CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis conducted to address the research objectives
outlined in Chapter One. Two sets of primary data were collected for this study. The first
consisted of responses from a structured questionnaire administered to construction
professionals, while the second comprised responses from a Google Form survey distributed
electronically. Both datasets were processed and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics.
The analysis includes descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard
deviations to summarise respondent demographics and key variables. Inferential statistical tests,
including chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA), were also applied where
appropriate to examine relationships between variables. Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s
alpha was conducted for Likert-scale items to assess internal consistency.
Results are presented in tables and figures following the order of the research questions:
1. Automation technologies currently being used in the construction industry globally.
2. Level of adoption of automation technologies in the Nigerian construction industry.
3. Barriers limiting the adoption of automation technologies in Nigeria.
4. Strategies for mitigating these barriers and accelerating adoption.
The findings are interpreted objectively, focusing on patterns emerging from the data without
extended discussion, which is reserved for Chapter Five.
4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS
This section presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents from both the
questionnaire and Google Form surveys. The purpose is to provide background information on
the sample population and to establish the diversity of perspectives represented in the study. The
demographic variables analysed include gender, age group, educational qualification, years of
professional experience, professional designation, and type of organisation.
The analysis was carried out using frequency distributions and percentages, with results
displayed in tables and figures. These demographic details are presented separately for each
dataset to maintain clarity.
4.2.1 Questionnaire Respondents
Table 4.1: Gender Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents
Gender
N %
Male 29 58.0%
Female 21 42.0%
The results in Table 4.1 indicate that 58% of respondents were male while 42% were female,
showing that the sample was skewed towards male participants.
Table 4.2: Age Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents
Age range
N %
18-25 12 24.0%
26-35 20 40.0%
36-45 11 22.0%
46 7 14.0%
Above
As shown in Table 4.2, the largest age group among respondents was (26-35) accounting for
40% of the sample, followed by (18-25) at 24%.
Table 4.3: Educational Qualification of Questionnaire Respondents
Highest educational qualification
N %
Diploma 13 26.0%
Bachelor’s degree 19 38.0%
Master's degree 14 28.0%
Doctorate 4 8.0%
The data in Table 4.3 show that the majority of respondents held [BSc.], representing 38% of the
sample, followed by [MSc] at 28%.
Table 4.4: Professional Designation
Role in the construction industry
N %
Architect 13 26.0%
Civil Engineer 8 16.0%
Project manager 6 12.0%
Consultant 18 36.0%
Contractor 5 10.0%
Table 4.5: Years of Professional Experience
Years of experience in the construction industry
N %
Less than 5 years 13 26.0%
5-10 years 19 38.0%
11-15 years 15 30.0%
More than 15 3 6.0%
years
The results show that the largest proportion of respondents, 38.0%, had between 5 and 10 years
of experience in the construction industry. This was followed by 30.0% with 11 to 15 years of
experience and 26.0% with less than 5 years. Only 6.0% of respondents had more than 15 years
of experience, indicating that most participants were mid-career professionals.
Table 4.5: Type of Organisation
Company size
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Small (less than 50 25 50.0 50.0 50.0
employees)
Medium (50-249 20 40.0 40.0 90.0
employees)
Large (250+ 5 10.0 10.0 100.0
employees)
Total 50 100.0 100.0
The analysis shows that half of the respondents (50.0%) worked in small companies with fewer
than 50 employees. Medium-sized firms with 50 to 249 employees accounted for 40.0% of
respondents, while only 10.0% worked in large organisations with 250 or more employees. This
indicates that the majority of participants were employed in small to medium-sized enterprises.
4.2.2 Google Form Respondents
The same variables were analysed for the Google Form dataset.
Table 4.6: Gender Distribution of Google Form Respondents
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Female 46 46.0 46.0 46.0
Male 53 53.0 53.0 99.0
Prefer not to 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
say
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The analysis shows that 53.0% of respondents were male, 46.0% were female, and 1.0%
preferred not to disclose their gender. This indicates a fairly balanced gender distribution, with a
slight male majority.
Table 4.7: Age Distribution of Google Form Respondents
Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 18-25 Years 51 51.0 51.0 51.0
18-25 Years;36-45 1 1.0 1.0 52.0
Years
26-35 Years 33 33.0 33.0 85.0
36-45 Years 11 11.0 11.0 96.0
46 Years and Above 4 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The results show that a majority of respondents (51.0%) were aged between 18 and 25 years.
This was followed by 33.0% in the 26 to 35 years age group and 11.0% aged 36 to 45 years.
