Riyadh. Thus, a total of 75 professionals were randomly selected based on their affiliation with professional bodies. A questionnaire was used to collect data from the selected professionals, with its validity determined using face and Cronbach’s alpha. The questionnaire was shared with the ethics panel prior to the commencement of this study to achieve face validity. Out of the selected professionals, 62 provided effective responses, resulting in an 80% response rate. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability test yielded a value of 0.864, which is deemed a good fit by [54]. This implies that the questionnaire used for this study was reliable and thus could provide answers to the study’s objectives.

The questionnaire used in this study was divided into three sections and was developed using variables extracted from the literature, as depicted in Figure 1. The first section contained demographic and information about the respondents’ firms. In the second section, the respondents were asked to rate the prospect of integrating 4IR technologies with sustainable housing delivery. The findings from the review of the literature revealed that sustainable housing delivery encompass three components (social, economic, and environment). The explanation and definition extracted from literature for each component was included in the questionnaire administered to the respondents. Therefore, the respondents were asked to rate the prospect that the technologies would achieve all three components of sustainable housing simultaneously.

The last section focused on the challenges hindering the adoption of 4IR technologies for delivering sustainable housing across the HSVC. After collecting the questionnaire, the data were subjected to quantitative research due to their ability to provide numerical data and draw generalizable conclusions across specific populations. SPSS version 24 was adopted, using mean item scores and frequencies. Additionally, a principal component analysis (PCA), a statistical method for reducing dataset dimensionality, was applied to assess the challenges of integrating 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC.

4. Discussion of Findings

The findings emanating from this study are presented and discussed in this section. The findings were divided into the personal characteristics of the respondents and the prospect of integrating 4IR for housing delivery across the HSVC. The last two parts of this section focus on the challenges and suitable technology for sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC.

4.1. Background Information

The background information of the respondents in this study comprises the respondents’ forms of organization, organization activities, and the number of years spent in the organization. The results of the analysis are presented in

Table 3. Respondents’ personal information.

	Frequency	Percent (%)
Form of organization
Government	37	59.7
Private	25	40.3
Total	62	100
Organization activity
Construction	18	29.0
Maintenance	10	16.1
Housing (regulatory)	11	17.7
Engineering work	16	25.8
Academic	7	11.4
Total	62	100
Number of years within the organization
1–5 years	4	6.5
6–10 years	9	14.5
11–15 years	20	32.3
16–20 years	14	22.6
21–25 years	7	11.3
More than 25 years	8	12.9
Total	62	100
Professional background
Building technologist	22	35.5
Architecture	14	22.5
Civil Engineering	10	16.1
Town and housing planners	11	17.7
Other	5	8.2
Total	62	100

. The result revealed that the majority of the respondents (59.7%) were from government organizations, while 40.3% were from private organizations. This indicates a balanced representation of both government and private sectors in this study, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and prospects across different organizational contexts. Regarding the organization activities, Table 3 shows that the highest percentage (29.0%) were involved in construction activities, followed by engineering work (25.8%) and housing regulatory activities (17.7%). This distribution reflects the diverse roles and responsibilities of the respondents within the housing sector, thereby making their opinions suitable for this study.

The distribution of the respondents based on their years of experience within their respective organizations provides insights into the level of expertise and institutional knowledge available, as shown in Table 3. A significant proportion of the respondents had been with their organizations for more than a decade, with 32.3% having 11–15 years of experience and 22.6% having 16–20 years of experience. This suggests a wealth of experience and potentially deep insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with sustainable housing delivery. Also presented in Table 3 is the distribution of professionals participating in the study. Table 3 revealed that building technologists formed the largest group among the respondents, with a proportion of 35.5%. This suggests that a significant portion of the study’s insights were driven by professionals who specialized in the technical aspects of building construction and technology integration. Their prominent presence indicates a strong focus on the practical implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction process. Civil engineers (16.1%), architects (22.5%), and town and housing planners (17.7%) also comprised a significant proportion of the respondents. The participation of these respondents indicates that this study also addresses strategic and structural considerations, ensuring that the solutions proposed are not only technologically sound but also practically viable and scalable. The professional distribution highlighted in Table 3 underscores the interdisciplinary nature of the study and its potential to develop comprehensive strategies for sustainable housing delivery in Saudi Arabia using Industry 4.0 technologies

