Rethinking the roles in the AEC industry to accommodate digital fabrication

Abstract

As robots and other technologies take over tasks previously performed by construction workers and planners, the concern about the future of jobs and wages will increase. While digital fabrication (dfab), and particularly the use of robotic technology, has the potential to improve productivity, it should not necessarily reduce total employment in the construction sector in the long run. It is expected that existing roles will evolve, mainly related to the human-robot interaction, and new roles will be created (e.g., in addition to designers there would be a need for employees with digital skills). Particular attention should be made to the transition phase in which conflicts may occur between the old and new systems and planning methods. This will occur for different functions and services during the planning and execution of construction projects. Focusing on the construction phase of a concrete wall using additive dfab for the NEST building located in Dübendorf, Switzerland, the different roles were evaluated. From this study, it seems that robotic technologies and conventional construction will coexist next to each other for a while, leading to a higher job variability and the creation of new roles, such as dfab managers to support coordination required, dfab programmers to develop computer numerical control that can be implemented with industrial robots, or dfab technicians to support robotic systems. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty, making it difficult to quantify employment impacts. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of using dfab to the functional division, supply chain and business models of the AEC industry, and to assess additional social impacts, such as changes in education schemes.

Implications of Construction 4.0 to the workforce and organizational structures

“…Figure3. Qualitative share of participation of each role vs. degree of digitalization during the execution phase (adapted fromGarcía de Soto et al, 2018b) …”

Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) of Digital Fabrication (Dfab) and Additive Manufacturing (AM) in Construction: A Review

“…These included Dfab engineers, parametric or computational resources, visual-programming conditions, bespoke/customized design and modular features, Dfab optimizing and prefabrication processes, artifact of Dfab physical mockup, value of reducing human dependence, along with risks of increasing uncertainty in production and performance compromise/uncertainty. De Soto et al [111] determined the productivity, cost, and time aspects on the on-site robotic fabrication technology. Results found that complex decoration structures could be made with Dfab at no extra cost.…”

Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) of Digital Fabrication (Dfab) and Additive Manufacturing (AM) in Construction: A Review

“…These include Dfab engineers, parametric or computational resources, visual-programming conditions, bespoke/customized design and modular features, digital fabrication optimizing and prefabrication processes, artifact of digital fabrication physical mockup, value of reducing human dependence, along with risks of increasing uncertainty in production and performance compromise/uncertainty. De Soto et al [111] determined the productivity, cost, and time aspects on the on-site robotic fabrication technology. Results found that complex decoration structures can be made with Dfab at no extra cost.…”