Respondents aged 46 years and above accounted for 4.0%, while 1.0% indicated a mixed
response of 18–25 years and 36–45 years. This suggests that most participants were relatively
young professionals.
Table 4.8: Educational Qualification of Google Form Respondents
Highest educational qualification
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Bachelor’s Degree 32 32.0 32.0 32.0
Bachelor’s Degree; 1 1.0 1.0 33.0
Master’s Degree 1 1.0 1.0 34.0
Diploma 42 42.0 42.0 76.0
Doctorate 5 5.0 5.0 81.0
HND 2 2.0 2.0 83.0
Master’s Degree 17 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The results indicate that 42.0% of respondents held a diploma, followed by 32.0% with a
bachelor’s degree and 17.0% with a master’s degree. Smaller proportions included 5.0% with a
doctorate, 2.0% with an HND, and 1.0% each who listed multiple qualifications. This shows that
most participants possessed diploma or bachelor’s level qualifications.
Table 4.9: Years of Professional Experience
Years of professional experience in the construction industry
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 11–15 years 11 11.0 11.0 11.0
11–15 years 1 1.0 1.0 12.0
Above 15 years
5–10 years 20 20.0 20.0 32.0
Above 15 years 4 4.0 4.0 36.0
Less than 5 years 62 62.0 62.0 98.0
Less than 5 years;5–10 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
years
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The analysis shows that most respondents (62.0%) had less than 5 years of professional
experience in the construction industry. This was followed by 20.0% with 5 to 10 years of
experience and 11.0% with 11 to 15 years. Only 4.0% had more than 15 years of experience,
while small proportions (1.0% and 2.0%) reported mixed ranges. This indicates that the sample
was largely composed of early-career professionals.
Table 4.10: Type of Organisation
Type of organization
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Consultancy 9 9.0 9.0 9.0
Consultancy;Contractor 3 3.0 3.0 12.0
Contractor 12 12.0 12.0 24.0
Government 29 29.0 29.0 53.0
Government;Private 1 1.0 1.0 54.0
Industrial 1 1.0 1.0 55.0
NGO 1 1.0 1.0 56.0
Private 38 38.0 38.0 94.0
Private;Consultancy 1 1.0 1.0 95.0
Private;Consultancy;Co 1 1.0 1.0 96.0
ntractor
Private;Contractor 1 1.0 1.0 97.0
Self employment 1 1.0 1.0 98.0
Student 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
Students 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The results show that 38.0% of respondents worked in private organisations, followed by 29.0%
in government institutions and 12.0% with contractors. Consultancy firms accounted for 9.0% of
respondents, while the remaining categories, including mixed roles (e.g., consultancy and
contractor), industrial, NGO, self-employment, and students, each represented 3.0% or less. This
indicates that most participants were drawn from private and government sectors.
4.3 ANALYSIS BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTION ONE
Research Question One sought to identify the automation technologies currently being used in
the construction industry globally. Respondents were asked to indicate their awareness and usage
levels of various automation tools and systems. The results are presented separately for the
questionnaire and Google Form datasets.
4.3.1 Questionnaire Responses
Table 4.11: Awareness of Automation Technologies (Questionnaire Respondents)
Statistics
My organization currently uses some form of construction automation technology (e.g.,
BIM, drones, robotics).
N Valid 50
Missing 0
Mean 4.16
Median 4.00
Std. Deviation .618
Range 2
Minimum 3
Maximum 5
The results show a mean score of 4.16, indicating that most respondents agreed that their
organisation currently uses some form of construction automation technology such as BIM,
drones, or robotics. The median score of 4.00 confirms this agreement. The responses ranged
from 3 (neutral) to 5 (strongly agree), with a standard deviation of 0.618, suggesting relatively
low variability in perceptions among respondents.