4.2. Prospect of Integrating 4IR Technologies for Sustainable Housing Delivery across the Housing Supply Value Chain

The participants were asked to assess the prospect of integrating 4IR technology to ensure sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC. The technologies were extracted from the literature [4,23,25,36] and were presented to the respondents. The technologies driven by the 4IR for sustainable housing can be broken down into immersive technologies, smart connectivity, and automation [55]. The immersive technologies include BIM, virtual reality, and augmented reality. Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Thwala, and Molusiwa [21] classified technologies such as RFID, cloud computing, internet of things, mobile computing, big data, 3D printing, robotics, digitalization, and drones into smart connectivity and automation. The technologies were listed, and the respondents were instructed to rate this prospect on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “very high” to “very low”. As depicted in Figure 2, the results indicated a high inclination towards the prospect of integrating 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery, with an average score of 4.62. This outcome implies that stakeholders in the housing sector recognize the potential benefits of leveraging advanced technologies to enhance sustainability across the housing supply value chain. The findings from this study coincide with the work done by [21,56]. The scholars recognized the prospect of 4IR technologies for optimizing the supply chain. The findings from the open-ended section of the questionnaire revealed that most of the respondents identified building information modelling (BIM) and artificial intelligence as the prominent 4IR technologies for optimizing HSVC. Also, Cooley and Cholakis [42] and Kazeem, Olawumi, and Osunsanmi [23] discovered that BIM and artificial intelligence hold the potential to ensure the performance of housing delivery due to the collaborative capacities of the technology. Thus, it can be implied that amongst the 4IR technologies, BIM holds the greatest potential for ensuring sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC.

Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Oke, and Ohiomah [55] also discovered that 4IR technologies have a significant prospect in ensuring sustainable housing delivery. However, their study did not appraise the prospect of 4IR technologies across the housing supply value chain (HSVC). Akinwande and Hui [16] affirmed that managing the HSVC is a global and complex challenge for most nations. This can be attributed to some respondents indicating neutral (3.42) and low (3.14) prospects for the integration of 4IR technologies of housing delivery across the HSVC. While this segment is relatively small, their neutrality may indicate a cautious or reserved outlook on the transformative potential of 4IR technologies in the context of housing delivery. Understanding the challenges or the perspectives of these respondents can provide insights into specific concerns that need to be addressed to garner broader support for technology integration.

4.3. Challenges of Integrating the 4IR Technologies for Housing Delivery across the HSVC

The factors impeding the integration of 4IR technologies aimed at ensuring sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC were assessed in this section. Previous research [24,57,58] has highlighted the challenges of adopting 4IR technologies in different sectors, ranging from construction safety, manufacturing, and health. However, there is a gap in practice and the literature concerning the challenge for its application in ensuring sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC in the KSA. Due to its multifaceted nature, a comprehensive statistical method like a principal component analysis (PCA) becomes essential for understanding the challenges of integrating 4IR technologies into housing delivery.

Thus, this study utilized a principal component analysis (PCA) and rotated the component using the varimax method to identify the challenges of implementing 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery in the KSA. Seventeen factors were gathered from the existing literature and subjected to a PCA. The first step in conducting a PCA involves assessing the data’s suitability. The KMO test presented in

Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin	0.738
Bartlett’s Test:
Chi-square	406.336
df	136
Level of significance	0.000

yielded a value of 0.738, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.5 [59]. Furthermore, Bartlett’s test demonstrated a significant impact at 99% and 95%, resulting in a chi-square value of 406.336 with 136 degrees of freedom. These outcomes confirm the data’s appropriateness for PCA.

After confirming the suitability of the data, varimax rotation was utilized to parse the variables into meaningful components. The scree plot depicted in Figure 3 illustrates the variance captured by the principal component analysis (PCA), with the y-axis representing eigenvalues signifying the variance amount. An analysis of Figure 3 reveals a change in the curve’s slope after the fourth component, indicating that components beyond the fourth possess eigenvalues below 1.0. Following the guidance of Aliu, Aghimien, Aigbavboa, Oke, Ebekozien, and Temidayo [59], components with eigenvalues below 1.0 were disregarded.

Table 5. Rotated component matrix of challenges for integrating the 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC.

