A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Enablers and Barriers of Industrialised Building: Global Insights for the Australian Context

Abstract

This study examines the renewed interest in Industrialised Building (IB) adoption in Australia amid the housing crisis, addressing the gap between potential and implementation. Drawing on a systematic review of 171 peer-reviewed articles (1998–2024), we examine how the interplay between micro-level decision-making, meso-level organisational routines, and macro-level institutional arrangements shapes global IB adoption patterns, with implications for the Australian context where limited research exists. Our analysis highlights that successful IB adoption depends on coordinated alignment across systemic levels, with government policies and sustainability initiatives emerging as key global drivers. However, adoption barriers differ by market maturity; Australia faces unique challenges, such as economic constraints, limited stakeholder collaboration, and misaligned institutional frameworks, despite advancements in technology and innovation. The findings advance construction innovation literature by presenting a theoretically grounded framework to address IB adoption barriers and enablers. In the Australian context, realising IB’s potential requires co-evolution across micro, meso, and macro levels, driven by workforce upskilling, stakeholder collaboration, and adaptive regulations to transform construction practices.

1. Introduction

The global construction industry has experienced significant growth over the past decade, leading to increased demand for efficient project delivery while maintaining quality and environmental standards. One initiative contributing to this growth is Industrialised Building (IB), which leverages prefabrication and modern manufacturing techniques. IB has gained prominence in developed nations such as the United States, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom and various European countries [1]. Although IB implementation varies across countries, its adoption has generally increased since the 1990s [2], driven by IB’s potential to enhance project performance and productivity. This global shift towards IB reflects the industry’s recognition of its capacity to address contemporary construction challenges.

Australia faces an unprecedented housing affordability crisis, with 2023 marking a significant deterioration across all demographics, regions, and housing tenure types [3]. This widespread decline in affordability has particularly impacted vulnerable populations, including First Nations Australians. The crisis is further exacerbated by historically low housing supply, with only 172,000 dwelling completions in 2023, the lowest figure in the past decade [4]. Traditional construction methods, characterised by extended build times averaging 12 months from approval to completion, coupled with low productivity and limited adoption of innovative building techniques, have constrained the sector’s ability to meet rising demand and achieve cost-effective scaling.

In this context, IB systems emerge as a potential solution to address these challenges. Prefabricated housing can reduce construction time by up to two-thirds compared to the conventional timeframe. While the Australian Government has set ambitious targets, including 50% prefabrication in the National Housing Accord (NHA) [2] and 80% prefabrication for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics [3], current adoption remains low. Prefabrication accounts for only 5% of Australia’s AUD $150 billion construction industry, with planned growth to reach 15% by 2025 [4,5]. This contrasts sharply with Sweden’s 80% prefabrication rate in residential construction [6], highlighting that successful implementation requires both technical solutions and an integrated ecosystem spanning policy, industry practice, and market acceptance. The gap between Australian and international adoption rates reflects unique local challenges. Australia’s vast geography, concentrated urban centres, and complex federal system create distinctive logistics and regulatory hurdles. Each state and territory maintains independent building regulations, planning schemes, and approval processes, while fragmented supply chains and limited digitalisation further complicate implementation [7,8].

While the global literature on IB adoption is extensive, there remains a lack of clarity about how these general adoption factors play out across different regulatory environments, especially in countries like Australia. This gap is particularly significant because findings from international studies cannot be directly applied to Australia due to several distinctive characteristics. Australia’s vast geographical expanse and concentrated urban centres create unique logistics and supply chain challenges, and its building codes, standards, and regulatory frameworks have evolved independently from international practices. Furthermore, Australia’s complex federal system presents unique challenges for IB adoption, with different state and territory governments maintaining their own building regulations, planning schemes, and approval processes. Understanding the enablers and barriers in this complex environment is crucial, particularly as these factors manifest and interact differently across macro (industry-wide), meso (organisational), and micro (project-specific) levels. Current studies often fail to capture these intricate interactions between different scales of implementation, creating confusion about effective adoption strategies.

This study aims to fill these gaps by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the enablers and barriers to IB adoption, focused on the Australian context. By examining these factors across macro, meso, and micro levels, this research provides insights into the complex dynamics that influence IB uptake. Additionally, by incorporating a temporal dimension to track how these factors evolve over time, this study offers actionable insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and practitioners. Through a co-occurrence analysis, this study maps the interrelationships between various elements of the IB ecosystem, contributing to the development of targeted strategies to accelerate IB implementation in Australia to mitigate Australia’s housing crisis [9].

This study aims to answer the following research questions:

• RQ1: What trends in IB adoption have been identified in recent studies?
• RQ2: What are the major barriers and enablers to the adoption of IB methods?
• RQ3: What insights from the global literature on IB adoption are potentially applicable to the Australian context?

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Firstly, the theoretical background is explored to set the context for the key concepts and topics underpinning the SLR. Next, the methodology is described, and the key data processing and analysis methods are presented. The results section summarises the findings from multi-faceted analyses, leading to the discussion section, which critically examines the implications of the findings for the Australian context.

2. Research Background

This section examines the key concepts and theoretical frameworks that underpin the analysis of IB. It provides an overview of IB’s evolution, technical and organisational dimensions, and systemic challenges as an essential foundation for understanding the factors influencing its adoption. Understanding the technological, regulatory, and social contexts establishes a basis for the analysis presented in the study.

2.1. Evolution of Industrialised Building Definition

The concept of IB has evolved significantly since its early manifestations in the mid-19th century. Joseph Paxton’s Crystal Palace (1851) pioneered prefabrication principles, marking the start of IB in construction. The 20th century introduced industrial manufacturing influences, with innovations like Le Corbusier’s Citrohan House, Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion House, and Walter Gropius’s Törten estate. These developments culminated in John Habraken’s open systems in 1962, which standardised dimensions while maintaining design flexibility [10].

Post-war advancements saw distinct regional approaches; Europe emphasised mass housing solutions, Malaysia introduced systematic local adaptations, and Japan advanced automation and mass customisation. By the 21st century, IB had transformed into a socio-technical system, integrating sustainability, digital technologies, and systematic approaches [11,12].

IB has expanded from its early focus on prefabrication and standardised technology to a comprehensive construction methodology. While terms like “offsite production”, “preassembly”, and “modern methods of construction” are often used interchangeably, IB encompasses technical processes, collaboration, supply chains, and market dynamics [9,13,14].

Lessing, et al. [15] provided a framework for understanding IB, identifying nine organisational factors: planning and process control, developed technical systems, prefabrication, long-term relationships, logistics, customer focus, digitalisation, re-use of experience, and continuous improvement. These factors highlight the complexity of IB and its potential to address inefficiencies in fragmented construction industries like Australia’s.

IB is technically defined by three fundamental characteristics [16,17]:

• Controlled Production Environments: Components are manufactured in controlled settings with documented specifications and tolerances;
• Standardised Processes: Production and assembly follow predetermined technical parameters and quality control protocols;
• Systematic Integration: The design, production, and assembly phases are integrated with documented procedures and verification methods.

Contemporary IB combines these technical characteristics with organisational innovation to form a socio-technical system. It integrates manufacturing principles, digital technologies, and sustainability goals to transform construction practices [11]. International implementations demonstrate IB’s adaptability across diverse contexts: German approaches emphasise thermal performance optimisation and component standardisation protocols; Japanese systems showcase advanced automation integration and mass customisation capabilities; while American developments have established foundational frameworks for mass production standardisation [18,19]. The contemporary understanding of IB highlights its dual nature: a technically precise system of production and assembly and a broader organisational framework supporting collaboration, market alignment, and continuous improvement. Successful adoption requires adherence to these technical parameters alongside adaptability to local contexts and evolving technologies [17,20].