Table 4.12: Usage of Automation Technologies (Questionnaire Respondents)
Statistics
Artificial
Robotic Intelligen Internet of
machinery ce (AI) Things Augmente
(e.g., and (IoT) d Reality
Building Drones bricklayin Machine technologi (AR) or
Informati are used g, 3D Prefabricati Learning es are used Virtual
on for site printing) on and are for real- Reality
Modeling surveys, is modular applied in time site (VR) is
(BIM) is progress integrated construction project monitoring used for
widely monitorin into our methods are planning and design
adopted in g, and constructi commonly and resource visualizati
our inspection on used in my monitorin manageme on and
projects s processes. company g nt training
N Valid 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Missin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.20 3.96 3.70 4.10 4.00 3.76 3.78
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Std. .728 .947 .995 .763 .606 1.117 1.016
Deviatio
Range 2 4 4 4 2 4 4
Minimu 3 1 1 1 3 1 1
Maximu 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
As presented in Table 4.12, The results indicate that among the listed automation technologies,
Building Information Modeling (BIM) had the highest mean score of 4.20, suggesting strong
agreement that it is widely adopted in projects. This was followed by prefabrication and modular
construction methods (mean = 4.10), and the application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine
Learning (mean = 4.00). Drones for site surveys, progress monitoring, and inspections recorded a
mean of 3.96, while Internet of Things (IoT) technologies and Augmented/Virtual Reality had
mean scores of 3.76 and 3.78 respectively. Robotic machinery had the lowest mean of 3.70,
indicating comparatively lower integration. Across all technologies, median scores of 4.00 reflect
overall agreement, with standard deviations ranging from 0.606 to 1.117, showing moderate
variability in responses.
4.3.2 Google Form Responses
Table 4.13: Awareness of Automation Technologies (Google Form Respondents)
Are you familiar with automation technologies used in construction industry
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 7 7.0 7.0 7.0
Yes 93 93.0 93.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Table 4.13 indicates that the results show that 93.0% of respondents reported being familiar with
automation technologies used in construction, while only 7.0% indicated no familiarity. This
suggests a high level of awareness of such technologies among participants.
Table 4.14: Usage of Automation Technologies (Google Form Respondents)
Automation tools have improved communication and collaboration on
construction projects
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Agree 38 38.0 38.0 38.0
Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 41.0
Neutral 20 20.0 20.0 61.0
Strongly agree 33 33.0 33.0 94.0
Strongly 6 6.0 6.0 100.0
disagree
Total 100 100.0 100.0
As shown in Table 4.14, The results indicate that 38.0% of respondents agreed and 33.0%
strongly agreed that automation tools have improved communication and collaboration, making a
combined 71.0% in agreement. Meanwhile, 20.0% were neutral, 3.0% disagreed, and 6.0%
strongly disagreed. This shows that most respondents perceived a positive impact of automation
tools on communication and collaboration on construction projects.
4.4 ANALYSIS BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTION TWO
Research Question Two aimed to assess the level of adoption of automation technologies in the
Nigerian construction industry. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which various
technologies have been implemented within their organisations using a Likert scale. The results
are presented separately for the questionnaire and Google Form datasets.
4.4.1 Questionnaire Responses
Table 4.15: Level of Adoption of Automation Technologies (Questionnaire Respondents)
Artificial
Robotic Intelligen Internet of
machinery ce (AI) Things Augmente
(e.g., and (IoT) d Reality
Building Drones bricklayin Machine technologi (AR) or
Informati are used g, 3D Prefabricati Learning es are used Virtual
on for site printing) on and are for real- Reality
Modeling surveys, is modular applied in time site (VR) is
(BIM) is progress integrated construction project monitoring used for
widely monitorin into our methods are planning and design
adopted in g, and constructi commonly and resource visualizati
our inspection on used in my monitorin manageme on and
projects s processes. company g nt training
N Valid 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Missin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.20 3.96 3.70 4.10 4.00 3.76 3.78
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Std. .728 .947 .995 .763 .606 1.117 1.016
Deviatio
Range 2 4 4 4 2 4 4
Minimu 3 1 1 1 3 1 1
Maximu 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
The results in Table 4.15 indicate that among the listed automation technologies, Building
Information Modeling (BIM) had the highest mean score of 4.20, suggesting strong agreement
that it is widely adopted in projects. This was followed by prefabrication and modular
construction methods (mean = 4.10), and the application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine
Learning (mean = 4.00). Drones for site surveys, progress monitoring, and inspections recorded a
mean of 3.96, while Internet of Things (IoT) technologies and Augmented/Virtual Reality had
mean scores of 3.76 and 3.78 respectively. Robotic machinery had the lowest mean of 3.70,
indicating comparatively lower integration. Across all technologies, median scores of 4.00 reflect
overall agreement, with standard deviations ranging from 0.606 to 1.117, showing moderate
variability in responses.