	Component
	1	2	3	4	Variance Explained
High cost of data maintenance	0.760
Low technical know-how	0.716
Higher requirements for computing equipment	0.699				33.054
Data security and protection	0.666
Threat of data hacking	0.540
Site-based nature of the construction industry		0.766
Lack of standards and policies		0.745
Difficulty in setting housing delivery performance standards within the HSVC		0.720			10.677
Difficulty in creating regulations and procedures supporting the adoption of 4IR technologies in the HSVC		0.549
Low investment in research on behalf of the construction firm		0.421
Complex nature of housing delivery strategies			0.745
Uncertainty of government housing delivery policies			0.732		9.206
Difficulty in adopting 4IR technology across the HSVC			0.627
Housing stakeholders’ resistance to change				0.814
High cost of educating stakeholders in the housing sector on the use of the technology				0.789	8.481
Difficulty in agreeing to the adoption of 4IR technologies across the HSVC				0.734
Unwillingness to invest in 4IR technology for sustainable housing delivery				0.626

revealed that four components were subjected to rotation, and it revealed the variance and loadings of the variables within the component. The variables that made up the component were used as the determinants for naming the component.

• Component 1: Data management infrastructure

In the principal component analysis, the first component accounted for 33.1% of the variance. This indicates that this component contributed to 33% of the factors impeding the adoption of 4IR technologies across the HSVC in Saudi Arabia. The component comprised five variables, with the foremost being the high cost of data maintenance, followed by low technical know-how, a higher requirement for computing equipment, data security, and the threat of data hacking. An examination of Table 5 reveals a strong association among the variables within the first component, with loadings ranging from 0.760 to 0.540. Following the recommendation of Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Oke, and Onyia [56] the component is named based on the variables with the highest loading within it. Thus, the first component is denoted as “Data management infrastructures” due to the variables it encapsulates.

Aghimien et al. [60] and Li, Chen, Xue, Kong, Xiao, Lai, and Zhao [41] identified infrastructure for data management as a critical factor in ensuring the adoption of technologies for housing delivery. This study identifies data infrastructure as encompassing the foundational components required for the collection, storage, processing, and management of housing data within the HSVC. The use of cloud management is the current industry best practice regarding data management for enhanced security. Raptis, Passarella, and Conti [43] affirmed that the components required for the development of data management are expensive and require greater technical know-how. The cost of acquiring and maintaining hardware, software, and other technological resources necessary for data storage and processing can act as a barrier to adopting 4IR technologies in the manufacturing sector [41].

• Component 2: The Construction industry’s regulatory environment

The second component extracted using a principal component analysis is presented in Table 5. The table shows that the second component accounted for a variance of 10.677% and included variables such as the site-based nature of the construction industry, lack of standards and policies, difficulty in setting performance, difficulty in setting housing delivery performance standards across the HSVC, difficulty in creating regulations supporting the adoption of 4IR technologies within the HSVC, and low investment in research. All the variables in the component exhibited loadings between 0.766 and 0.421, indicating strong correlations among them. A critical look at the variables within this component reveals that it relates to the regulations of the construction industry. Thus, this component was called the “regulatory environment of the construction industry”.

Alqahtany and Bin Mohanna [29] opined that the delivery of sustainable housing is hinged on the policies and practices of the construction industry. However, Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Thwala, and Molusiwa [21] discovered that the regulatory environment of the construction industry has a significant impact on the adoption of construction 4.0 technologies for project delivery. This is because construction regulations often involve complex and rigid frameworks that may not be adaptable to emerging technologies [38,60]. Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Thwala, and Molusiwa [21] reported that the traditional regulations may not be suitable for the unique requirements of 4IR technologies such as drones, Building Information Modeling (BIM), and Internet of Things (IoT). Adapting existing regulations to accommodate these technologies can be challenging and time-consuming, especially in developing nations like Saudi Arabia thus, hindering their widespread adoption.

• Component 3: Uncertain housing delivery policy

The third component accounted for a 9.206% variance in the challenges hindering the integration of 4IR technologies for housing delivery across the HSVC. The component comprised variables such as the complex nature of housing delivery strategies, uncertainty of government housing delivery policies, and difficulties in adopting 4IR technologies across the HSVC. These variables, totaling three, exhibited strong correlations, with loadings ranging from 0.745 to 0.627. The variables all point to the importance of considering the implications of housing delivery policies on the adoption of 4IR technologies. Therefore, this study designated the third component as “uncertain housing delivery policy”, as it identified that housing policies are needed to support the implementation of 4IR technologies across the HSVC.

