Chapter 4 Data Analysis

4.
0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is the process that covers mainly on analysis work which using data statistical
and/or logical techniques to review each element from the questionnaire answered by the
targeted respondent from the questionnaire survey. Hence, the miscellaneous analytic
procedures is to apply by assemble, examine and analyse data from various provenience to
form some variety of discovery or result. Therefore, the amount of 101 emails were be sent out
through email. The targeted respondent who receive the survey were be developer in Selangor
who registered under Real Estate and Housing Developer’s Association (REDHA) Malaysia.
The form of questionnaire survey was been made up of 4 parts. The section A and B are
descriptive statistical analysis method to analyse the background of respondents and current
IBS implementation in Malaysia. In general, descriptive statistical analysis method is to
represent the basic features of the data in a study (Chew Wai Kian, 2014). It finalise the data
and information provided from the result of sample and population.
In section B, the data of government incentives to promote IBS in Malaysia construction

industry and study of low implementation of IBS in among developer gathered from the survey
will be examined using descriptive statistic method by simple summarises and the data will be
shown in simple bar chart form. Section C is about the recommendation by the respondents to
resolve the government incentives provided by Malaysia government for IBS implementation.
This questionnaire survey took roughly two (2) weeks to design and anticipated two(2) weeks
were be given to respondents to submit their survey.
Lastly, there are some rating scale for all questionnaire responses in section C will be shown
in comparison ranking of strategies between respondent from different construction roles to
study the low implementation of IBS system in among developer and satisfaction of
government incentives to IBS adoption from the construction stakeholder itself in Malaysia.
The comparison ranking of strategies will be shown in appendices.
4.2 Response Rate of Questionnaire Survey
Table 4.1 Response Rate of Questionnaire Survey
Description Amount Percentage

(%)
Number of questionnaire survey form dispensed 341 100.00
Number of questionnaire survey form responses 101 29.61
Number of unresponsive questionnaire survey form 240 70.38
Survey form responses filter 0 0.00
Overall Number of questionnaire collected from respondent 101 29.61
Survey Data Collection from the Respondent

35
30
30
25 21
20 20
20
15
10
10
0
10/10/2019
10/12/2019
10/13/2019
10/14/2019
10/16/2019
10/17/2019
10/18/2019
10/20/2019
10/21/2019
10/22/2019
10/24/2019
10/25/2019
9/30/2019
10/1/2019
10/2/2019
10/3/2019
10/4/2019
10/5/2019
10/6/2019
10/7/2019
10/8/2019
10/9/2019
10/11/2019
10/15/2019
10/19/2019
10/23/2019
Survey Data Collection from the Respondent
Figure 4.1 Daily Response of Questionnaire Survey Graph
Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 represent the response rate of questionnaire survey form which carried
out by the developer in Selangor who registered under REHDA Malaysia. From Table 4.1, it
reveals that the 341 set of the survey form sent out to the developer, but there are only 101 sets
of responses and the percentage of the response in 29.33%.
Based on the result shown in Figure 4.1, the commencement period of the survey responses are
low. By the time passes through second week, the survey respondent rate are slightly increases
in 30 respondent. Within the following weeks, the respondent rate dropped and remain constant
in between two weeks by 20 respondent and roses until the due date of the data collection in
21 respondent. The reason of the increase in response rate as the following questionnaire survey
will be sent to the potential respondent by and calling and email it with a gentle reminder in
the case of the survey to be done. On the other hand, most of the potential respondent were be
displayed that they are busy on their work and ignore the unnecessary work as they don’t want
to do so. Similarly, there are some of them might treat the survey email as a junk mail by
pointing with unknown mail invoice or they might have looking for the mail but forget to fill
up the survey.
4.3 Respondent Background
In this part, the background of the respondent will be examined and summarised; all the data
will be shown in graphical form. The respondent will be from different organisation, position
and various kind of the experience in the construction site. The classification of organisation
will reflect their individual opinion that represented by its own organisation. Furthermore, this
is vital to assemble all the information of respondent background. In this section, the
respondents are required to answer the 2 question which linked with job position in the
company and experience in construction industry.
Figure 4.2 shows the classification of the 101 valid respondent by their job position in the
company.
Job position in the company
17.82% 14.85%
Architect
Engineer
Quantity Surveyor 16.83%
Project Manager 20.79%
Contractor
Developer 12.87%
16.83%
Figure 4.2 Job Position in the Company
Based on the bar chart, the respondent group can be categorised in 6 group such as architect,
engineer, quantity surveyor, project manager, contractor and developer. In among 101
respondent, the highest number of the respondent came from contractor (20.79%) which is 21
respondent, the remaining following respondent group there are 18 developer (17.82%),
engineer and project manager with 17 respondent (16.83%), architect in 15 respondent
(14.85%). The least number of the respondent is quantity surveyor with 13 number or 12.87%.
Experience in Construction Industry
11.88%
25.74%
Less than 5 year
5 to 10 year
28.71% 10 to 20 year
20 year and above
33.66%
Figure 4.3 Respondent’s Experience in Construction Industry
As in Figure 4.3, 33.66% of respondent have construction experience in the range of 5 to 10