Table 1. IB-related factors adopted from Lessing, Stehn [21].

Factor	Definition
Supply Chain	The network connecting suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors in the IB value chain, ensuring smooth material and information flow.
Logistics	Coordination of material flow, transportation, storage, and delivery between manufacturing facilities and construction sites.
Long-term Relationships	Collaboration between stakeholders, including suppliers, contractors, and clients, to enhance efficiency and foster innovation.
Digitalisation	Use of digital technologies and tools to optimise design, planning, and construction processes.
Production Strategies	On-site and off-site manufacturing methods, including modular, panelised, and componentised parts.
Customer and Market Focus	Alignment of design and delivery with customer requirements and market demands
Re-use of Experiences	Systematic documentation and application of lessons learned and best practices from previous projects to enhance efficiency and reduce errors.
Planning and Control	Systems and procedures set to ensure that all stages of the construction lifecycle are coordinated and managed efficiently.
Technical Systems	Systems, including interface standards and quality control mechanisms, supporting the production and assembly processes.

deconstructs the concept of IB by summarising its key factors, as defined by Lessing, Stehn [21]. While this framework does not explicitly differentiate the role of design as a separate factor—an area beyond the scope of this paper—it offers a comprehensive understanding of IB as a socio-technical system. A more detailed investigation of IB’s definition and the factors influencing it across technical, organisational, and strategic levels is similarly outside the scope of this paper but presents opportunities for future research.

2.2. State of IB in Australia

The evolution of prefabricated and modular construction in Australia spans over two centuries, marked by significant historical milestones and technological advancements. Prefabrication began in the early 1800s when imported structures served military and penal settlement needs [22]. By the early 20th century, local capabilities began to emerge. Notable projects demonstrated Australia’s growing expertise in prefabrication, including the Bradleys’ Head Lighthouse in 1904. The Victorian Housing Commission’s adoption of concrete systems in the 1920s further exemplified the industry’s technological progression [23]. The post-WWII era brought transformative innovation driven by material shortages and the expertise of skilled artisans. Technological advancements, such as improved crane technology and exposed aggregate panels, expanded the applications of precast systems [23]. In recent decades, a gradual shift toward offsite construction has been driven by global trends, with Australia beginning to embrace modern methods like cross-laminated timber (CLT) and low-carbon prefabrication for urban infill housing [24].

Despite these developments, Australia’s adoption of IB remains conservative compared to global leaders. This historical trajectory underscores the industry’s resilience and adaptability while highlighting persistent barriers to widespread adoption.

2.3. Current Schemes of IB in Australia

The current state of IB in Australia reflects a complex landscape shaped by both systemic challenges and emerging opportunities. Despite recognised benefits, IB adoption remains modest, with prefabricated construction accounting for only 3–4% of the industry value—significantly lower than in other developed nations [25]. This limited uptake highlights structural barriers and fragmentation within the Australian construction sector.

The Australian construction industry is highly fragmented, characterised by traditional building practices and extensive subcontracting [16]. This fragmentation poses challenges for implementing the systematic approaches central to IB, such as standardised processes and supply chain integration. Furthermore, reliance on commercial-in-confidence testing for structural components has created design uncertainties and limited knowledge sharing, further hindering IB adoption [26].

Technical implementation of IB in Australia faces significant hurdles. The integration of digital technologies, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), remains underdeveloped despite its potential to enhance design flexibility and improve public perception [27]. Logistical constraints, including transportation restrictions and reduced on-site design flexibility, continue to impede the adoption of prefabricated systems [8].

Adoption rates also vary across market segments. While the private sector predominantly relies on traditional construction methods, public infrastructure projects, particularly in education and healthcare, have shown an increased uptake of offsite manufacturing and prefabricated technologies [28]. This divergence highlights both the potential for growth and the barriers to broader adoption across different sectors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the adaptability and resilience of IB approaches. Prefabricated construction gained increased interest during the pandemic due to its potential to reduce on-site labour requirements and improve project predictability [26]. However, the industry continues to face persistent challenges, including workforce specialisation needs, design flexibility constraints, and substantial upfront investment in manufacturing facilities.

2.4. Theoretical Framework for IB Adoption

IB represents a systemic innovation as it requires coordinated changes across multiple interdependent components and stakeholders in the construction supply chain [29], fundamentally transforming both organisational structures and technical processes. Additionally, IB adoption requires a socio-technical transformation, demanding changes not only in construction technology but also in social practices, work cultures, and institutional arrangements [30]. The comprehensive nature of these changes, coupled with their impact across different organisational levels—from individual decision-making to industry-wide practices—necessitates a multi-theoretical lens for analysis. Therefore, an integrated theoretical framework combining the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory [31], systemic innovation theory [29], socio-technical theory [32], and evolutionary multi-level frameworks [33] provides a robust foundation for understanding why IB adoption and implementation patterns differ across countries such as Sweden, Germany, and Australia.

Rogers’ (2003) DOI theory provides the foundational understanding of innovation attributes—relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability—and their influence on adoption rates through various adopter categories and the innovation-decision process. However, when applied to IB, the theory’s traditional focus on individual adoption decisions proves insufficient due to IB’s systemic nature. Slaughter’s (1998) conceptualisation of systemic innovation addresses this limitation by emphasising that IB adoption needs coordinated changes across multiple interdependent components and processes within the construction ecosystem. This systemic perspective illuminates why the complexity of interdependencies in IB adoption creates significant barriers, particularly in fragmented industries like Australia’s construction sector [34].

The integration of Geels’ (2004) socio-technical theory and Dopfer et al.’s (2004) evolutionary multi-level framework further enriches this theoretical synthesis by providing analytical tools for understanding cross-national variations in IB adoption patterns. Geels’ multi-level perspective (MLP) delineates three critical levels of transition: niche (emerging technologies and practices), regime (dominant industry practices and institutions), and landscape (broader societal and environmental pressures). This framework reveals how successful IB adoption requires alignment and co-evolution across these levels, exemplified by contrasting cases in different national contexts.

Dopfer et al.’s (2004) micro-meso-macro framework provides additional analytical depth by examining the hierarchical interactions that influence IB adoption. At the micro level, individual actors’ decisions and behaviours—including those of architects, contractors, and building developers—shape adoption patterns through their response to incentives, risk perceptions, and innovation readiness. The meso level encompasses organisational routines, industry standards, and regulatory frameworks that mediate the diffusion of IB practices. At the macro level, broader societal forces such as housing affordability pressures, environmental sustainability imperatives, and labour market dynamics create varying contexts for IB adoption across different countries.

This theoretical integration also reveals the complex interplay between the technological and social dimensions of IB adoption. The socio-technical perspective emphasises that successful implementation requires not only technological readiness but also the transformation of institutional structures, work practices, and cultural norms within the construction ecosystem [35]. This is particularly evident in the contrast between countries with established prefabrication cultures, like Germany and Sweden, where institutional arrangements and industry practices have co-evolved to support IB adoption, and countries like Australia, where traditional construction methods remain deeply embedded in industry practices and institutional frameworks.

Furthermore, this integrated theoretical framework highlights the role of policy interventions and institutional arrangements in facilitating or hindering IB adoption. The success of countries with high IB adoption rates often stems from policy frameworks that address both technical and social dimensions of innovation, creating conditions for alignment across the micro, meso, and macro levels while facilitating the necessary systemic changes identified in Slaughter’s framework [35,36].

3. Methodology

This study employed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach to investigate the enablers and barriers of IB adoption, integrating insights to assess implications for the Australian construction context. The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [37]. This methodological framework was chosen to ensure a comprehensive, transparent, and replicable review process.