Alhubashi and Roca Cladera [11] and Al-Mayouf and Al-Khayyal [8] affirmed that housing delivery policies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have constantly been changing over the decades. Sohail [12] attributed the changes to the rapid urbanization and economic development in KSA. Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, Emmanuel Oke, and Liphadzi [26] affirmed that developers and investors may hesitate to invest in projects incorporating 4IR technologies if there is uncertainty surrounding housing policies. Political frameworks function as an ecosystem for the adoption of 4IR technologies regarding sustainable housing delivery. They may fear that policy changes could affect the feasibility or profitability of their investments, leading to a reluctance to adopt innovative technologies. However, the use of alternative financing models such as public–private partnerships (PPP), special purpose vehicle (SPV), joint ventures, and others can support the investment into 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery. Al-Mayouf and Al-Khayyal [8] and Alqahtany [3] reported that unclear or changing housing policies pose a threat to housing projects using technologies. This is because housing developers may struggle to navigate evolving regulations, leading to delays, additional costs, or even legal risks.

• Component 4: Resistant to change

Table 5 illustrates that the fourth component accounts for 8.481% of the variance, indicating its significant contribution to the factors hindering the adoption of 4IR technologies aimed at ensuring sustainable housing delivery in KSA. This component comprises four variables, with housing stakeholders’ resistance to change being the most prominent, followed by the high cost of educating stakeholders in the housing sector on the use of 4IR technologies, difficulty in agreeing to the adoption of 4IR technologies across the HSVC and unwillingness to invest on 4IR technology for sustainable housing delivery. Notably, these variables in the fourth component exhibit loadings ranged from 0.814 to 0626. The variables within this component are all related to the change attributed to the adoption of 4IR technologies. Thus, this component was called “resistance to change” among the housing stakeholders.

Alattas, Kalogianni, Alzahrani, Zlatanova, and van Oosterom [4] asserted that the fourth industrial revolution, which is a confluence of technologies, promises to change and reshape the housing market. Osunsanmi, Aigbavboa, and Oke [34] opined that the construction industry, which is the foundation of the housing market, is slow to adopt modern practices. Similarly, Zhong, Peng, Xue, Fang, Zou, Luo, Ng, Lu, Shen, and Huang [38] discovered that the construction industry is conservative in terms of embracing change. The findings from the PCA reveal that resistance to change can manifest in several ways, including reluctance to invest time or resources in training programs for adopting new technologies, skepticism about the benefits of technology integration, or outright opposition to changes in established practices or procedures. This resistance can create barriers to collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders, making it difficult to achieve consensus on the adoption of 4IR technologies across the HSVC.

4.4. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

The main theoretical and practical contributions of this study emanate from a nuanced understanding of the challenges and prospects associated with adopting Industry 4.0 (4IR) technologies in the housing supply value chain (HSVC) in Saudi Arabia. The theoretical contributions are delineated through four key components: data management infrastructure, regulatory environment, housing delivery policy, and resistance to change. This study revealed that the adoption of BIM can be utilized in managing the multifaceted needs associated with sustainable housing delivery. The adoption of BIM would serve as an efficient tool in the management of sustainable housing in the KSA during both the preconstruction and post-construction stages. However, the adoption of BIM and other 4IR technologies can be hindered by the absence of a data management infrastructure. This underscores the substantial need for the KSA to invest in data infrastructure to facilitate advanced technology integration in housing delivery.

This study underscores the need for the KSA to create enabling policies supporting the adoption of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery. This is because the complex and often changing nature of housing policies in KSA creates uncertainty, deterring investment in 4IR technologies. The conservative and restrictive nature of the construction industry also hinders investment in 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery. Thus, addressing this resistance requires strategic initiatives to educate and demonstrate the tangible benefits of 4IR technologies to stakeholders. Overall, this study contributes to the theoretical understanding by delineating the critical components influencing the adoption of 4IR technologies in the HSVC. It emphasizes the interplay between data infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, policy stability, and stakeholder readiness, providing a comprehensive framework for addressing the challenges and leveraging the prospects of 4IR technologies in sustainable housing delivery in Saudi Arabia.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has enacted numerous housing policies and delivery strategies since the 1930s aimed at achieving sustainable housing. The housing delivery strategies range from the creation of ARAMCO housing programs, AI-Malaz project, Real estate development funds, Vision 2030, and others. Despite the significant efforts of all governmental levels through regulating several housing delivery strategies and initiatives, several challenges facing reaching sustainable housing delivery and examples of these challenges are the housing supply and demand gap, and the rapid growth of urbanization. There still exists a gap between housing supply and demand, which places pressure on low- and middle-income citizens.