years, it been followed by 28.71% that have construction experience in 10 to 20 years, 25.74%
of the respondent have construction experience in less than 5 year experience and 11.88% of
the respondent have experience in construction industry which more than 20 years. As can be
seen, all the respondent have the construction industry experience, that stated more than 50%
of the respondent have more than 5 year experience in construction industry. As a result, this
group of respondent is considered as a good population for the study as the respondents whose
working more than 5 year experience that have sufficient experience in dealing with
conventional method and IBS method caused they able to analyse in comparing the advantages
and constraint in both system.
4.4 The implementation of IBS system in Malaysia
This section will covers all the respondent’s basic knowledge and awareness of government
incentive that provided by Malaysia government to promote the usage of IBS system. Therefore,
this part will be comprises in 2 basic question.
The first question in Section B is to evaluate whether the respondent are implementing IBS
system in their project.
Do you implement IBS in your project?
24%
Yes
No
76%
Figure 4.4 the Implementation of IBS System in the Project

Figure 4.4 stated that 76% of the respondent are implementing IBS system in their construction
project while the rest of them are still not implementing IBS system in their project. This result
of the data is not surprisingly as IBS system had been definite as the vital of the future
development construction method by established in the printed media or network journal
resources and been advertised broad further with mass media.
Question 2 in Section B is to examine whether the respondents aware the government incentive
that promoted in Malaysia construction industry.
Do you aware of the incentives of IBS

provided by government?
No
22%
Yes
No
Yes
78%
Figure 4.5 Awareness of Government Incentive to Promote IBS System
Figure 4.5 shows that the 78% of respondent are aware about the government incentives of IBS
system despite the rest of the 22% are not aware on it. The result shows the most of them are
aware of government effort in promoting IBS system
4.5 Satisfaction of the government initiative to IBS adoption in Malaysia
In section C, Question 5 will cover six (6) sub question in the questionnaire to examine the
satisfaction of the government initiative to IBS adoption in Malaysia.
4.5.1 Income Tax Exemption for Their New Setup IBS Factory, Yard and Plant
Table 4.2 Income Tax Exemption for Their New Setup IBS Factory, Yard and Plant
Likert Scale Amount Percentage

(%)
Strongly Dissatisfied 1 0.99
Not Satisfied 8 7.92
Neutral 34 33.66
Satisfied 37 36.63
Strongly Satisfied 20 19.80
Total 101 100.00
Income Tax Exemption for Their New Setup IBS

Factory, Yard and Plant
40 37
34
35
30
25
20
20 Frequency
15 Percentage (%)
10 8
5
1 0.99% 7.92% 33.66% 36.63% 19.80%
0
Strongly Not Satisfied (2) Neutral (3) Satisfied (4) Strongly Satisfied
Dissatisfied (1) (5)
Figure 4.6 Income Tax Exemption for Their New Setup IBS Factory, Yard and Plant
Table 4.2 and Figure 4.6 indicate the respondent’s perspective on whether the target of
government incentives that can be benefit the construction stakeholder with using IBS system
in their project. Based on the survey outcome, most of them are satisfied which is 37
respondents (36.63%) and strongly satisfied (19.80%) in 20 respondents to the incentive that
provided by government to promote IBS system. 33.66% of the respondent whereby 34 of the
respondent have neutral review towards the government incentives provided might help to
encourage other stakeholder adopt IBS system in their project. Despite that there are least
response in between strongly dissatisfied in 7.92% or 8 respondent and not satisfied in 0.99%
or 1 respondent. The low disagreement on this statement prove that majority respondent are
believe that income tax exemption for their new setup IBS factory, yard and plant could help
to encourage the construction stakeholder to adopt IBS system. In the same way, the low
disagreement also stands that IBS system could help them to reduce to financial burden in
implementing new construction system in the project.
4.5.2 Investment Tax Allowance is given to New IBS Manufacturers with a 60% to 100%
Tax Allowance on Capital Expenditure for 5 Years
Table 4.3 Investment Tax Allowance is given to New IBS Manufacturers with a 60% to
100% Tax Allowance on Capital Expenditure for 5 Years

(%)
Neutral 38 37.62
Satisfied 34 33.66
Total 101 100.00
Investment Tax Allowance is given to New IBS

Manufacturers with a 60% to 100% Tax Allowance on Capital
Expenditure for 5 Years
40 38
34
35
30
25
20 Frequency
15 12 13 Percentage (%)
10
4
5
3.96% 11.88% 37.62% 33.66% 12.87%
0
Figure 4.7: Investment Tax Allowance is given to New IBS Manufacturers with a 60% to
100% Tax Allowance on Capital Expenditure for 5 Years
Table 4.3 and Figure 4.7 shows the respondent’s opinion on investment tax allowance is given
to new IBS manufacturers with a 60% to 100% tax allowance on capital expenditure for 5 years.
Based on the survey result, most of the respondent have a neutral view on investment tax
allowance that help to promote IBS system. Moreover, some of the respondent are satisfied in
33.66% or 34 respondent out of 101 respondent and strongly satisfied in 12.87% or 13
respondent. However, there are some of them are not satisfied in 11.88% or 12 respondents
and strongly dissatisfied in 3.96% or 4 respondents. The low disagreement in this statement
indicates that most of the respondent are satisfied with government incentives which offers
investment tax allowance to the new IBS manufacturer. It is a good method that encourage
more industrial stakeholder to adopt in IBS system.
4.5.3 60% Allowance for Reinvestment Allowance in Qualifying Capital Expenditure for
Exemption for 15 Consecutive Years
Table 4.4: 60% Allowance for Reinvestment Allowance in Qualifying Capital