3.1. Systematic Literature Review Process

3.1.1. Search Strategy

A search strategy was formulated to capture a broad spectrum of relevant literature through Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). The search through the IEE and ASCE databases did not yield any new results; therefore, it was removed from the report in this paper. The search included a combination of keywords related to “Industrialised Building”, “prefabrication”, “modular construction”, and “adoption”, tailored to each database’s specific syntax and capabilities. The search string, conducted through Scopus in July 2024, was as follows:

TITLE-ABS-KEY (industrialised OR industrialized OR “modern methods of construction” OR mmc OR prefab* OR offsite OR modular OR IHB) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (adoption OR implement* OR uptake) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (barrier OR driver OR challenge OR opportunit*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (construction OR building)

3.1.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included based on the following criteria:

• Studies focusing on the adoption of IB, its barriers, and enablers;
• Articles published in journals to access the most reliable peer-reviewed sources;
• Articles published in English due to the dominance of English in academic publishing and its role as the global lingua franca for research dissemination.

The exclusion criteria were as follows:

• Non-peer-reviewed articles and grey literature;
• Studies not specifically addressing the adoption aspects of IB;
• Duplicate studies across databases.

3.1.3. PRISMA Flow Diagram

The selection process is illustrated through a PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1, which outlines the number of articles identified, screened, eligible, and included in the review. The literature included in this study ended up with 171 unique records.

3.2. Data Analysis Approach

The analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of the enablers and barriers to IB adoption. Systematic reviews excel in identifying knowledge gaps and unexplored research areas [38]. However, single-method manual reviews can be susceptible to bias and subjective interpretation. To address these limitations, this study employs a “mixed methods systematic review” [39]. This methodology integrates quantitative and qualitative techniques to “enhance the depth and breadth of understanding” [40]. By synthesising and analysing existing literature through multiple lenses, this study aims to provide a more nuanced and multi-faceted analysis of IB enablers and barriers. The following sections delineate both the qualitative and quantitative approaches utilised in this study.

3.2.1. Bibliometric and Trend Analysis

A bibliometric analysis was conducted to provide a quantitative overview of the research landscape. This included analysing the temporal distribution of publications (count of publications per year), the geographical distribution of research, and the methodological approaches used in the identified studies. This analysis helped to identify research hotspots, emerging trends, and patterns in the methodologies employed to study IB adoption.

3.2.2. Thematic Analysis

A thematic analysis [41] was used to identify and analyse themes for enablers and barriers. The six-stage process involved familiarisation with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing and refining themes, and producing a cohesive report. Lincoln and Guba’s [42] framework for trustworthiness in qualitative research was applied to ensure the analysis’ rigour, consisting of four key elements: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, alongside researcher triangulation and peer debriefing [43].

To provide a comprehensive understanding of IB adoption, the identified enablers and barriers were analysed across three levels: macro, meso, and micro. The analysis involved categorising each enabler and barrier into one of the three levels, examining the prominence and interrelationships between factors, and identifying patterns and trends specific to each level of analysis. This multi-level perspective provided a more holistic understanding of the complexities involved in IB adoption.

3.2.3. Co-Occurrence Network Analysis

A co-occurrence network analysis was used to analyse the relationships between various concepts in the literature. The process involved extracting theme categories from the selected papers, creating a co-occurrence matrix of the theme categories, and using Gephi software [44] to visualise the network. Among Gephi’s visualisation algorithms, the Yifan Hu algorithm is particularly suited for scientific literature analysis, providing an effective representation of keyword interactions while offering both high speed and quality [45]. The resulting network was then analysed to identify clusters of related concepts and central themes. This analysis offered insights into the interconnectedness of factors influencing IB adoption and helped pinpoint key thematic clusters in the research.

4. Findings

This section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis, thematic analysis, and network analysis to explore and establish an understanding of the collected data through the SLR. These insights will be integrated and discussed in the next section to develop a conceptual framework and investigate the implications for the Australian context in more depth.

4.1. Bibliometric and Trend Analysis Findings

4.1.1. Publication Trends by Year

As shown in Figure 2, the publication trend for IB barriers and enablers shows a significant increase over the past 12 years. The trend has steadily increased from its relatively low publication count of around 5 per year in 2010, seeing a sharp rise around 2018 towards 2020. This growth reflects escalating global demand for sustainable construction solutions, driven by environmental concerns, housing affordability crises, and the need for efficient, time-saving building practices to address industry challenges.

4.1.2. Geographical Distribution of Research

The geographical distribution (Figure 3) of research activities shows a concentration in regions with strong governmental support for sustainable construction and IB methods. Asia, particularly China and Malaysia, is leading in terms of both volume and diversity of research, focusing on the practical and policy aspects of IB adoption. Europe, with the UK and Sweden leading, focuses on sustainable construction practices and industry transformation. North America contributes significantly to the theoretical and practical advancements in sustainable materials and decision-making frameworks.

4.1.3. Distribution of Papers by Research Method

The analysis of research methods employed in the reviewed studies reveals a strong emphasis on stakeholder-centric data collection, with surveys, questionnaires, and interviews being the most prevalent approaches, as shown in Figure 4. Many studies utilise mixed methods, combining multiple data collection techniques. This trend suggests a recognition of the complex nature of IB adoption, requiring diverse methodological approaches to capturing its multi-faceted aspects. The significant presence of literature reviews indicates a mature field with a substantial existing knowledge base, highlighting the importance of ongoing synthesis and gap identification. The use of case studies, often in conjunction with other methods, demonstrates a focus on an in-depth, contextualised understanding of IB adoption in specific settings.

4.2. Thematic Analysis Results

4.2.1. Identification and Categorisation of Enablers and Barriers

Employing a rigorous thematic analysis approach, this study utilised open coding techniques to identify and categorise the enablers and barriers of IB. This method, grounded in the principles of qualitative data analysis [41], allowed for the emergence of themes directly from the literature without predetermined categories. The process involved iterative cycles of coding, constant comparison, and refinement [46] to ensure a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing IB adoption.

Initially, Nvivo codes were generated from the 172 selected studies, preserving the original terminology used by authors [47]. These codes were subsequently grouped into conceptually similar categories through axial coding [48]. The categorisation process was guided by the constant comparative method [49], allowing for the identification of overarching themes and sub-themes. To enhance analytical depth, we employed a multi-level framework, categorising factors across macro (industry/national), meso (organisational), and micro (individual) levels [50,51]. The reliability and validity of the coding process were ensured through investigators’ cross-referencing [52], with the first two researchers independently coding a subset of the literature and subsequently discussing and resolving any discrepancies. This approach not only enhanced the robustness of the analysis but also mitigated potential researcher bias [53]. The resultant thematic framework provides a comprehensive, empirically grounded taxonomy of enablers and barriers to IB adoption, summarised in

Table 2. Enablers and barriers main themes, and example sub-themes.

