Relationship Between Project Characteristics and Construction Mechanization in Kenya: A Survey of High-Rise Building Projects in Nairobi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-jmrr/V2E4/2026-02Keywords:
construction mechanization, high-rise buildings, project characteristics, survey.Abstract
The construction industry in Kenya is a critical driver of economic growth, yet it continues to grapple with uneven adoption of mechanization across project categories. This study investigates the relationship between project characteristics (project value and project duration) and the level of mechanization in high-rise building projects in Nairobi. A quantitative survey design was employed, targeting accredited site supervisors, agents, and clerks of works overseeing projects worth more than KShs 100 million. Using Cochran’s formula, a sample of 125 projects was selected, with 113 valid responses obtained, representing a 90.4% response rate. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Pearson’s correlation to test the influence of project characteristics on mechanization levels across seven construction activities. The results reveal that project value significantly influences mechanization in structural and early-stage works, particularly site preparation, scaffolding/formwork, concreting, and building services, while finishing works such as plastering, tiling, and painting remain predominantly manual. Project duration similarly affects mechanization, with longer projects showing greater adoption in concreting, scaffolding, and walling, though correlation results highlight nuanced relationships, including a negative association with site preparation. These findings underscore that mechanization adoption in Kenya is uneven, shaped by financial capacity, project timelines, managerial choices, and technical constraints. The study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence from Kenya, aligning with global and regional findings that mechanization is concentrated in capital-intensive tasks but is less evident in finishing works. Policy implications include the need for targeted incentives, regulatory standards, and training programs to mainstream mechanization, while practical recommendations emphasize strategic planning, investment in equipment, and balanced labour–technology integration.
References
1) Adebowale, O., & Agumba, J. (2023). Labour productivity in construction SMEs: Perspectives from South Africa. Acta Structilia, 30(1), 62–89. https://doi.org/10.38140/as.v30i1.7211
2) Adebowale, O. J., & Agumba, J. N. (2022). A Causal Layered Analysis of Construction Labour Productivity in Developing Countries. Journal of Futures Studies, 27(2), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202212_27(2).0002
3) Adebowale, O. J., & Agumba, J. N. (2023). A scientometric analysis and review of construction labour productivity research. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(7), 1903–1923. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2021-0505
4) Ahrens, R. D. B., Lirani, L. D. S., & de Francisco, A. C. (2020). Construct validity and reliability of the work environment assessment instrument WE-10. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207364
5) Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50.
6) Camarini, G., Leite Júnior, J. A. P., Perez, J. F., & Chamon, E. M. Q. O. (2020). Quality of Work Life: A Study on Civil Construction Workers. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 8(4), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v8i4.4820
7) Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. New York.
8) Hwang, B. G., Shan, M., Ong, J. J. M., & Krishnankutty, P. (2020). Mechanization in building construction projects: assessment and views from the practitioners. Production Planning and Control, 31(8), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1667547
9) Idoro, G. I. (2011). Effect of mechanisation on occupational health and safety performance in the Nigerian construction industry. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 16(2), 27–45.
10) Iheama, N. B., Alinta-Abel, U., & Ezeokoli, O. (2017). Evaluation of mechanization in building production as a way of cost reduction: A study of some construction sites in Enugu South local Government area. British Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(2), 14–30.
11) Kapliński, O., Werner, W., Kosecki, A., Biernacki, J., & Kuczmarski, F. (2002). Current state and perspectives of research on construction management and mechanisation in poland. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 8(4), 221–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13923730.2002.10531282
12) Karras, D. J. (1997). Statistical methodology: II. Reliability and validity assessment in study design, Part A. Academic Emergency Medicine, 4(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03646.x
13) KNBS. (2023). Economic Survey 2022.
14) Kulakov, K., Orlov, A., & Kankhva, V. (2023). Evaluation of Lean Manufacturing Tools and Digital Technologies Effectiveness for Increasing Labour Productivity in Construction. Systems, 11(20), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11120570
15) Mekgwe, M. C. (2016). Effects of Construction Plants’ Usage (Machinery) On Project Performance In South African Construction Industry. Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying at the University of Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa.
16) Mitullah, W. (2021). Construction workers in Kenya: Straddling with formal and informal social protection models. In L. Riisgaard, W. Mitullah, & N. Torm (Eds.), Social Protection and Informal Workers in Sub-Saharan Africa Lived Realities and Associational Experiences from Kenya and Tanzania (pp. 197–219). Routledge. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003173694-9
17) Mitullah, W., Riisgaard, L., Torm, N., Gervas, A., Indimuli, R., Kamau, A. W., & Kinyondo, G. (2021). Convergence and divergence of workers’ environment, associations, and access to social protection Sectoral and country comparisons. In L. Riisgaard, W. Mitullah, & N. Torm (Eds.), Social Protection and Informal Workers in Sub-Saharan Africa Lived Realities and Associational Experiences from Kenya and Tanzania (pp. 220–239). Routledge. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003173694-10
18) Murianka, S. ole, Njuguna, M., & Wachira-Towey, N. (2025). Enhancing Construction Project Labor Productivity in Kenya. Journal of the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.62049/jkncu.v5i1.219
19) Ndolo, D. M., Diang’a, S., & Gwaya, O. (2024). Assessing the Level of Construction Mechanization in Kenya : A Survey of Highrise Building Projects in Nairobi. East African Journal of Engineering, 7(1), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.37284/eaje.7.1.2418.IEEE
20) Pan, M., Linner, T., Pan, W., Cheng, H., & Bock, T. (2018). A Framework of Indicators for Assessing Construction Automation and Robotics in the Sustainability Context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.053
21) Research and Markets. (2023). The construction industry in Kenya 2023. Dublin.
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5932655/the-construction-industry-in-kenya?srsltid=AfmBOormAWeJztPeschIhtNz55KhOpauxteAaRphjT1uiI87eT3Wr0DN. Accessed 10th June 2025
22) Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dennis Mumo Ndolo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