Expenditure for Exemption for 15 Consecutive Years

(%)
Neutral 16 15.84
Satisfied 42 41.58
Total 101 100.00
60% Allowance for Reinvestment Allowance in

Qualifying Capital Expenditure for Exemption
for 15 Consecutive Years
45 42
40
35
30
25 21
18 Frequency
20 16
Percentage (%)
15
10
4
5
3.96% 17.82% 15.84% 41.58% 20.79%
0
Figure 4.8: 60% Allowance for Reinvestment Allowance in Qualifying Capital Expenditure
for Exemption for 15 Consecutive Years
Table 4.4 and Figure 4.8 reveal the respondent’s consideration on the 60% allowance for
reinvestment allowance in qualifying capital expenditure for exemption for 15 consecutive
years. Based on the survey outcome, most of the respondent are satisfied this practise provided
in government incentives which with 41.58% or 42 respondent out of 101 respondent. Similarly,
there are 20.79% or 21 respondent are strongly satisfied this practise that help to promote usage
of the IBS system in Malaysia. Conversely, there are 15.84% or 16 respondent have a neutral
view on this practise. As an illustration, there are some respondent show their expression on
not satisfy17.84% or 18 respondent and strongly dissatisfied 3.96% or 4 respondent to the
practise provided by government. Overall, there are most of the respondent are satisfy with this
incentives provided by government as it would benefit the construction stakeholder by adopt
IBS system in their project.
4.5.4 Import Duty Exemption for Raw Materials/Components, Machinery and
Equipment
Table 4.5: Import Duty Exemption for Raw Materials/Components, Machinery and
Equipment

(%)
Neutral 18 17.82
Satisfied 34 33.66
Total 101 100.00
Import Duty Exemption for Raw Materials/Components,
Machinery and Equipment
40
34
35
30 28
25
20 18 Frequency
15 Percentage (%)
12
9
10
5
8.91% 11.88% 17.82% 33.66% 27.72%
0
Figure 4.9: Import Duty Exemption for Raw Materials/Components, Machinery and
Equipment
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.9 shows that most of the respondent are satisfy with import duty
exemption practises that provided by government in 33.66% or 34 respondent. Hence, some of
the respondent are strongly satisfied with the government incentives with 28 respondent or
27.72% yet some of the respondent have neutral view with this practises in 18 respondent or
17.82%. Even though this government incentive is satisfy by most of the respondent, the least
of the respondent express with not satisfied rate in 11.88% or 12 respondent and strongly
satisfied rate in 8.91% or 9 respondent.
4.5.5 Levy Exemption in 0.125% of Total Cost of the Project on Contractor Implemented
IBS in 50% of Building Components
Table 4.6: Levy Exemption in 0.125% of Total Cost of the Project on Contractor
Implemented IBS in 50% of Building Components

(%)
Neutral 26 25.74
Satisfied 40 39.60
Total 101 100.00
Levy Exemption in 0.125% of Total Cost of the Project on
Contractor Implemented IBS in 50% of Building Components
45
40
40
35
30
26
25
Frequency
20
16 Percentage (%)
15
11
10 8
5
7.92% 10.89% 25.74% 39.60% 15.84%
0
Figure 4.10: Levy Exemption in 0.125% of Total Cost of the Project on Contractor
Implemented IBS in 50% of Building Components
Table 4.6 and Figure 4.10 indicate that most of the respondent are satisfied with this
government incentive in 40 respondent or 39.60% also the strongly satisfied in 16 respondent
or 15.84%. The following respondent show neutral view in this practise by 26 respondent or
25.74%. Nevertheless, there are some of the respondent are not satisfied and strongly
dissatisfied with this government incentive. The rate of the not satisfied and strongly
dissatisfied will be in 10.89% or 11 respondent and 7.92% or 8 respondent.
4.5.6 Accreditation of IBS Skilled Worker
Table 4.7: Accreditation of IBS Skilled Worker

(%)
Neutral 34 33.66
Satisfied 39 38.61
Total 101 100.00
Accreditation of IBS Skilled Worker
45
39
40
34
35
30
25
Frequency
20
Percentage (%)
15 12 13
10
5 3
2.97% 11.88% 33.60% 38.61% 12.87%
0
Figure 4.11: Accreditation of IBS Skilled Worker
Table 4.7 and Figure 4.11 shows that most of the respondent are satisfied with accreditation of
IBS skilled worker in 38.61% or 39 respondent. Similarly, there are some of the respondent are
strongly satisfied with the practise in 12.87% or 13 respondent. However, some of the
respondent are neutral with this practise in 33.60% or 34 respondent; the following response
by the respondent in this question are not satisfied in 11.88% or 12 respondent and strongly
dissatisfied in 2.97% or 3 respondent.
4.5.7 R&D in Technical Aspects of IBS
Table 4.8: R&D in Technical Aspects of IBS

(%)
Neutral 26 25.74
Satisfied 24 23.76
Total 101 100.00
R&D in Technical Aspects of IBS
30
26
25 24
22
20
20
15 Frequency
Percentage (%)
10 9
8.91% 21.78% 25.74% 23.76% 19.80%