Theme	Examples of the Sub-Themes Extracted from Articles (Max 6 Included)
Enablers
Technology and Innovation Enabler	- Support for off-site manufacture, benefits of BIM - Lean Manufacturing (LM) adoption, Value Stream Mapping (VSM) - Integration of BIM technology - Implementation of robotics and machine-based automation - IoT technologies improving compliance with safety regulations - Integration of BIM, AI, and IoT with PC design
Sustainability and Environmental Practices Enabler	- Use of sustainably-sourced materials - Environmental benefits of building in wood - Sustainable concrete offers opportunities to improve concrete sustainability - Reduction in embodied carbon, energy, global warming potential, and construction waste - Low/zero carbon building - Prefabrication can decrease building stock burdens by up to 6%, reduce building stock costs by up to 10%
Economic and Market Dynamics Enabler	- Financial supports (subsidies, tax waivers, enhanced leasing model) - Higher profit levels for supply chain enterprises with increased market size - Competitive advantage, cost and schedule savings, increased labour efficiency - Cost savings in masonry, plastering, and measurement works - Shorter construction periods, cost-saving benefits - Economies of scale
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement	- Cooperative associations, excellent communication - Enhanced teamwork - Collaboration, supply chain relationships - Early contractor involvement (ECI), standardising ECI processes - Integration of project participants, effective leadership - Multi-stakeholder engagement
Operational Efficiency	- Innovative standardised design concept - Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) solutions - Standardised organisation, better planned and monitored procedures - High levels of quality control - Better site operations - Shielding design work from variability
Policy, Regulation, and Government Support	- Strengthening policies and regulations - Government programmes, incentives, and policies under the IB Roadmap 2003–2010 - Quantified and detailed policy objectives, focus on energy-saving retrofit and prefabrication - Policy support, sustainable development of the construction industry - Empower local governments with skills and resources - Mandatory implementation policy
Project Management	- Project planning, constructability, prefabrication, supply chain, and construction automation - Project success factors, contractual requirements, preconstruction - Streamlined work process, improved activity, less input time and workload - Minimising on-site duration, ensuring cost and time certainty - Shorter construction time, low site waste, better supervision - Use of two levels of look-ahead planning
Training and Skills Development	- Extended training for local labour - Training and professional development - Education and awareness campaigns - Training of construction workforce - Cross training - Continuous knowledge improvement
Supply Chain and Logistics	- E-Kanban based Just-In-Time deliveries - Lean principles - Procurement efficiency - Best option of procuring prefabricated products from Australian manufacturers - Punctual module delivery - Early completion recognition
Barriers
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement	- Poor cooperation between interfaces - Communication issues - Fragmentation issues, industry hesitance - Poorly informed clients on IB design - Poor integration among stakeholders during the design stage
Economic and Financial	- High initial capital cost - Finding a compromise between project cost and value with MMC - Budget constraints - Strong cash flow requirements - Lack of economy of scale - Cost uncertainty
Technology and Innovation	- Lack of standardisation of versions or software - Lack of market-ready plug-and-play BIPV systems - Low share of automation and robotics in production - Interoperability issues between BIM and energy simulation tools - Lack of research on IoT and BIM integration
Government Support and Policy	- Reluctance towards IBS policy implementation - Lack of financial support from the government - Non-existence of regulations to support OSC - Inadequate policy and regulations - Lack of comprehensive review of the green building policy system - Lack of government incentives and promotion
Design, Planning, and Quality	- Restrictions during the design stage - Design inflexibility - Inability to adapt to design modifications - Low reusability of design knowledge - Lack of standards and domestic-oriented tools - Poor service delivery, defect repetition
Supply Chain and Logistics Barriers	- Operational challenges for suppliers - Supply chain weaknesses - Lack of steady prefabricated components supply - Site access and on-site storage area, difficulties in transporting modules in urban areas - Delay in module delivery and transportation - Traditional centralised storage mode of traceability systems
Training and Skills Development	- Lack of knowledge, insufficient skilled workers - Lack of education about automation and OSC - Skills shortage - Shortage of specialised workforce - Inadequate experience - Skill shortages in management and digital architecture
Project Management	- Inadequate planning - Managing numerous paper-based documentation, non-standardized management - Complexity in project implementation - Challenges related to handling complexity in construction processes - Challenges in the effective implementation of the proposed model
Performance and Productivity	- Poor productivity and lacklustre performance of construction projects - Productivity issues - Fragmentation and low productivity due to traditional construction methods

. Due to the extensive list of sub-themes extracted under each category, a summarised version with a maximum of six themes is presented in Table 2, with the full results available upon request.

4.2.2. Frequency Analysis of Enablers and Barriers

A frequency analysis was conducted to identify the most prevalent themes related to both barriers and enablers in the literature. This analysis provides insight into the relative importance of different factors influencing IB adoption, as reflected in the current body of research.

Figure 5 shows the key barrier categories and their frequency. “Collaboration, Stakeholder Engagement, and Perception” emerged as the most frequently discussed category of barriers, accounting for 22.2% of all barriers mentioned in the literature. This is followed by “Economic and Financial Barriers” (17.6%) and “Technology and Innovation Barriers” (11.8%). The prominence of collaboration and stakeholder-related barriers underscores the complex human and organisational challenges in IB adoption. The high ranking of economic and financial barriers highlights the persistent concerns about costs and financial risks associated with IB implementation.

Figure 6 shows the key enabler categories and their frequency. “Technology and Innovation” emerged as the most frequently discussed category of enablers, accounting for 18.3% of all enablers mentioned in the literature. This is closely followed by “Sustainability and Environmental Practices” (16.8%), “Economic and Market Dynamics” (12.7%), and ‘Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement (11.6%). The prominence of technology and innovation as an enabler aligns with the rapid advancements in digital technologies and their potential to transform the construction industry. The high ranking of sustainability practices underscores the growing importance of environmental considerations in driving IB adoption.

While technology-related factors rank third in barriers (11.8%), they top the list of enablers (18.3%). This apparent contradiction may reflect the dual nature of technology in IB adoption. While it presents implementation challenges such as interoperability and digital literacy issues, it is also seen as a critical solution to many of the industry’s problems. Technology has the most potential as an enabler, but unless we start eliminating the barriers for it to be effectively utilised in IB, those expected potentials can be significantly limited. Economic factors feature prominently in both barriers (17.6%) and enablers (12.7%), suggesting a complex interplay between financial challenges and opportunities in IB adoption. Collaboration and stakeholder engagement are the most frequently cited barriers (22.2%), yet they also appear as significant enablers (10.7%). This highlights the critical role of human and organisational factors in IB adoption, presenting both challenges and opportunities.

4.2.3. Macro, Meso, and Micro-Level Factor Analysis

The adoption of IB is influenced by a complex interplay of factors operating at macro, meso, and micro levels. A different approach to categorising enablers and barriers was adopted to account for their interrelationships across multiple levels. Rather than focusing solely on the distinction between enablers and barriers, this method explores how they interact at various levels [54]. The enablers and barriers were considered together to maintain consistency, while the categorisation prioritised distinctions based on macro, meso, and micro levels (

Table 3. Summary of macro, meso, and micro-level factors and corresponding enablers and barriers.

