Construction sites experience low productivity due to particular characteristics such as unique designs in each project, sporadic arrival of projects, and complexity of the process. Another contributing factor to low productivity is poor communication among workers, supervisors, and a site’s centralized knowledge hub. Research shows that introducing advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technology in construction can tackle these problems. In this paper, we analyzed human factors considerations–user, task, environment, and technology and identified their characteristics and challenges to design an interactive AI system to facilitate communication between workers and other stakeholders. Based on the analysis, we propose a voice-based intelligent virtual agent (VIVA) as a multi-purpose AI system on construction sites with a further research agenda. We hope that this effort can guide the design of construction-specific AI systems and that this worker-AI teaming can improve overall work processes, enhance productivity, and promote safety in construction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Castro-LacoutureD.BrysonL. S.Gonzalez-JoaquiJ. (2006). Real-time positioning network for intelligent construction. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering (pp. 77–86).
2.
ChoG.ChoiJ.KimH.HyunS.RyooJ. (2018). Threat modeling and analysis of voice assistant applications. International Workshop on Information Security Applications, 197–209.
3.
DongJ.LawsonE.OlsenJ.JeonM. (2020). Female voice agents in fully autonomous vehicles are not only more likeable and comfortable, but also more competent. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 1033–1037).
4.
ErnstC.-P. H.Herm-StapelbergN. (2020). The Impact of Gender Stereotyping on the Perceived Likability of Virtual Assistants.
5.
EviaC. (2011). Localizing and designing computer-based safety training solutions for Hispanic construction workers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(6), 452–459.
6.
GanyF.DobslawR.RamirezJ., et al. (2011). Mexican urban occupational health in the U.S.: A population at risk. Journal of Community Health, 36(2), 175–179.
7.
GliksonE.WoolleyA. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660.
8.
GlobersonS.KormanA. (2001). The use of just-in-time training in a project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 19(5), 279–285.
9.
HatamiM.FloodI.FranzB.ZhangX. (2019). State-of-the-Art Review on the Applicability of AI Methods to Automated Construction Manufacturing. Computing in Civil Engineering 2019: Data, Sensing, and Analytics, 368–375.
10.
HsuC. H. Y. Y. H.LinC. L. (2000). Site Engineer Digital Assistant—–The Integration Of Information Technology In Order To Assist Site Engineers In Processing Information At All Times And Places.
11.
KasimN. (2015). Intelligent Materials Tracking System for Construction Projects Management. Journal of Engineering & Technological Sciences, 47(2).
12.
KhelifiA.HyariK. H. (2016). A mobile device software to improve construction sites communications “MoSIC”. International Journal Of Advanced Computer Science And Applications, 7(11), 51–58.
13.
KhodabandehF.Kabir-MokamelkhahE.KahaniM. (2016). Factors associated with the severity of fatal accidents in construction workers. Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 30, 469.
14.
KomiakS. Y. X.BenbasatI. (2006). The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly, 941–960.
15.
KondratovaI. (2003). Voice and multimodal access to AEC project information. The 10th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: The Vision for Future Generations in Research and Applications. ChaJ., et al, (Eds), Swets & Zeitlinger. Lisse, Portugal, 755–760.
16.
KondratovaI.LumsdenJ.LangtonN. (2006). Multimodal field data entry: performance and usability issues.
17.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.
18.
MelandO. H.RobertsenK. A. R. L.HannasG. (2011). Selection criteria and tender evaluation: the equivalent tender price model (ETPM). In Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment MISBE 2011, June 20-23, 2011.
19.
MohamedS.StewartR. A. (2003). An empirical investigation of users’ perceptions of web-based communication on a construction project. Automation in construction, 12(1), 43–53.
20.
MoonS.Becerik-GerberB.SoibelmanL. (2019). Virtual learning for workers in robot deployed construction sites. In Advances in informatics and computing in civil and construction engineering (pp. 889–895). Springer.
21.
MorrisonK. (2015). Why are workplace injuries and deaths increasing among Latino employees?. Saf. Health, 192(2), 84–86.
22.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.
23.
RajM.SeamansR. (2019). Primer on artificial intelligence and robotics. Journal of Organization Design, 8(1), 1–14.
24.
SilverD.SchrittwieserJ.SimonyanK.AntonoglouI.HuangA.GuezA.HubertT.BakerL.LaiM.BoltonA. (2017). Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature, 550(7676), 354–359.
25.
WilkieB. J. (2013). An assessment of a just-in-time training intervention in a manufacturing organization.
26.
YooS.SongI.BengioY. (2019, May). A highly adaptive acoustic model for accurate multi-dialect speech recognition. In ICASSP 2019 (pp. 5716–5720). IEEE.