0
Figure 4.12: R&D in Technical Aspects of IBS
Table 4.8 and Figure 4.12 shows that most of the respondent which are 25.74% or 26
respondent have a neutral view in this government as they hard to experience that the R&D in
technical aspects of IBS to the respondent itself. The following response are not satisfied in
21.78% or 22 respondent and strongly dissatisfied in 8.91% or 9 respondent by the respondent.
However, there are still some of the respondent are satisfied in 23.76% or 24 respondent and
strongly satisfied in 19.80% or 20 respondent.
4.6 The Reason of Low Implementation
In section C, Question 6 will cover six (6) reason of low implementation of IBS system in
among developer in Malaysia construction industry including design risk, financial risk,
unfamiliar with IBS, client perception, lack of specific regulation and logistics.
4.6.1 Design Risk
At first, the design risk is one of the main issue that constraint the IBS to be adopt by developer,
there are some facts that affect the rate of IBS system implementation remain low in among
developer such as customer is sceptically to the IBS method design and most of developer
favour with conventional method. The overcome of the survey will be shown in the table and
diagram that reflect the seriousness of the issue in Malaysia construction industry.
4.6.1.1 Customer are Sceptical to the Design that Limit the Architect Freedom despite the
New Method are Vulnerable to Design Failure
Table 4.9: Customer are Sceptical to the Design that Limit the Architect Freedom despite
the New Method are Vulnerable to Design Failure

(%)
Strongly Disagree 2 1.98
Not Agree 6 5.94
Neutral 36 35.64
Agree 49 48.51
Strongly Agree 8 7.92
Total 101 100.00
Customer are Sceptical to the Design that Limit the Architect
Freedom despite the New Method are Vulnerable to Design
Failure
60
49
50
40 36
30 Frequency
Percentage (%)
20
10 8
6
2 35.64% 48.51%
1.98% 5.94% 7.92%
0
Strongly Disagree Not Agree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
(1)
Figure 4.12: Customer are Sceptical to the Design that Limit the Architect Freedom despite
the New Method are Vulnerable to Design Failure
Table 4.9 and Figure 4.12 indicates that the most of the respondent are agree with the reason
stated in design risk which with 49 respondent or 48.51%. The following respondent are
strongly agree with the statement in the design risk with 8 respondent or 7.92%. However, there
are some of them are neutral with the statement in the design risk with 36 respondent or 35.74%.
In comparison, there are least response with not agree and strongly disagree in this statement.
The rate of the not agree and strongly disagree from respondent will be in 5.94% or respondent
and 1.98% or 2 respondents.
4.6.1.2 They Favour Conventional Method which IBS would bring risk to them
Table 4.10: They Favour Conventional Method which IBS would bring risk to them

(%)
Not Agree 7 6.93
Neutral 38 37.62
Agree 41 40.59
Total 101 100.00
They Favour Conventional Method which IBS would bring
risk to them
45
41
40 38
35
30
25
Frequency
20
Percentage (%)
15 13
10 7
5 2
1.98% 6.93% 37.62% 40.59% 12.87%
0
(1)
Figure 4.13: They Favour Conventional Method which IBS would bring risk to them
Table 4.10 and Figure 4.13 shows that highest rate in this statement that most of the respondent
are agree with this that cause of low implementation of IBS system in among developer in
terms of design risk. The agree rate of this statement will be in 41 respondent or 40.59%. The
following respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 13 respondent or 12.87%. Instead
of agree and strongly agree in this statement, there are some of them have neutral view with
this statement with 38 respondent or 37.62%. There are also a least response on not agree and
strongly disagree with the statement in the design risk, the rate of them will be 7 respondent or
6.93% and 2 respondent or 1.98% in the survey outcome collected from respondent.
4.6.2 Financial Risk
Secondly, financial risk is vital that need to be concerned which might be a reason of low
implementation of IBS system among developer in Malaysia construction industry. It consists
of three (3) issue that still facing in some of the developer in implementing IBS in their project.
The reason of financial risk to demonstrate like IBS trouble the construction payer, high
expenses and financial institution suspicious with IBS system. All the outcome of the survey
will be shown in the table and diagram that reflect the seriousness of the issue in Malaysia
construction industry.
4.6.2.1 IBS would Trouble the Construction Payer as They Still Bound to Pay Any Cost
such as Components Fabrication, Transportation Cost and Storage Cost
Table 4.11: IBS would Trouble the Construction Payer as They Still Bound to Pay Any
Cost such as Components Fabrication, Transportation Cost and Storage Cost