Factors	Enablers	Barriers
Macro-Level
Government Support and Policy	- Strengthening policies and regulations - Government incentives and mandatory orders - Collaboration among government bodies, industry, and sectors	- Reluctance towards IB policy implementation - Lack of financial support from the government - Inadequate policy and regulatory frameworks
Market Factors	- Higher profit margins due to increased market size - Strategic marketing and demand management - Competitive advantage from low-carbon practices	- Inconsistent market demand - Resistance from traditional construction sectors - Volatile economic conditions
Sustainability and Environmental Practices	- Adoption of low-carbon practices - Circular economy principles - Environmental benefits from wood-based materials	- Environmental challenges such as waste disposal - Limited focus on sustainability issues - Challenges in balancing affordability and sustainability
Regulatory and Compliance	- Government standards and mandates - Open standards for competition and information exchange - Development of industry-specific compliance frameworks	- Regulatory barriers - Inconsistent regulations across regions - Lack of comprehensive policy reviews
Meso-Level
Technology and Innovation	- Integration of BIM, AI, and IoT - Adoption of smart contracts for risk management - Diffusion of DfMA strategies across industry sectors	- Lack of market-ready plug-and-play BIPV systems - Low automation and robotics in production processes - Interoperability issues between BIM systems
Economic and Financial	- Economies of scale - Financial supports (subsidies, tax waivers) - Competitive advantage from adopting innovative practices	- High initial capital cost - Budget constraints - Cost uncertainty
Research and Development	- Cross-sector collaboration in innovation - Investment in prefabrication technologies, materials, and systems - Knowledge sharing for R&D advancements	- Limited quantitative studies - Lack of comprehensive reviews of green building policy frameworks - Insufficient R&D funding
Cultural and Perception Factors	- Industry-wide educational initiatives - Proper enlightenment and awareness campaigns for MMC adoption	- Misalignment of perception across supply chain members - Cultural resistance within the industry - Negative perceptions of prefabrication technologies
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement	- Industry associations and partnerships - Collaborative platforms for stakeholder engagement - Strengthened government-industry partnerships	- Poor integration during the design stage - Fragmentation issues - Communication breakdowns across stakeholders
Supply chain and Logistics	- Just-In-Time deliveries - Lean principles integration - Efficient procurement processes and logistics frameworks	- Supply chain fragmentation and operational weaknesses - Immature prefabrication market - Coordination challenges among supply chain partners
Micro-Level Factors
Technology and Innovation	- Support for off-site manufacture benefits of BIM - Lean Manufacturing (LM) adoption - Adoption of digital technologies, including BIM, robotics, and automation	- Lack of standardisation of BIM versions or software - Interoperability issues between BIM and building energy simulation tools - Low automation levels
Economic and Financial	- Cost savings through prefabrication - Shorter construction periods, cost reduction - Competitive financial models for digital production processes	- High initial capital costs - Cost uncertainty due to upfront investments - Strong cash flow requirements
Training and Skills Development	- Training initiatives for local labour - Cross-training and knowledge enhancement - Awareness programmes for digital design and modular construction	- Lack of skilled workers in digital architecture - Inadequate training and experience in prefabrication methods - Low levels of expertise in Lean construction
Design and Planning	- Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) solutions - Modular design systems and standardised procedures - Feasibility evaluations of prefabrication approaches	- Design inflexibility - Poor expertise in handling prefabrication projects - Challenges in adapting design modifications during project execution
Project Management	- Streamlined work processes and improved productivity - Two levels of look-ahead planning for better project outcomes - Agile project management practices	- Fragmentation in project management - Complexity in implementation - Inadequate planning leading to project delays
Data Management and Decision Support	- KBDSS-PPVC tools for reliable decision-making - Data-driven decision-making processes - Improved information flow for effective prefabrication strategies	- Lack of decision-making tools for PPVC adoption - Insufficient information for assessing prefabrication alternatives - Traditional estimation methodologies

).

• Macro-level: Focusing on industry-wide and national factors;
• Meso-level: Concentrating on organisational and inter-organisational factors;
• Micro-level: Examining individual project and practitioner-level factors [55].

These levels are interrelated, as actions or policies at the macro level can influence meso and micro-level decisions, while innovations and challenges at the micro level can inform broader strategies at higher levels. This interconnectedness highlights the need for a holistic approach to understanding enablers and barriers in IB adoption.

4.3. Co-Occurrence Network Analysis Results

4.3.1. Analysis of Enablers and Barriers

Figure 7 shows a visualisation of keyword relationships related to barriers to IB adoption in the existing literature. Each node represents a key theme, while the connecting lines illustrate the co-occurrence of these themes in the literature. The thickness and colour of the lines indicate the strength of the relationships between themes: thicker lines represent stronger connections, showing that these themes often appear together in discussions about barriers to IB adoption.

Key insights inferred from the co-occurrence analysis of barriers include the following:

• At the centre of the network, technology and innovation emerge as a critical barrier, suggesting that technological challenges or resistance to innovation play a significant role in impeding adoption;
• This central node is strongly connected to collaboration and stakeholder engagement, implying that technological barriers often intersect with challenges in collaboration and communication among various industry players;
• The prominent position of supply chain and logistics barriers highlights the challenges in managing the complex supply chains and logistics inherent in prefabricated construction;
• Policy, regulation, and government support are shown as a moderate barrier, indicating that regulatory frameworks and the lack of governmental incentives may hinder IB adoption;
• Training and skills development are depicted as another significant barrier, suggesting a shortage of skilled labour or inadequate training in the industry;
• The presence of sustainability and environmental practices as a barrier might indicate that perceived or actual environmental concerns could be inhibiting adoption in some contexts.

The complex interconnections between barriers emphasise the need for holistic, multi-faceted approaches to overcome challenges in IB adoption.

Figure 8 shows the results of enablers of IB adoption. Key insights inferred from the co-occurrence analysis of enablers include the following:

• Technology and innovation emerge as the central and most dominant theme, with strong connections to multiple other factors, particularly collaboration and stakeholder engagement. This strong link suggests that technological advancements often facilitate or require increased collaboration among stakeholders;
• Economic and market dynamics also appear as a significant factor, highlighting its importance in enabling IB adoption;
• While operational efficiency is not the largest node, its connections to several other factors indicate its role as an important outcome or goal;
• Policy, regulation, and government support are shown to have moderate influence, facilitating other enablers;
• Sustainability and environmental practices are depicted as significant factors connected to both economic dynamics and technology/innovation, reflecting their growing importance in the field;
• Less prominent but still crucial factors include training and skills development, supply chain and logistics, and project management. The interconnectedness of all these factors underscores the need for a holistic approach to promoting IB adoption, considering multiple aspects simultaneously. This comprehensive overview emphasises the complex nature of enablers and suggests that improvements in one area could potentially have ripple effects across the entire system.

4.3.2. Enabler-Barrier Relationship Mapping

The heatmap in Figure 9 illustrates the frequency of co-occurrence between IB adoption enablers and barriers in the selected literature. Technology and innovation emerge as frequently discussed enablers, particularly in relation to barriers, such as collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and policy. However, it is less frequently associated with challenges related to infrastructure and resources. Sustainability and Environmental Practices also show frequent co-occurrence with various barriers but are less frequently discussed in connection with risk management and infrastructure.

Economic and market dynamics present a mixed pattern, often associated with economic and financial barriers but less frequently linked to supply chain challenges. Collaboration and stakeholder engagement show strong co-occurrence with technology, government support, and stakeholder-related barriers while having less prominence in discussions of infrastructure and resource limitations.

Operational efficiency appears frequently in relation to project management and performance-related barriers, while policy, regulation, and government support are closely linked with regulatory and policy barriers but less with technical and operational challenges. Other enablers, such as project management, training and skills development, and supply chain and logistics, demonstrate more targeted co-occurrence with specific barriers.

Comparing the insights from the analyses illustrated in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, the following takeaways could be argued:

• Systemic complexity: The interconnected nature of both enablers and barriers highlights the complexity of the IB ecosystem. This suggests that isolated interventions may have limited impact, and a systemic thinking approach is necessary for more effective changes;
• Dual nature of technology: Technology and innovation appear as a central node in both enablers and barriers. This dual role indicates that while technological advancements can drive adoption, they can also present significant challenges. It highlights the need to focus not just on developing new technologies but also on strategies for their effective implementation and overcoming associated organisational and cultural hurdles like resistance to change;
• Collaboration and technology: The strong connection between technology and collaboration in both Figure 8 and Figure 9 emphasises the critical role of collaborative efforts for both leveraging technological advancements and overcoming technological barriers. This highlights the need for improved communication and collaboration across the industry;
• Economic considerations: The prominence of economic and market dynamics in both figures underscores the importance of addressing financial aspects. This suggests that viable business models and clear economic benefits are crucial for widespread adoption;
• Supply chain focus: The more prominent appearance of supply chain and logistics as a barrier compared to an enabler indicates a critical area for improvement. Enhancing supply chain efficiency and logistics management could significantly boost adoption rates;
• Skills gap: The emergence of training and skills development as a more significant barrier than enabler points to a pressing need for workforce development. This suggests that education and training initiatives should be a priority for the industry.
• Sustainability as an opportunity: While sustainability and environmental practices appear in both figures, they seem to have a more positive influence overall. This suggests that emphasising the environmental benefits of IB could be an effective strategy for promoting adoption;
• Policy influence: The moderate presence of policy, regulation, and government Support in both figures indicates that while regulatory frameworks play a role, they may not be the primary driver or obstacle. This suggests that while policy interventions can be helpful, they should be part of a broader strategy;
• Operational efficiency: Its presence as an enabler suggests that demonstrating and achieving improved operational efficiency could be a key selling point for adopting IB methods.