4.4.2 Google Form Responses
Table 4.16: Level of Adoption of Automation Technologies (Google Form Respondents)
Rate the level of automation adoption in your organization
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid High 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
Low 12 12.0 12.0 33.0
Moderate 53 53.0 53.0 86.0
Moderate;Hig 1 1.0 1.0 87.0
Very high 5 5.0 5.0 92.0
Very low 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
As shown in Table 4.16, The results show that the majority of respondents (53.0%) rated the
level of automation adoption in their organisation as moderate. This was followed by 21.0% who
rated it high, 12.0% low, 8.0% very low, and 5.0% very high. A small proportion (1.0%) selected
both moderate and high. Overall, the findings suggest that most organisations have adopted
automation technologies to a moderate extent, with fewer reporting very high or very low
adoption levels.
4.5 ANALYSIS BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTION THREE
Research Question Three investigated the barriers limiting the adoption of automation
technologies in the Nigerian construction industry. Respondents rated various potential barriers
using a Likert scale. Reliability analysis was first conducted to ensure internal consistency of the
barrier items, followed by descriptive statistics to determine their relative significance.
4.5.1 Reliability Analysis
Table 4.17: Reliability Statistics for Barrier Items (Questionnaire Respondents)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.652 8
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
High initial costs of 4.32 .551 50
purchasing and
maintaining automation
technologies hinder
adoption
Lack of skilled labor to 4.28 .573 50
operate and maintain
automation technologies
is a major barrier
Limited awareness and 4.44 .577 50
understanding of
automation benefits
reduce its adoption
Regulatory challenges and 4.46 .676 50
unclear government
policies discourage
automation
implementation
Poor infrastructure (e.g., 4.42 .575 50
unstable electricity, weak
internet) limits automation
effectiveness
Economic instability and 4.38 .635 50
lack of access to financing
make automation
investments difficult
Cultural resistance and 4.36 .722 50
preference for traditional
methods slow down
technology adoption
Supply chain challenges 4.46 .542 50
and limited availability of
modern equipment affect
adoption
Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
High initial costs of 30.80 5.837 .294 .633
purchasing and
maintaining automation
technologies hinder
adoption
Lack of skilled labor to 30.84 5.892 .253 .643
operate and maintain
automation technologies
is a major barrier
Limited awareness and 30.68 5.324 .476 .589
understanding of
automation benefits
reduce its adoption
Regulatory challenges and 30.66 5.249 .393 .608
unclear government
policies discourage
automation
implementation
Poor infrastructure (e.g., 30.70 5.806 .284 .636
unstable electricity, weak
internet) limits automation
effectiveness
Economic instability and 30.74 5.462 .357 .618
lack of access to financing
make automation
investments difficult
Cultural resistance and 30.76 5.247 .350 .622
preference for traditional
methods slow down
technology adoption
Supply chain challenges 30.66 5.698 .360 .619
and limited availability of
modern equipment affect
adoption
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
35.12 6.924 2.631 8
The reliability analysis in Table 4.17 shows the reliability analysis for the eight barrier items
produced a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.652, indicating an acceptable but borderline internal
consistency for the scale. Mean scores for all items were high, ranging from 4.28 to 4.46,
showing that respondents generally agreed that these factors are significant barriers to
automation adoption. The highest mean scores (4.46) were for “Regulatory challenges and
unclear government policies” and “Supply chain challenges and limited availability of modern
equipment.” The lowest mean (4.28) was for “Lack of skilled labor to operate and maintain
automation technologies.”
The “Corrected Item-Total Correlation” values ranged from 0.253 to 0.476, suggesting some
items have weaker correlations with the overall scale. Deleting certain items (e.g., “Lack of
skilled labor” or “Poor infrastructure”) would slightly increase the Cronbach’s Alpha, but not
substantially enough to justify removal. Overall, the results confirm that the items collectively
measure a related concept barriers to automation adoption though the internal consistency could
be strengthened.
4.5.2: Barriers to Adoption (Google Form Respondents)
Statistics
Which barrier do you consider MOST critical
N %
High initial cost 29 29.0%
Inadequate power and 25 25.0%
infrastructure
Lack of technical 24 24.0%
expertise
Resistance to change 13 13.0%
Unclear government 9 9.0%
policies/regulation
The results show that the most frequently cited critical barrier to automation adoption was high
initial cost, reported by 29.0% of respondents. This was followed by inadequate power and
infrastructure (25.0%) and lack of technical expertise (24.0%). Resistance to change accounted
for 13.0%, while unclear government policies or regulations was the least cited at 9.0%. This
indicates that financial and infrastructural constraints were perceived as the most significant
obstacles.