(%)
Not Agree 6 5.94
Neutral 22 21.78
Agree 54 53.46
Total 101 100.00
IBS would Trouble the Construction Payer as They Still
Bound to Pay Any Cost such as Components Fabrication,
Transportation Cost and Storage Cost
45
41
40 38
35
30
25
Frequency
20
Percentage (%)
15 13
10 7
5 2
1.98% 6.93% 37.62% 40.59% 12.87%
0
(1)
Figure 4.14: IBS would Trouble the Construction Payer as They Still Bound to Pay Any Cost
such as Components Fabrication, Transportation Cost and Storage Cost
Table 4.11 and Figure 4.14 shows that the most of the respondent have agree with this statement
in financial risk, the rate will be in 41 respondent or 40.59%. The following respondent are
strongly agree with the statement in 13 respondent or 12.87%. Despite this, there are some of
the respondent have neutral in this statement with 38 respondent. The least response of this
survey will be not agree and strongly disagree in 7 respondent or 6.93% and 2 respondent or
1.98%.
4.6.2.2 Some Developer Afraid High Expenses whether the Cost of the Procuring IBS
Components might Increases as the Foreign Currency Exchange Problems which some
of the Raw Materials are Imported from Foreign Country
Table 4.12: Some Developer Afraid High Expenses whether the Cost of the Procuring IBS
Components might Increases as the Foreign Currency Exchange Problems which some
of the Raw Materials are Imported from Foreign Country

(%)
Not Agree 6 5.94
Neutral 27 26.73
Agree 41 40.59
Total 101 100.00
Some Developer Afraid High Expenses whether the Cost of
the Procuring IBS Components might Increases as the
Foreign Currency Exchange Problems which some of the Raw
Materials are Imported from Foreign Country
45 41
40
35
30 27
25
25
Frequency
20
15 Percentage (%)
10 6
5 2
1.98% 5.94% 26.73% 40.59% 24.75%
0
(1)
Figure 4.15: Some Developer Afraid High Expenses whether the Cost of the Procuring IBS
Components might Increases as the Foreign Currency Exchange Problems which some of the
Raw Materials are Imported from Foreign Country
Table 4.12 and Figure 4.15 shows that most of the respondent are agree with the statement in
the financial risk that required 41 respondent or 40.59%. The following respondent are strongly
agree with the statement in 25 respondent or 24.75% whereas some of them have neutral view
with the statement in 27 respondent or 26.73%. The least respondent in the statement will be
not agree and strongly disagree, both rate are at 5.94% or 6 respondent and 1.98% or 2
respondent.
4.6.2.3 Housing Developer Need to Reassure and Convince Financial Institution that
Prefabricated Houses Can Still Attract Many Potential Buyer
Table 4.13: Housing Developer Need to Reassure and Convince Financial Institution that

(%)
Not Agree 13 12.87
Neutral 36 35.43
Agree 36 35.43
Total 101 100.00
Housing Developer Need to Reassure and Convince Financial
Institution that Prefabricated Houses Can Still Attract Many
Potential Buyer
40
36 36
35
30
25
20 Frequency
15
15 13 Percentage (%)
10
5
1 0.99% 12.87% 35.43% 35.43% 14.85%
0
(1)
Figure 4.16: Housing Developer Need to Reassure and Convince Financial Institution that
Table 4.13 and Figure 4.16 indicate that both of respondent in this statement have agree and
neutral which with a same amount in 36 respondent or 35.43%. It shows an equivalent view in
both opinion. There are some of the respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 15
respondent or 14.85% but some of them are not agree and strongly disagree with the statement
by 13 respondent or 12.87% and 1 respondent or 0.99%.
4.6.3 Unfamiliar with IBS system
Moreover, unfamiliar with IBS system is one of the main reason of low IBS system
implementation in among developer. There are four (4) issue that pointed out the reason of low
implementation which unfamiliar with IBS system named expert in IBS system instead of IBS
system, cannot receive any changes once building being installed with IBS system, not get
ready to adopt IBS system and face more complex process if more detail design required and
if occur happen would take more time for correction.
4.6.3.1 They Familiar with own Estimates and Expertise in Conventional Method instead
of IBS
Table 4.14: They Familiar with own Estimates and Expertise in Conventional Method
instead of IBS

(%)
Not Agree 7 6.93
Neutral 31 30.69
Agree 52 51.49
Total 101 100.00
They Familiar with own Estimates and Expertise in
Conventional Method instead of IBS
60
52
50
40
31
30 Frequency
Percentage (%)
20
10
10 7
1 0.99% 6.93% 30.69% 51.49% 9.90%
0
(1)
Figure 4.17: They Familiar with own Estimates and Expertise in Conventional Method
instead of IBS
Table 4.14 and Figure 4.17 indicate that most of the respondent are agree with the statement in
52 respondent or 51.49%. The following respondent are strongly agree with the statement as
they are still some of them are using conventional method which they are familiar to use it.
However, some of the respondent have neutral view with the statement in 31 respondent or
30.69%, not agree in 7 respondents or 6.93% and strongly disagree in 1 respondent or 0.99%.
4.6.3.2 Cannot Receive Any Changes Once Building Being Installed by IBS
Table 4.15: Cannot Receive Any Changes Once Building Being Installed by IBS

(%)
Not Agree 19 18.81
Neutral 37 36.63
Agree 27 26.73
Total 101 100.00
Cannot Receive Any Changes Once Building Being Installed
by IBS
40 37
35
30 27
25
19
20 Frequency
14 Percentage (%)
15
10
4
5
3.96% 18.81% 36.63% 26.73% 13.86%
0
(1)
Figure 4.18: Cannot Receive Any Changes Once Building Being Installed by IBS
Table 4.15 and Figure 4.18 shows that most of the respondent have neutral view on this
statement as they think that some changes from IBS system can be acceptable from them. The
rate of neutral view will be 37 respondent or 36.63%. The following respondent are not agree
and strongly disagree with the statement which in 19 respondent or 18.81% and 4 respondent
or 3.96%. Nevertheless, there are some of them are agree and strongly agree with the statement
which in 27 respondent or 26.73% and 14 respondent or 13.86%.
4.6.3.3 Not Get Ready to Adopt IBS as They Lacking IBS Knowledge
Table 4.16: Not Get Ready to Adopt IBS as They Lacking IBS Knowledge