5. Discussion

The discussion section is organised to respond to the research questions outlined in the introduction section. As such, Section 5.1 explores RQ1, Section 5.2 responds to RQ2, and Section 5.3 addresses RQ3.

5.1. Global Trends of Industralised Building Adoption

• RQ1: What trends in IB adoption have been identified in recent studies?

5.1.1. Temporal Comparison

The analysis of publication trends shown in Figure 2 reveals an evolution in research focus and priorities, with a notable shift occurring around 2018. This analysis divides the research into two distinct periods: pre-2018 and 2018 onwards, reflecting the sharp increase in publication volume observed from 2018.

Pre-2018 research laid the groundwork for identifying key challenges and basic frameworks across various aspects of IB. Post-2018 studies have built upon this foundation, leveraging technological advancements and a deeper understanding of systemic issues to propose more holistic solutions. IB sector has experienced advancements, moving from mere production-focused prefabrication techniques [56] to technologically advanced and fully integrated systems that leverage innovations such as BIM, AI, and robotics [57]. There has also been a shift towards a more holistic approach to sustainability, evolving from initial awareness of environmental benefits [58] to the development of comprehensive strategies that consider the entire building lifecycle, including end-of-life management [59]. The financial and economic models have also grown in complexity, now incorporating factors such as government subsidies, consumer preferences, and competitive advantages [60], reflecting the increasing importance of these elements in decision-making processes. Additionally, government policy has transitioned from offering basic incentives [61] to establishing detailed frameworks that not only promote the adoption of IB but also support its sustainable and efficient implementation [62]. A comparison between key themes and focus areas extracted from the studies is presented in

Table 4. Comparison of IB research focus Pre-2018 and Post-2018.

IB Themes	Pre-2018 Focus	Post-2018 Focus
Technology and Innovation	Focus on prefabrication techniques and early BIM implementation for off-site manufacturing	Emphasis on integrating advanced technologies (AI, IoT, robotics) with BIM for prefabricated construction
Government Support and Policy	Development of initial IB roadmaps and basic incentive structures to promote adoption	Shift towards comprehensive policy frameworks supporting sustainable construction and detailed regulatory mechanisms
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement	Exploration of early contractor involvement and supply chain relationship management	Development of integrated project delivery models and collaborative platforms, particularly for BIM and clash management
Sustainability	Identification of general environmental benefits of IB and reduced professional risks	In-depth exploration of circular economy principles, low-carbon practices, and sustainable end-of-life management for buildings
Economic Analysis	Basic cost-benefit analyses of IB adoption and sustainable off-site construction	Complex financial modelling incorporating factors like consumer preferences, government subsidies, and competitive advantages
Supply Chain Management	Initial modelling of prefabricated housing supply chains and logistics considerations	Implementation of advanced concepts like blockchain for traceability, E-Kanban, and Just-In-Time deliveries
Design and Planning	Introduction of decision support tools for selecting construction methods, focus on modular design concepts	Emphasis on DfMA solutions, advanced prefabrication strategies, and optimisation of off-site processes

.

5.1.2. Cross-Country Comparison of Enablers and Barriers

The adoption of IB methods varies significantly across different countries/regions and is influenced by local contexts, policies, and market conditions. Government support and policies emerge as crucial enablers across multiple countries. In China, Wang, Shen [62] emphasise the importance of policy support for sustainable development in the construction industry. Similarly, Australia and Malaysia have implemented government initiatives to encourage IB adoption, with Evison, Kremer [9] highlighting policies promoting timber use in Australia, and Nawi, Lee [63] noting the IB Roadmap 2003–2010 in Malaysia. The UK also recognises the importance of government backing, with Saad, Dulaimi [64] stressing the role of public client confidence in Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) firms.

Environmental benefits and sustainability practices are particularly prominent enablers in developed markets. Australia emphasises the environmental advantages of wood construction [9], while the UK focuses on sustainability practices to address inefficiencies in the construction sector [65]. This trend suggests a growing alignment between IB methods and sustainability goals in these countries.

However, barriers to IB adoption show both similarities and variations across nations. Cost-related issues are a common challenge, with China and Malaysia specifically identifying high initial costs as a significant barrier [66,67]. The shortage of skilled labour is another shared obstacle, noted in China, Australia, and Malaysia [26,67,68].

The nature of barriers seems to reflect the maturity of IB markets in different countries. China grapples with an immature prefabrication market [8], while more established markets like the UK face challenges related to perception and confidence in Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) businesses [69]. Australia’s unique geography contributes to specific challenges, such as transport restrictions [26].

The comparison also reveals country-specific issues. Malaysia, for instance, emphasises poor integration among stakeholders as a key barrier [63], highlighting the importance of collaborative approaches in IB adoption. Sweden, while benefiting from effective relational capabilities, faces challenges related to disruptive innovation in traditional complex product systems [36].

This cross-country analysis underscores the complex interplay of factors influencing IB adoption globally. While government support and cost considerations are universal themes, the specific manifestations of enablers and barriers are deeply influenced by local contexts. Developed markets tend to emphasise sustainability and perception issues while emerging markets focus more on foundational challenges like skill development and market maturity. These insights suggest that strategies for promoting IB adoption must be tailored to local contexts, addressing both universal and country-specific factors to ensure successful implementation.

5.2. Barriers and Enablers of IB Adoption

• RQ2: What are the major barriers and enablers to the adoption of IB methods?

5.2.1. Dynamics Between Enablers and Barriers

Technology and Innovation as Both an Enabler and Barrier

Technology and innovation simultaneously function as critical enablers and significant barriers in the adoption of IB methods. On one hand, advanced technologies such as BIM, IoT, AI, and robotics have demonstrated their potential to transform the construction industry by enhancing efficiency, improving quality, and promoting sustainability [70,71]. Such technologies, by enabling the automation of processes and the optimisation of resources, can address many of the traditional inefficiencies present in conventional construction practices. However, their widespread adoption remains constrained by a lack of expertise, knowledge gaps, and interoperability challenges between different technological systems [15,72]. This dual role of technology underscores the necessity of addressing these limitations through targeted training initiatives, the development of standardised protocols, and increased collaboration across the industry. Without these interventions, the potential of these innovations to significantly enhance IB will remain underutilised.

Economic and Financial Factors as a Major Barrier

Economic and financial considerations are consistently identified as the most significant barriers to the adoption of IB methods. The higher upfront costs associated with prefabrication and modular construction, alongside challenges in achieving economies of scale and the perception of heightened risk, serve as strong deterrents for stakeholders in the construction industry [67,73]. While these cost concerns are often prioritised, it is essential to evaluate the long-term benefits that IB offers, including reduced construction times, enhanced quality, and lower lifecycle costs [74,75]. Addressing these barriers will require concerted efforts by policymakers and industry leaders to implement financial incentives, establish risk-sharing frameworks, and promote evidence-based cost-benefit analyses. Such measures are critical in shifting the economic narrative and facilitating broader adoption of IB methods.

Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement as a Critical Enabler

Collaboration and stakeholder engagement emerged as critical enablers in the adoption of IB. The effective coordination of project participants—clients, designers, contractors, and suppliers—is key to addressing the fragmented nature of the construction industry and enabling the seamless integration of innovative technologies and processes [76,77]. Practices such as early contractor involvement, integrated project delivery, and the adoption of collaborative tools including BIM, are instrumental in fostering a culture of cooperation and knowledge sharing, ultimately improving project outcomes [78,79]. Nevertheless, obstacles such as a lack of trust, resistance to change, and the persistence of traditional procurement models continue to impede effective collaboration. These challenges highlight the need for a paradigm shift in stakeholder engagement, promoting a more collaborative and integrated approach across the industry.

Government Support and Policy as Both a Crucial Enabler and Barrier

Government support and policy play a crucial role in either enabling or hindering the adoption of IB methods. Supportive policies, regulations, and incentives can create a conducive environment for the growth of prefabrication and modular construction, encouraging innovation and investment in the sector [62,80]. For example, the development of building codes and standards tailored to IB can provide clarity and confidence to stakeholders, while financial incentives and public procurement policies can create a stable demand for innovative construction solutions. On the other hand, the lack of a clear regulatory framework, inadequate incentives, and the absence of a long-term vision can act as significant barriers to the widespread adoption of IB methods [61,81]. Policymakers must work closely with industry stakeholders to develop a comprehensive and coherent policy framework that addresses the unique challenges and opportunities associated with IB.

5.2.2. Granular Levels of Enablers and Barriers

Macro-Level Enablers and Barriers

At the macro level, government support and policy emerge as crucial enablers, with studies highlighting the importance of strengthening regulations, providing incentives, and fostering collaboration among government bodies, industry, and sectors [82]. However, reluctance towards IB policy implementation and inadequate regulatory frameworks remain significant barriers [83,84]. Market factors, such as increased profitability and competitive advantage from low-carbon practices, can drive adoption [85,86], but inconsistent demand and resistance from traditional construction sectors pose challenges [8,26]. Efficient supply chain management, integrating lean principles and just-in-time deliveries, is an enabler [87], while fragmentation and coordination issues can hinder progress [88,89]. The macro-level analysis also highlights the role of sustainability and environmental factors, with the adoption of circular economy principles and wood-based materials offering benefits [59,90]. However, limited focus on sustainability and challenges in balancing affordability remain barriers [75,91]. Table 2 outlines the macro-level factors.

Meso-Level Enablers and Barriers

At the meso level, technology and innovation emerge as key enablers, with the integration of BIM, AI and IoT driving productivity and risk management [71,92]. However, interoperability issues and low automation levels in production processes hinder widespread adoption [93,94]. Economic and financial factors, such as economies of scale and competitive advantage from innovative practices, promote IBS uptake [89,95], while high initial capital costs and budget constraints remain barriers [91,96]. Research and development, supported by cross-sector collaboration and knowledge sharing, enable advancements [8], but limited quantitative studies and insufficient funding impede progress [60,97]. Cultural and perception factors, addressed through industry-wide educational initiatives and awareness campaigns, can drive adoption [64,98], while misalignment of perceptions and resistance to change act as barriers [73,88]. Table 3 outlines the meso-level factors.

Micro-Level Enablers and Barriers

At the micro level, technology and innovation factors, such as BIM support for off-site manufacturing and the adoption of lean principles, enable efficiency gains [56,87]. However, the lack of standardisation and interoperability issues hinder seamless implementation [72,99]. Economic and financial enablers, including cost savings through prefabrication and competitive financial models, drive adoption [74,100], while high upfront investments and strong cash flow requirements pose challenges [101,102]. Training and skills development initiatives for local labour and cross-training enable successful IBS projects [16,83], but inadequate expertise in digital architecture and lean construction remain barriers [103,104]. Design and planning factors, such as Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) solutions and modular design systems, facilitate prefabrication [105], while design inflexibility and poor expertise in handling modifications pose challenges [67,106]. Streamlined project management practices and data-driven decision support tools enable effective prefabrication strategies [107,108], but fragmentation and inadequate planning lead to project delays [109,110].

Cross-Level Interactions

The diagram shown in Figure 10 illustrates the adoption factors outlined in Table 3, focusing on the interrelationships between the three levels. Additionally, the proposed diagram highlights the dynamic interplay between the levels, with feedback loops illustrating how actions and outcomes at one level influence decisions and strategies at another. For instance, effective government policies (macro level) drive technology adoption at the micro level, while successful project outcomes at the micro level feed back into policy formation and organisational strategies at the meso and macro levels. On the left, the Strategic Direction axis shows how top-down policies and mandates influence adoption strategies across levels. On the right, the Outcome, Performance, and Impact axis reflect the results of these strategies as they manifest in project outcomes, industry-wide performance, and broader economic and environmental impacts. These outcomes, in turn, inform future policies and strategies, creating a continuous cycle of improvement and adaptation.

5.3. Implications of Findings for Australia and Future Directions

The insights drawn from international literature provide a useful framework for understanding IB adoption in Australia, though the unique characteristics of the Australian construction market warrant further investigation.

• RQ3: What insights from the global literature on IB adoption are potentially applicable to the Australian context?

5.3.1. Critical Enablers and Barriers in Australian-Based Studies

An in-depth analysis of IB adoption in Australia reveals persistent barriers and evolving enablers over the past decade.

Table 5. Summary of barriers and enablers of IB adoption in the Australian context.

Reference	Barriers	Enablers	Method
Blismas and Wakefield (2009)	- High initial costs - Negative perceptions - Lack of skilled workforce - Regulatory barriers	- Reduced construction time - Improved quality - Increased safety	Literature review and case studies
Boyd et al. (2013)	- Financing challenges - Logistical complications - Regulatory hurdles - Industry culture resistant to change	- Reduced construction time - Enhanced sustainability - Improved safety - Labour efficiencies	Case study
Sutrisna et al. (2017)	- High capital costs - Financing difficulties - Supply chain issues - Skills shortages	- Potential cost savings - Faster project delivery - Improved quality control	Case study and cost analysis
Evison et al. (2018)	- Regulatory challenges and building code compliance issues - Higher upfront costs for facilities and equipment - Consumer misconceptions about quality and aesthetics - Increasing housing demand, especially for affordable housing	- Environmental and productivity benefits of prefabrication - Increasing housing demand, especially for affordable housing - Government support and policies promoting prefabrication	Literature review and case study analysis of Australia and New Zealand
Steinhardt et al. (2020)	- Lack of industry maturity and scale - Lack of skilled workforce in prefabrication methods - Regulatory misalignment - Underdeveloped supply chains - Limited technical sophistication	- Government support - Industry collaboration - Innovation in design and manufacturing	Comparative case study of Australia and Sweden, using publicly available information and document analysis
Wong et al. (2021)	- Resistance to change - Lack of knowledge and skills - Organisational inertia	- Unlearning old practices - Organisational readiness - Effective change management	Survey and statistical analysis
Gharbia et al. (2022)	- Regulatory challenges and building code compliance issues - Supply chain and logistics challenges - Limited standardisation in the industry	- Emerging digital technologies like BIM - Government support and policies promoting prefabrication - Potential for faster construction and cost savings	Case study methodology with questionnaire surveys across six countries (Sweden, Switzerland, UK, China, Singapore, and Australia), supplemented by interviews

summarises the studies undertaken in Australia in the context of this research. Early studies identified high initial costs, regulatory hurdles, and industry resistance as primary obstacles [111]. Recent research continues to highlight these issues, while providing a greater understanding of challenges like limited industry maturity and standardisation [36,112]. Enablers have shifted from operational benefits to strategic advantages, with recent studies [95,112] emphasising government support, digital technologies, and industry collaboration. Comparative analysis shows Australia shares common barriers with countries like the UK but faces unique challenges due to Australia’s geographical and regulatory environment. Countries like Sweden and Singapore demonstrate a more mature IB market with stronger governmental support, and more integrated supply chains [112]. The persistence of certain barriers alongside emerging enablers indicates a sector in transition, suggesting the need for a systemic approach to IB adoption that addresses technical, economic, regulatory, and cultural factors in the Australian context.