Increasing the homeownership rate in KSA and providing more affordable housing for the citizens is an important goal for all Saudi government levels. Several initiatives and programs this research discovered such as that the Saudi government provided free interest loans through the Real Estate Development Fund (REDF) and the land grants are examples of such initiatives. However, achieving sustainable housing delivery which encompasses the minimization of the negative environmental impact of housing construction, promotes social equity, and ensures economic viability still challenging.

There are numerous reasons for this, but this study identifies the reductionist approach of the KSA towards housing delivery strategies. The housing delivery strategies of the KSA have only focused on one component of the housing supply value chain (HSVC) over the years.

The HSVC, which entails housing finance, land acquisition, and housing construction, has been a global challenge. The discovery from past studies has revealed that ensuring a housing delivery strategy that focuses on all the components simultaneously holds great potential for providing a sustainable housing delivery strategy. Past studies also point to the fact that the technologies driven by the fourth industrial revolution have the potential to optimize value chains while also providing an opportunity for a holistic view across the components within the HSVC. However, its application, in KSA, requires policies and infrastructure to support its application. Thus, this study examines the challenges preventing its adoption to create policies that would support its application. Understanding the challenges is germane to the development of a policy that would support the application of the technologies.

This study discovered that the challenges or factors hindering the adoption of 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery across the HSVC in the KSA are data management infrastructure, the regulatory environment of the construction industry, uncertain housing delivery policies, and resistance to change. This study identifies data management infrastructure to include efficient data collection, storage, and analysis systems. Without them, it becomes difficult to harness the potential of technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) to optimize housing processes and decision-making process. It was also discovered that the regulation created by the construction industry, which serves as the foundation for sustainable housing delivery, plays a critical role in determining the adoption of 4IR technologies. Resistance to change among housing stakeholders, coupled with uncertain housing policies, presents a significant barrier to the adoption of 4IR technologies. Cultural, organizational, and technological may hinder efforts to implement innovative solutions and disrupt traditional housing delivery processes. Also, without a clear and stable policy framework, investors and developers may hesitate to invest in 4IR technologies adopted for sustainable housing projects, limiting progress in this area. This is because political frameworks function as an ecosystem for the adoption of 4IR technologies regarding sustainable housing delivery.

In conclusion, achieving sustainable housing delivery in the KSA requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders, including government entities, industry players, academic institutions, and civil society organizations. Collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to leveraging cutting-edge technologies will be essential in realizing the vision of inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements outlined in Saudi Arabia’s housing agenda. This study contributes to practice, as it provides the blueprint for policymakers and housing industry leaders to work together, aimed at developing a comprehensive strategy that harnesses the adoption of 4IR technologies for housing delivery. Through the application of this strategy, Saudi Arabia can position itself as a global leader in sustainable housing delivery, driving positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes for its citizens and future generations. This study contributes to research by providing a holistic understanding of the interconnected HSVC components. Finally, this study contributes to the development of policies and regulations that would support the achievement of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.

Despite the practical contributions of this study, this study has some limitations. The holistic approach towards examining the prospect for integrating 4IR technologies for sustainable housing delivery contributed to a limitation emanating from this study. It is recommended that a future study should be conducted to reveal the prospects that 4IR technologies have in ensuring the individual components of sustainable housing. The methodology used imposed certain limitations. Consequently, it is recommended that future research should adopt a mixed-methods approach.

This study recommends that a holistic approach to the HSVC should be adopted in the development of a sustainable housing delivery strategy in the KSA. Also, infrastructures such as robust data management systems and technologies to support the collection, storage, and analysis of housing-related data across the housing supply value chain should be invested in. The KSA should develop clear and consistent housing delivery policies that provide guidance and certainty to stakeholders. This will help reduce uncertainty and promote investment in sustainable housing initiatives. By implementing these recommendations, Saudi Arabia can overcome the challenges hindering sustainable housing delivery and leverage Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies to drive positive change across the housing supply value chain.