(%)
Not Agree 21 20.79
Neutral 15 14.85
Agree 39 38.61
Total 101 100.00
Not Get Ready to Adopt IBS as They Lacking IBS Knowledge
45
39
40
35
30
25
21
Frequency
20 17
15 Percentage (%)
15
9
10
5
8.91% 20.79% 14.85% 38.61% 16.83%
0
(1)
Figure 4.19: Not Get Ready to Adopt IBS as They Lacking IBS Knowledge
Table 4.16 and Figure 4.19 indicates that most of the respondent are agree with the statement
in unfamiliar with IBS system as some of the respondent are lacking IBS knowledge that makes
them afraid to accept IBS system as their new construction system. The rate of agree in this
statement will be 39 respondent or 38.61%. The following respondent are strongly agree with
this statement in 17 respondent or 16.83%. In spite of this, some of the respondent are neutral,
not agree and strongly disagree with the statement. The rate of them will be respectively with
those three rate which in 15 respondent or 14.85%, 21 respondent or 20.79% and 9 respondent
or 8.91%.
4.6.3.4 Face Complex Process if More Detail Design Required and If Occur Happen
would Take More Time for Correction
Table 4.17: Face Complex Process if More Detail Design Required and If Occur Happen

(%)
Not Agree 11 10.89
Neutral 16 15.84
Agree 36 35.64
Total 101 100.00
Face Complex Process if More Detail Design Required and If
Occur Happen would Take More Time for Correction
40
36
35
30
25
20
20 18 Frequency
16
15 Percentage (%)
11
10
5
17.82% 10.89% 15.84% 35.64% 19.80%
0
(1)
Figure 4.20: Face Complex Process if More Detail Design Required and If Occur Happen
Table 4.17 and Figure 4.20 indicates that most of the respondent are agree with the statement
in unfamiliar with IBS system which in 36 respondent or 35.64%. The following respondent
are strongly agree with the statement in 20 respondent or 19.80%. Despite the agree and
strongly agree responses, there are some of the respondent have neutral, not agree and strongly
disagree with the statement provided. The rate of those view will be shown respectively in
numerical data such as 16 respondent or 15.84% of them have neutral view, 11 or 10.89 of
them have not agree with the statement and lastly 18 or 17.82% of them have strongly disagree
with the statement.
4.6.4 Client perception
Therefore, client perception is also a reason of low IBS implementation among developer in
Malaysia construction industry. In client perception, there are one (1) issue as a barrier of IBS
adoption in Malaysia construction industry such as housing owner not willing to sacrifice their
desire to fulfil government target in pursuing IBS implementation. The result of the survey will
be shown in the table and figure that reflect the issue of IBS low implementation in among
developer in Malaysia construction industry.
4.6.4.1 Housing Owner Not Willing to Sacrifice Their Desire to Fulfil Government Target
in Pursuing IBS Implementation
Table 4.18: Housing Owner Not Willing to Sacrifice Their Desire to Fulfil Government
Target in Pursuing IBS Implementation

(%)
Not Agree 9 8.91
Neutral 33 32.67
Agree 49 48.51
Total 101 100.00
Housing Owner Not Willing to Sacrifice Their Desire to Fulfil
Government Target in Pursuing IBS Implementation
60
49
50
40
33
30 Frequency
Percentage (%)
20
9
10
5 5
4.95% 8.91% 32.67% 48.51% 4.95%
0
(1)
Figure 4.21: Housing Owner Not Willing to Sacrifice Their Desire to Fulfil Government
Target in Pursuing IBS Implementation
Table 4.18 and Figure 4.21 shows that the most of respondent are agree with the statement in
client perception as housing owner want to own their houses with unique design which would
trouble developer in pursuing IBS implementation. The rate of the view will be in49 respondent
or 48.51%. The following respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 5 respondent or
4.95%. Unlike others, there are some of the respondent are neutral, not agree and strongly
disagree with the statement. The number of respondent of those view will be 32.67% or 33
respondent, 8.91% or 9 respondent and 4.95% or 5 respondent.
4.6.5 Lack of Specific Regulations
Hence, lack of specific regulations are the one of the main reason of IBS low implementation
in among developer in Malaysia construction industry. This reason consists of two (2) issue
that might influence the low rate of IBS implementation in among developer in Malaysia
construction industry. Consequently, all the outcome within this reason will be shown in table
and diagram form to indicate accurate data from the survey.
4.6.5.1 No Regulation or Guarantee that Ensure This Advantage Can Be Achieved
Table 4.19: No Regulation or Guarantee that Ensure This Advantage Can Be Achieved