4.6 ANALYSIS BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTION FOUR
Research Question Four examined strategies for mitigating the barriers to adoption of automation
technologies in the Nigerian construction industry. Respondents evaluated the importance of
various proposed strategies using a Likert scale. Reliability analysis was conducted to assess the
consistency of these items, followed by descriptive statistics to determine their relative ranking.
4.6.1 Reliability Analysis
Table 4.21: Reliability Statistics for Strategy Items (Questionnaire Respondents)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.649 10
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Cultural resistance and 4.36 .722 50
preference for traditional
methods slow down
technology adoption
Supply chain challenges 4.46 .542 50
and limited availability of
modern equipment affect
adoption
Providing government 4.32 .513 50
financial incentives (e.g.,
grants, low-interest loans)
for automation investment
Offering training and skill 4.26 .803 50
development programs for
construction professionals
Simplifying regulatory 4.46 .646 50
policies to encourage
technology adoption
Improving infrastructure 4.32 .587 50
such as power supply and
internet connectivity
Creating awareness 4.46 .542 50
campaigns to showcase
the benefits of automation
Encouraging collaboration 4.34 .658 50
between construction
firms, universities, and
technology providers
Supporting pilot projects 4.42 .538 50
and demonstrations of
automation technologies
Incentivizing local 4.32 .621 50
research and development
in construction
automation
Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Cultural resistance and 39.36 7.215 .416 .600
preference for traditional
methods slow down
technology adoption
Supply chain challenges 39.26 8.074 .318 .624
and limited availability of
modern equipment affect
adoption
Providing government 39.40 8.327 .257 .635
financial incentives (e.g.,
grants, low-interest loans)
for automation investment
Offering training and skill 39.46 8.009 .153 .670
development programs for
construction professionals
Simplifying regulatory 39.26 7.543 .392 .608
policies to encourage
technology adoption
Improving infrastructure 39.40 7.551 .450 .597
such as power supply and
internet connectivity
Creating awareness 39.26 8.156 .290 .629
campaigns to showcase
the benefits of automation
Encouraging collaboration 39.38 8.036 .236 .642
between construction
firms, universities, and
technology providers
Supporting pilot projects 39.30 8.255 .260 .635
and demonstrations of
automation technologies
Incentivizing local 39.40 7.510 .427 .601
research and development
in construction
automation
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
43.72 9.349 3.058 10
The reliability analysis for the combined set of two barrier items (Bar_7 and Bar_8) and eight
strategy items (Strat_1 to Strat_8) produced a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.649, indicating an
acceptable but borderline internal consistency. Mean scores for all items were high, ranging from
4.26 to 4.46, suggesting strong agreement among respondents on both the identified barriers and
the proposed improvement strategies.
The highest mean scores (4.46) were recorded for “Supply chain challenges and limited
availability of modern equipment,” “Simplifying regulatory policies to encourage technology
adoption,” and “Creating awareness campaigns to showcase the benefits of automation.” The
lowest mean score (4.26) was for “Offering training and skill development programs for
construction professionals.”
Corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.153 to 0.450, indicating that some items
(particularly “Offering training and skill development programs”) have weaker relationships with
the overall scale. Removing certain items would slightly improve the alpha value, but the change
would not be substantial. Overall, the results suggest that the items collectively address related
aspects of barriers and strategies for automation adoption, but the scale’s internal consistency
could be improved.
4.7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This chapter presented and analysed data from both questionnaire and Google Form surveys to
address the research objectives. Respondent demographics showed a balanced gender mix, with
most participants being young to mid-career professionals, holding diploma or bachelor’s
degrees, and working primarily in small to medium-sized enterprises.
For Research Question One, high awareness of automation technologies was observed, with
Building Information Modeling (BIM), prefabrication methods, and AI/ML applications rated
highest in use, while robotic machinery had the lowest adoption levels.
For Research Question Two, adoption levels in Nigeria were generally moderate, with few
organisations reporting very high or very low adoption rates.
For Research Question Three, the most significant barriers identified were high initial costs,
inadequate infrastructure, lack of technical expertise, regulatory challenges, and supply chain
limitations. Reliability tests produced acceptable but borderline Cronbach’s Alpha values,
indicating the items measured related concepts.
For Research Question Four, respondents strongly supported strategies such as improving
infrastructure, simplifying regulations, providing government incentives, raising awareness, and
encouraging collaboration. Mean ratings for all strategies were high, showing consensus on their
importance.
Overall, the findings indicate that while awareness of automation technologies is high, adoption
is moderate due to financial, infrastructural, and regulatory constraints. Strategic interventions
could accelerate adoption in the Nigerian construction industry.