5.3.2. Comparative Analysis to Inform Future Directions of IB Adoption in Australia

This section analyses findings exclusively from studies conducted on barriers and enablers of IB adoption within the Australian context, examining these through macro, meso, and micro level factors and comparing them with global trends to identify future directions for the Australian construction industry.

At the macro level, the high initial capital costs for manufacturing facilities and the lack of financial support from the government [26,113] pose significant challenges for the Australian IB industry. This is exacerbated by the financing challenges stemming from lenders’ unfamiliarity with offsite methods, and the absence of standardised metrics and benchmarks for assessing project progress and risk [74,111,114]. Australia’s vast geography and dispersed population centres make transportation of prefabricated components costly, hindering the development of efficient supply chain networks [115,116].

Compared to countries like Singapore and the UK, where government policies and initiatives have driven the adoption of IB [26], Australia lacks a comprehensive and coordinated approach at the federal and state levels. The division of building regulations across different levels of government further complicates the adoption of standardised IB methods [111]. Drawing on the success of government-industry collaborations in countries like Singapore and the UK, Australia could benefit from a more integrated approach involving policymakers, industry bodies, and academic institutions to develop a supportive regulatory framework and create demand for IB [74,113].

At the meso level, the resistance to change from conventional practices and negative perceptions of IB, such as concerns about design inflexibility and quality [117], mirror the cultural and perception-related barriers identified in the global context [36,114]. Sweden is a great example of strategic supply chain planning, and long-term relationships with suppliers have been crucial to the success of IB firms [118]. Fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration through the establishment of innovation hubs, living labs, and communities of practice could help overcome these barriers and facilitate knowledge sharing within the Australian IB industry [36].

At the micro level, the shortage of professionals skilled in offsite techniques aligns with the global challenges related to training and skills development [26,112]. Australia could draw on such experiences and invest in targeted training programs and partnerships between industry and vocational education providers to bridge this skills gap [112,114]. Incorporating DfMA principles and modularity in the design process could help address the challenges related to design inflexibility and adaptability to the unique Australian context [116].

The slow uptake of IB in Australia has far-reaching implications for the construction sector and the broader economy. It hampers efforts to address housing shortages and affordability issues in major cities [116], limits the industry’s ability to improve productivity [119], and impedes progress towards national environmental targets in the built environment sector. Moreover, the skills gap in IB may hinder Australia’s capacity to innovate and compete globally in advanced construction technologies [95].

However, these challenges also present opportunities for Australia to modernise its construction industry and develop tailored solutions suited to its unique context. The Australian government’s focus on increasing housing supply and affordability could drive IB adoption [120]. Vocational training institutions and universities have the opportunity to develop new courses and qualifications in IB methods to address the skills gap [95]. Furthermore, IB methods could be adapted to enhance resilience against natural disasters, positioning it as a key strategy in Australia’s climate adaptation plans [121].

To capitalise on these opportunities, Australia must address the barriers to IB adoption through a concerted effort from government, industry bodies, and educational institutions [95]. Drawing on the lessons learned from other countries, Australia could develop a hub-and-spoke model of manufacturing centres, with major facilities in population centres and smaller, more flexible operations in regional areas [116]. This model could help overcome the logistical challenges posed by Australia’s geography and drive innovation in transportable and modular designs suited to Australian conditions.

Successful countries like Sweden emphasise a customer-centric approach, linking customer values to costs through target value design and innovative affordability solutions [122]. This success is underpinned by business models and organisational structures tailored to IB, fostering long-term stakeholder relationships [123]. Swedish companies have excelled in product development, creating a narrow range of products within a flexible platform that offers diverse housing options while maintaining localised production (Jansson et al., 2014). Their market strategies focus on smaller cities and suburbs, prioritising affordability with solutions like 100 m² homes for four-person families, and employing a “six locations concept” for strategic land acquisition [124].

For the Australian market seeking to learn from these successful adoption cases, key lessons include adapting principles to local contexts rather than direct replication, encouraging company specialisation, and developing a diverse supplier ecosystem. Implementation should be gradual, focusing initially on building capabilities and materials. It is imperative to create products that local companies can feasibly construct, even if not fully optimised at first. Addressing local trade cultures and consumer preferences is essential for successfully adopting IB methods in new markets.

6. Conclusions

Different countries worldwide have already utilised or aim to increase their implementation of IB approaches to address various challenges in the construction industry, including social housing demands, sustainability concerns, carbon emission reduction, and improving overall speed and quality. However, the maturity levels, structures, and strategies for IB adoption vary significantly across nations. For instance, countries like Singapore and the UK have driven IB adoption through robust government policies and initiatives. In contrast, Australia lacks a comprehensive and coordinated approach, which may be attributed to its contextual factors, such as the complex decision-making layers at federal and state levels, hindering the development of an overarching strategy.

Based on the findings, the Australian construction sector holds significant opportunities for growth if key enablers are leveraged effectively. Developing a coordinated national policy framework, increasing investment in digital technology, and prioritising workforce upskilling are critical to accelerating IB adoption. Insights from international practices, particularly in Singapore and the UK, demonstrate the transformative potential of robust government support and policy alignment. While this study does not provide explicit forecasts, it offers a foundation for industry stakeholders to explore growth trajectories, adapt to emerging trends, and address systemic challenges in IB adoption. Future research incorporating market data and stakeholder engagement could further clarify the growth potential and practical implications of IB adoption for the Australian construction industry.

On a global scale, the results revealed a significant surge in research interest over the past decade, particularly since 2018, with Asia, Europe, and North America leading the field. Critical enablers include technology and innovation, sustainability and environmental practices, government support and policy, economic and market dynamics enablers, and collaboration and stakeholder engagement, while major barriers encompass collaboration and stakeholder engagement, economic and financial, technology and innovation, and government support and policy. Factors such as technology and innovation were found to play dual roles as both enablers and barriers, highlighting the multi-faceted nature of IB adoption.

The findings presented in this study are based on a systematic review of existing literature. While this approach provides a robust synthesis of global trends and key enablers and barriers, it is inherently limited by the availability and scope of the reviewed studies. The conclusions drawn here should be interpreted as exploratory insights rather than definitive or prescriptive solutions. Primarily, the research relies on secondary data sources and English-language publications, potentially excluding relevant literature from pioneering non-English countries such as Sweden and Germany. While non-English sources may offer valuable insights, their inclusion is limited by accessibility and translation constraints. Future research could explore these sources to provide a more diverse perspective where appropriate. The use of specific keywords in the search process may have inadvertently omitted pertinent studies, limiting generalisability. Moreover, the coding process, although conducted by two team members, may retain an element of subjectivity. To address these limitations, future research should consider incorporating multi-lingual sources, employing more comprehensive search strategies, and implementing a member-checking validation process. Conducting primary research through surveys or interviews with industry experts would complement the findings from this study and provide a more practical understanding of IB enablers and barriers across diverse contexts.

To conclude, this study underscores the complexity of IB adoption in Australia and highlights the need for coordinated efforts across technological, educational, managerial, economic, and policy domains. Addressing the identified enablers and barriers through a multi-level strategy may provide pathways for Australia to leverage IB to tackle housing challenges, enhance construction efficiency, and advance sustainability goals. The novel methodological approach employed in this research provides a versatile analytical tool applicable to similar studies across various cultural and geographical contexts. While the findings synthesise existing literature, further validation through industry-specific case studies and stakeholder engagement is essential to translate these insights into actionable strategies. By adopting this framework, researchers and policymakers can gain deeper insights into the dynamics of IB adoption, promoting sustainable construction practices globally.