(%)
Not Agree 14 13.86
Neutral 38 37.62
Agree 37 36.63
Total 101 100.00
No Regulation or Guarantee that Ensure This Advantage Can
Be Achieved
40 38 37
35
30
25
20 Frequency
14 Percentage (%)
15
11
10
5
1 0.99% 13.86% 37.62% 36.63% 10.89%
0
(1)
Figure 4.22: No Regulation or Guarantee that Ensure This Advantage Can Be Achieved
Table 4.19 and Figure 4.22 shows that most of the respondent are neutral with the statement in
terms of lack of specific regulations with 38 respondent or 37.62%. The following respondent
are not agree and strongly disagree with the statement. This is because some of the respondent
are been benefit with the incentives that provided by government that approach them to adopt
IBS system in their project. The rate of not agree and strongly disagree will be in 14 respondent
or 13.86% and 1 respondent or 0.99%. In comparison, there are some of them are agree and
strongly agree with the statement as might some of them are feel that those incentives are not
be beneficial to them. The rate of those two view will be 36.63% or 37 of them are agree and
10.89% or 11 of them are strongly agree with the statement.
4.6.5.2 The Current Payment Not Suitable to Apply IBS that makes IBS not the Primary
Option for Developers
Table 4.20: The Current Payment Not Suitable to Apply IBS that makes IBS not the
Primary Option for Developers

(%)
Not Agree 18 17.82
Neutral 24 23.76
Agree 37 36.63
Total 101 100.00
The Current Payment Not Suitable to Apply IBS
that makes IBS not the Primary Option for
Developers
40 37
35
30
24
25
20
20 18
Frequency
15 Percentage (%)
10
5 2
1.98% 17.82% 23.76% 36.63% 19.80%
0
(1)
Figure 4.23: The Current Payment Not Suitable to Apply IBS that makes IBS not the Primary
Option for Developers
Table 4.20 and Figure 4.23 shows that most of respondent are agree with the statement as they
might have some of the payment option that not suitable with IBS which makes IBS is not the
primary option to the developer. The rate of agree in this statement will be 37 respondent or
36.63%. The following respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 20 respondent or
19.80%. Despite agree and strongly agree view, there are some of respondent are neutral, not
agree and strongly disagree view for this statement. The rate of neutral, not agree and strongly
disagree will be 24 respondent or 23.76%, 18 respondent or 17.82% and 2 respondent or 1.98%.
4.6.6 Logistics
Lastly, logistics can be the reason of low IBS implementation in among developer. In order to
figure the possible problem that happen in IBS implementation, there are four (4) problems
that listing the constraint of IBS implementation specifically demand for IBS components
cannot met the requirement, insufficient incentives that encourage competitions in producing
IBS components, carry heavy and large size of IBS panel might cause danger to the road and
need detail inspection and supervision to IBS components at site.
4.6.6.1 Housing Developer Afraid Their Demand of IBS Components Cannot Met as they
required a Large Number of Quantities of Components in One Single Time
Table 4.21: Housing Developer Afraid Their Demand of IBS Components Cannot Met as
they required a Large Number of Quantities of Components in One Single Time

(%)
Not Agree 11 10.89
Neutral 32 31.68
Agree 44 43.56
Total 101 100.00
Housing Developer Afraid Their Demand of IBS Components
Cannot Met as they required a Large Number of Quantities
of Components in One Single Time
50
44
45
40
35 32
30
25 Frequency
20 Percentage (%)
15 11
9
10
5
5
4.95% 10.89% 31.68% 43.56% 8.91%
0
(1)
Figure 4.24: Housing Developer Afraid Their Demand of IBS Components Cannot Met as
they required a Large Number of Quantities of Components in One Single Time
Table 4.21 and Figure 4.24 indicates the most of respondent are agree with the statement in
logistics issue as some of developer could not make a big order to meet the large quantity of
IBS components in some of the project. The rate of agree view in this statement will be in 44
respondent or 43.56%. The following respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 8.91%
or 9 respondent. On the contrary, there are some of respondent have neutral, not agree and
strongly disagree with the statement respectively in 32 respondent or 31.68%, 11 respondent
or 10.89% and 5 respondent or 4.95%.
4.6.6.2 Insufficient Incentives that Encourage Competition in Producing IBS components
Table 4.22: Insufficient Incentives that Encourage Competition in Producing IBS

components

(%)
Not Agree 11 10.89
Neutral 33 32.67
Agree 38 37.62
Total 101 100.00
Insufficient Incentives that Encourage Competition in
Producing IBS components
40 38
35 33
30
25
20 Frequency
11
10
6
5
5.94% 10.89% 32.67% 37.62% 12.87%
0
(1)
Figure 4.25: Insufficient Incentives that Encourage Competition in Producing IBS

components
Table 4.22 and Figure 4.25 shows that most of respondent are agree with the statement as there
are still some cases which insufficient incentives that encourage competition in producing IBS
components in Malaysia construction industry. The rate of agree view will be in 38 respondent
or 37.62%. The following respondent are strongly agree with the statement provided in logistics
issue in 12.87% or 13 respondent but some of the respondent are neutral, not agree and strongly
disagree with the statement. The rate of those view will be shown respectively which 33
respondent or 32.67% in neutral view, 11 respondent or 10.89% in not agree view and 6
respondent or 5.94% in strongly disagree.
4.6.6.3 Carry Heavy and Large Size of IBS Panel Might Cause Danger to the Road
Table 4.23: Carry Heavy and Large Size of IBS Panel Might Cause Danger to the Road

(%)
Not Agree 6 5.94
Neutral 20 19.80
Agree 32 31.68
Total 101 100.00
Carry Heavy and Large Size of IBS Panel Might Cause Danger
to the Road
35
32
30 29
25
20
20
Frequency
15
Percentage (%)
10
6
5 4
3.96% 5.94% 19.80% 31.68% 28.71%

0
(1)
Figure 4.26: Carry Heavy and Large Size of IBS Panel Might Cause Danger to the Road
Table 4.23 and Figure 4.26 indicates the most of respondent are agree with the statement in
this issue as IBS component need a large panel during transportation and might cause danger
to the road. The rate of agree view in this statement will be in 31.68% or 32 respondent. The
following respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 29 respondent or 28.71%.
Conversely, there are some of the respondent are neutral, not agree and strongly disagree with
the statement respectively in 20 respondent or 19.80%, 6 respondent or 5.94% and 4 respondent
or 3.96%.
4.6.6.4 Need to Have Detail Inspection and Supervision to Avoid Components Defects and
Ensure All the Components are Place at the Right Place to Prevent Double Handling
Table 4.24: Need to Have Detail Inspection and Supervision to Avoid Components Defects
and Ensure All the Components are Place at the Right Place to Prevent Double Handling

(%)
Not Agree 12 11.88
Neutral 22 21.78
Agree 38 37.62
Total 101 100.00
Need to Have Detail Inspection and Supervision to Avoid
Components Defects and Ensure All the Components are
Place at the Right Place to Prevent Double Handling
40 38
35
30
25 22 23
20 Frequency
10
6
5
5.94% 11.88% 21.78% 37.62% 22.77%
0
(1)
Figure 4.27: Need to Have Detail Inspection and Supervision to Avoid Components Defects
and Ensure All the Components are Place at the Right Place to Prevent Double Handling
Table 4.24 and Figure 4.27 indicates the most of the respondent are agree with the statement
as IBS system is a complex construction system that need to be have a detail inspection and
supervision to prevent double handling on site. The rate of agree in this statement will be in 38
respondent or 37.62%. The following respondent are strongly agree with the statement in 23
respondent or 22.77% yet the others are neutral, not agree and strongly disagree with the
statement respectively 22 or 21.78% of them in neutral view, 12 or 11.88% of them have not
agree with it and 6 or 5.94% of them are strongly disagree with the statement.
4.7 Section D: Recommendation to Other Government Initiative that should be provided
in IBS Technology
In section D, there are some of the respondent provided some recommendation to improve the
government that can help IBS system can be successful implemented in among developer in
Malaysia construction industry. The recommendation from some of the respondent such as
improve the standardised and uniform design solution that applied in the project which using
IBS system and improve quality assurance scheme that the IBS meets best practice in the safe
and competent delivery of IBS services. This may help some of the developer using the system
if it applied the consummate standardisation system, uniform design solution and improvement
of quality assurance scheme from IBS system.
4.8
4.9 Conclusion
In short, most of the respondent in section B are actually implementing and aware the incentives
of IBS by the government. As a result, in section C, the most of the respondent are satisfy with
the practise provided by government although there are some minor group are not satisfy with
the incentives. To overcome the issue of low implementation of IBS system in among
developer, this study mainly to find the reason of low implementation then all the possible
statement will be shown in questionnaire survey. Based on the result, most of the respondent
are agree with the reason of low implementation in among developer. This is because some of
the issue still exist in Malaysia construction industry that need to be address by government in
order to overcome low implementation of IBS system in among developer. Lastly, there are
some recommendation from the respondent that suggest some of the incentives that would help
to improve the implementation in among developer in Malaysia construction industry.

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

4.

0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

In section B, the data of government incentives to promote IBS in Malaysia construction

Table 4.1 Response Rate of Questionnaire Survey

Description Amount Percentage

Survey Data Collection from the Respondent

Survey Data Collection from the Respondent

Figure 4.1 Daily Response of Questionnaire Survey Graph

Job position in the company

Figure 4.2 Job Position in the Company

Experience in Construction Industry

Figure 4.3 Respondent’s Experience in Construction Industry

As in Figure 4.3, 33.66% of respondent have construction experience in the range of 5 to 10

Do you implement IBS in your project?

Figure 4.4 the Implementation of IBS System in the Project

Do you aware of the incentives of IBS

Figure 4.5 Awareness of Government Incentive to Promote IBS System

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Income Tax Exemption for Their New Setup IBS

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Investment Tax Allowance is given to New IBS

Table 4.4: 60% Allowance for Reinvestment Allowance in Qualifying Capital

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

60% Allowance for Reinvestment Allowance in

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Table 4.7: Accreditation of IBS Skilled Worker

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Figure 4.11: Accreditation of IBS Skilled Worker

Table 4.8: R&D in Technical Aspects of IBS

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

8.91% 21.78% 25.74% 23.76% 19.80%

Figure 4.12: R&D in Technical Aspects of IBS

4.6.1 Design Risk

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

4.6.5.1 No Regulation or Guarantee that Ensure This Advantage Can Be Achieved

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Table 4.22: Insufficient Incentives that Encourage Competition in Producing IBS

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Figure 4.25: Insufficient Incentives that Encourage Competition in Producing IBS

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

3.96% 5.94% 19.80% 31.68% 28.71%

Likert Scale Amount Percentage

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi