1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Methods

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of Key Findings

4.1.1. Macro Level

The macro-level analysis using the PESTLE framework resulted in six key findings related to external factors that could shape the future conditions of the construction industry. The six key findings at the macro level are as follows.

1.

Environmental Conditions and Sustainability

The deteriorating environmental conditions due to climate change have become a frequently considered factor globally in recent decades. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by 193 countries, including Indonesia, and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, which led to the Paris Agreement, set targets for carbon emission reductions to keep global temperature rises below 2°C, with efforts to limit them to 1.5°C. This target requires a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 to achieve net zero emissions (NZE) by 2050. The Indonesian government has committed to this target through the enactment of Law No. 16 of 2016 on the Ratification of the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

As a result, various policies related to the environment have been established in the construction sector, including in Indonesia. Green infrastructure, through the Green Building Concept (BGH), is regulated by Government Regulation No. 16 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of Law No. 28 of 2002 on Buildings, supporting the commitment to reducing gas emissions. Furthermore, environmental management in the road sector is governed by Directive No. 28 of 2023 on Guidelines for Environmental Management in the Road Sector, issued by the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing (PUPR). The financial sector also supports this by promoting financing for projects transitioning from high-carbon-emitting activities to more environmentally friendly ones, known as green financing.

The application of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles, which serve as a framework for evaluating how a company or organization manages its environmental impact, social responsibility, and corporate governance, has become highly important. According to interview results, companies that implement ESG are preferred by investors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7). As a result, projects that apply ESG principles receive greater attention. In Malaysia, financing for sustainable projects, such as energy efficiency projects, receives a 2% discount on interest/profit per year for the first seven years, with 60% government guarantees. In Indonesia, green financing schemes are still under development and are expected to be launched in Q2 2024 and take effect in early 2025 [45].

This demonstrates the emergence of a sustainability megatrend not only in Indonesia but worldwide. In line with these trends, data from Infrastructure Monitor [46] shows that private investment in the renewable energy sector, as well as energy storage, transmission, and distribution, continued to grow in 2022, totaling nearly $180 billion globally. This sector attracted the highest investment compared to others. Moreover, there has been a shift in investment from biomass to hydrogen, which is a much cleaner energy source with high potential for efficient energy production. Since 2020, investment in hydrogen has increased sharply, peaking in 2022 at $6 billion. This aligns with expert interviews, where investors indicated a preference for companies that implement ESG and aim for sustainability, not only economically but also socially and environmentally. Therefore, sustainability will shape the construction industry moving forward.

2.

Innovation and Technological Advancements

Technological advancements driven by changing environmental conditions are pushing the construction industry to continuously innovate and adapt. New markets, such as power generation and transmission, oil and gas, as well as mining and metals, present challenges for the construction industry to develop new technologies and enhance the technical capabilities of its workforce in conducting business activities. The construction of buildings and roads, emphasizing the “green building” principles, also demands the use of environmentally friendly materials. Rapid technological advancements, such as modular construction, automation, and the application of digital technologies, have increasingly become necessities.

Based on the interviews, three out of eight respondents explained that predictive tools for project scheduling, digital control towers, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) for topographic mapping and pre-construction survey, Building Information Modelling (BIM), which provides accurate building model designs up to 8D, drive the greatest value in project execution, allowing projects to be completed on time and within budget (R3, R5, R6). The aggressive competition between domestic construction companies and foreign construction firms, which possess more advanced technical capabilities, has resulted in the erosion of new, higher-margin markets. Therefore, the construction industry must continue to innovate, develop technology end-to-end, and enhance the technical skills of its workforce to remain competitive and keep up with technological advancements. Companies that continuously innovate and adopt technological advancements will endure the volatility that occurs.

Additionally, Sawhney et al. [47] introduced the concept of Construction 4.0 (C4), which envisions the future of the construction industry. C4 has key components consisting of the Internet of Things, Data, and Services (IoS), Cyber-Physical Production Systems (CPPS), Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), and the Internet of Things (IoT). This includes BIM, which provides modelling and simulation features as a core component of the C4 framework, and the cloud-based Common Data Environment (CDE), which acts as a repository to store all data related to construction projects throughout their lifecycle. The development of technology and the Construction 4.0 concept in the construction industry is predicted to become a future priority (R6).

3.

Political and Social Stability

The current global economy is heavily influenced by the geopolitical conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which began with Russia’s military intervention in February 2022. Russia, as the world’s third-largest oil producer and exporter, with a production of 11.26 million barrels per day, plays a significant role in global oil trade. This intervention caused a supply shock in Russian oil trade, leading to rising prices in the global market, including in Indonesia. The increase in oil prices has resulted in higher material and operational costs for companies, making political stability a crucial factor for the construction industry to consider.

From a social perspective, factors such as Indonesia’s population growth rate of 1.13 percent in 2023 [48] and the trend of migration to urban areas present opportunities for the construction industry. Additionally, according to interview results, the demand for affordable housing is one of the key opportunities that can be tapped into by considering the characteristics of the current market. One respondent explained, “Buildings with a modular concept can meet the demand for affordable housing. Moreover, this concept creates efficiency in terms of both time and cost” (R6). Therefore, changing consumer preferences and behaviours will shape the construction industry moving forward.

4.

National Economic and Financial Conditions

Fluctuations in national economic and financial conditions, driven by global economic changes such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates, the benchmark interest rate (BI Rate), and exchange rates, significantly impact company performance. Indonesia’s GDP growth rate contracted by 2.07 percent in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in delays in infrastructure projects and weakened corporate financial performance [48]. Over time, the economy began to recover, with GDP growth reaching 5.31 percent in 2022, although it dropped slightly to 5.05 percent in 2023. This economic growth was accompanied by rising inflation, which peaked at 5.95 percent in September 2022 [49].

The increase in inflation prompted Bank Indonesia to raise the benchmark interest rate from 3.5 percent in July 2022 to 6 percent in January 2024 [49], leading to higher bank loan interest rates. Based on interview results, three out of seven respondents stated that construction companies relying on bank loans for project financing are burdened by high interest rates (R2, R3, R4). This is reflected in the financial condition of SOE construction companies in recent years. The fluctuating exchange rate of the rupiah against the US dollar has also increased, reaching Rp15,673 in February 2024 [50], indicating the weakening of the rupiah. This condition affects companies that borrow from international financial institutions. Economic and financial fluctuations will be a crucial consideration for the construction industry moving forward.

5.

Regulations/Law

At the macro level, due to the impact of climate change, various standards related to the construction industry have been established. Based on the interview results, all respondents emphasized the importance of complying with existing standards or regulations (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7). Examples include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a green building certification adopted by various countries, and Greenship certification as the Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI), which is more commonly applied in Indonesia. Additionally, one respondent highlighted the International Labour Organization (ILO) standards for workplace safety, which set international labour standards (R1). From an anti-corruption regulation perspective, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) is an international treaty aimed at combating corruption worldwide.

Furthermore, in line with Indonesia’s government policies on infrastructure development, various policy packages and regulations have been issued. These include presidential regulations (perpres), fiscal policies, and institutional developments. For instance, in 2014, Perpres No. 75, which was later revised to Perpres No. 122 of 2016, initiated the establishment of the Committee for the Acceleration of Priority Infrastructure Provision (KPPIP). KPPIP was formed by the President to promote Priority Infrastructure Projects (PIP). The committee is led by the coordinating minister for Economic Affairs and includes members such as the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Development Planning, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning, and the Minister of Environment and Forestry.

The economic policy package issued in 2015 aimed to reform regulations hindering economic growth, streamline bureaucracy, and provide initiatives to strengthen Indonesia’s investment climate and economy. Fiscal policies such as the Ministry of Finance Regulation No. 260/PMK.08/2016 regulate the payment mechanisms for availability payments in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects. This policy is expected to enhance project feasibility, attracting investor interest by offering periodic payments to implementing entities for infrastructure services that meet the quality standards specified in PPP agreements. Ministry of Finance Regulation No. 189/PMK.08/2015 governs the procedures for providing and implementing government guarantees for infrastructure financing through direct loans from international financial institutions to SOEs, supporting SOEs’ ability to secure direct loans to accelerate infrastructure provision (credit enhancement).

The government also injected capital into PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (PT SMI) through Ministry of Finance Regulation No. 232/PMK.06/2015, converting the Government Investment Center into State Capital Participation (PMN) in PT SMI, amounting to Rp18.4 trillion. PT SMI, as the center for infrastructure financing, is fully capitalized by the Republic of Indonesia under the Ministry of Finance and regulated by Ministry of Finance Regulation No. 100/PMK.010/2009. PT SMI operates across eight sectors: roads and bridges, transportation, oil and gas, telecommunications, waste management, electricity, irrigation, and water supply.

Additionally, the government expanded the role of PT Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia (PT PII) through presidential regulation (Perpres) No. 82 of 2015, which provides central government guarantees for infrastructure financing through direct loans from international financial institutions to SOEs. It also offers guarantees to SOEs tasked with specific projects as outlined in Presidential Regulations. Government support and the existing standards through various regulations in the construction sector create both opportunities and challenges for the industry in the future.

6.

Government Policies

Along with the growing global trend toward sustainability, including the shift in investment supporting energy efficiency, various government policies have been implemented to support this transition. In Indonesia, infrastructure development occurs across various sectors, including roads, bridges, waterways, and sanitation in the infrastructure sector; power plants and transmission in the energy sector; and oil, gas, mining, and metals in the industrial sector [1]. Moving forward, infrastructure development in the energy sector will become a priority for National Strategic Projects (PSN) in Indonesia. According to the latest developments outlined in Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Regulation No. 7 of 2023, there are 211 projects and 13 programs, including the development of the National Capital City (IKN) area, on the PSN list, with an estimated total investment of Rp6,445 trillion. Of this total, Rp2,385 trillion comes from the state budget (APBN), Rp1,353 trillion from SOEs, and Rp2,707 trillion from private enterprises [51]. The government collaborates with private enterprises, including SOE construction companies, under a scheme known as Public-Private Partnership (KPBU) to carry out infrastructure development.

In executing government projects under the KPBU scheme, companies often need to secure independent financing, which typically involves external project financing, such as debt, to fund the investment. According to interview results, one respondent explained that external financing through debt is seen as carrying lower risk compared to internal financing. This is because debt financing tends to have lower costs compared to internal financing, which typically comes from retained earnings or company equity (R3). As seen with companies in eight developing African countries, Caglayan & Machokoto [52] found that fixed investment spending is more sensitive to external funds, particularly debt, than internal funds. This indicates that external funds are used more frequently for investments due to their lower risk. However, inadequate debt management and debt burden, if not accompanied by an increase in revenue or operational efficiency, will lead to poor financial performance for the company. Additionally, two respondents stated that when working on government projects, companies often use a tender system that prioritizes the lowest cost. This environment forces construction companies to undercut each other in order to win project contracts, which results in minimal profit margins (R3, R5).

4.1.2. Meso Level

The meso-level analysis using Porter’s Five Forces framework to assess competition within the industry is as follows.

1.

Threat of New Entrants

Government regulations and policies for the development of construction industry have potential to encourage the growth of new companies in the construction sector. Through national strategic projects, investments in infrastructure development—such as toll roads, bridges, airports, and power plants—have been the main drivers of growth in this sector. However, new entrants may face significant challenges in becoming leaders in the construction industry due to the substantial capital requirements to enter the industry. In addition, new entrants need experience and must demonstrate good performance to build a solid company reputation. New companies must put in more effort to acquire loyal customers. Beyond customer loyalty, the reputation of new companies will also affect their ability to access capital through bank loans.

According to the interview results, five respondents stated that the main threat of new entrants to domestic construction companies comes from foreign construction firms (R1, R2, R3, R4, R6). The level of product differentiation in the domestic construction industry tends to be low, and new entrants with innovative foreign products have the potential to capture the domestic market. The construction industry, both globally and domestically, is increasingly shifting towards sustainable development. Currently, trends in construction projects are focusing more on factors such as energy efficiency, waste management, and the use of environmentally friendly materials. As a result, projects in these sectors are often taken over by foreign companies.

By sector, according to interview results, two respondents stated that the threat of new entrants in the infrastructure sector tends to be low, as infrastructure is a basic product and a core competency of established companies. The threat arises in the building construction sector and the mining and energy sectors, where new entrants (including foreign companies) can offer innovative breakthroughs, especially in work methods. These sectors are expected to become priority sectors in the future (R3, R6). Therefore, the threat of new entrants in the building and energy construction sectors is considered to be moderate to high.

Table 2. Threat of New Entrants.

Table 2. Threat of New Entrants.

No	Threat of New Entrants
1	Government support through regulations and policies for the development of the construction industry has the potential to give rise to new companies in the construction sector.
2	New entrants require substantial capital to enter the construction industry, and significant investment is needed to reach an economic scale.
3	New entrants face difficulty gaining loyal customers because they need extensive experience and strong performance to build a reputation, affecting customers more likely to trust established players.
4	New entrants find it difficult to secure bank credit due to the need for proven experience and strong performance.
5	The level of product differentiation in the construction industry tends to be low, allowing new entrants with innovative foreign products to potentially capture the domestic market.

2.

Bargaining Power of Buyers

The market in Indonesia’s construction industry consists of both government and private sectors. SOE construction companies primarily serve government buyers, especially for infrastructure projects, while private companies tend to appoint foreign or private contractors to carry out their projects. The reliance of SOE construction companies on the government as their main buyer results in high bargaining power for the government. According to interview results, one respondent explained that, since the primary client of SOE construction companies is the government, which enforces the Construction Services Law requiring the lowest possible price, the government has high bargaining power (R3).

The government, as a buyer, is sensitive to the prices offered by construction companies. The pricing for the services provided is adjusted according to the government’s financial conditions. Additionally, buyers have high bargaining power because they possess extensive knowledge of the products being offered. Information on operational processes and tariff calculations is already available in the Construction Project Bidding Documents, allowing buyers to negotiate for lower prices. Construction companies must be cautious in their project execution, as failure to demonstrate strong performance can result in penalties or even blacklisting.

Moreover, the products offered by SOE construction companies tend to be standardized, with a low level of differentiation. Due to the standard nature of the products, the buyer switching cost tends to be low, enabling buyers to easily switch from one company to another. The above explanation demonstrates that the bargaining power of buyers in Indonesia’s construction industry is high. The domestic market is limited to certain buyers, but moving forward, it is expected that SOE construction companies can capture a greater share of the private sector and even international markets.

Table 3. Threat of New Entrants.

Table 3. Threat of New Entrants.

No	Bargaining Power of Buyers
1	High dependence on the government as the buyer
2	Buyers are sensitive to the prices offered
3	Companies will face consequences if performance is poor
4	Buyers have extensive knowledge of the products
5	Low buyer switching costs
6	The products offered are standardized
7	Limited number of buyers, particularly in the Indonesian market

3.

Bargaining Power of Suppliers

Suppliers in the construction industry consist of material suppliers and subcontractors. One respondent explained that the construction industry has a significant dependency on material suppliers because construction heavily relies on the equipment and materials provided by suppliers, which enables suppliers to maximize their profits (R3). SOE construction companies have a large number of suppliers, meaning the dominance of individual suppliers tends to be low. However, some suppliers offer unique and high-quality products, making it difficult to replace them with other suppliers.

Additionally, subcontractors play a crucial role. One respondent mentioned that experienced subcontractors working on construction projects in collaboration with the main contractor have the potential to acquire the knowledge and capabilities to transition into main contractors (forward integration) (R3). Subcontractors may acquire or merge with the businesses they serve while retaining control over their original operations. This can create competition between contractors and subcontractors. Therefore, construction service companies need specific strategies to maintain supplier loyalty and avoid competition with them. It can be concluded that the bargaining power of suppliers in the construction industry is medium.

Table 4. Bargaining Power of Suppliers.

Table 4. Bargaining Power of Suppliers.

No	Bargaining Power of Suppliers
1	The construction industry is dependent on suppliers (subcontractors, material suppliers)
2	The dominance of suppliers is low
3	The dominance of subcontractors is medium
4	Suppliers’ knowledge and capabilities may enable them to become main contractors (forward integration)
5	Suppliers’ wage levels
6	Switching costs between suppliers

4.

Threat of Substitute Products

The products offered by domestic construction companies, including SOE construction companies, tend to be standardized. This business climate leads to price competition among companies operating in the same sector. Four out of seven respondents stated that the threat comes from competitors who can offer substitute products with better quality and more affordable prices (R2, R3, R4, R6).

The creation of substitute products with better quality is driven by technological advancements. Based on the interview results, one respondent explained that compared to domestic companies, SOE construction products are superior, and several innovations have already been implemented. For example, modular buildings, which are more efficient in terms of both time and cost, are available, although their prices are higher (R6). In Indonesia, the modular concept is predominantly owned by SOE construction companies, while most competitors have not yet entered this field, which creates difficulties for buyers in finding substitute products. Therefore, the threat of substitute products is considered low.

Table 5. Bargaining Power of Suppliers.

Table 5. Bargaining Power of Suppliers.

No	Threat of Substitute Products
1	Substitute products are more expensive
2	Buyers tend to have difficulty finding substitute products
3	SOE construction companies offer superior substitute products compared to domestic competitors, but at higher prices
4	Technological advancements can create better substitute products

5.

Rivalry Among Similar Competitors

The construction industry is expected to grow by 7.5% by 2029 [53]. SOE construction companies, as market leaders in the construction sector in Indonesia, play a significant role in shaping competition within the country’s construction industry. Currently, 69 construction companies are listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange [54]. The primary clients of SOE construction companies include the government and SOEs, as well as regionally owned enterprises (BUMD), which typically involve high-value projects. According to interview results, four respondents stated that SOE construction companies outperform domestic competitors in the same category. However, they lag behind foreign companies, which possess higher levels of technology and competence (R2, R3, R4, R6). Therefore, the level of competition among domestic competitors is considered medium, while competition with foreign companies is considered high.

Additionally, it is difficult for construction companies, especially SOE construction companies, to exit the industry due to the assets they have acquired. This situation underscores the need for companies to enhance their competitiveness to address increasing complexity.

Table 6. Rivalry Among Similar Competitors.

Table 6. Rivalry Among Similar Competitors.

No	Rivalry Among Existing Competitors
1	The construction industry is projected to grow by 7.5% by 2029.
2	There are 69 construction companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX).
3	Rivalry among similar domestic competitors is considered medium, while it is high among foreign competitors. The number of construction projects is increasing, but the size of the projects, especially government assignments, is often too large.
4	There are significant barriers to exiting the construction industry.

Referring to the industry competitiveness categorization by Indrarathne et al. [55], based on the five forces analyzed, the threat of new entrants is considered medium to high, the bargaining power of buyers is high, the bargaining power of suppliers is medium, the threat of substitute products is low, and the level of rivalry among similar competitors is medium. Therefore, it can be concluded that the overall level of competition in the construction industry falls within the medium to high category.

4.1.3. Micro Level

At the organizational level, factors such as resources, capabilities, and core competencies will shape the future of construction companies. In terms of core competencies, according to interview results, five respondents explained that the core competency of construction companies is solely in building activities (R2, R3, R4, R5, R6). However, with market developments and project offerings featuring various schemes—such as Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT); Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) or Kerjasama Pemerintah dan Badan Usaha (KPBU), which encompasses Design, Build, Finance, Operate, and Maintenance (DBFOM); Joint Venture (JV); Joint Operation (JO) or Kerjasama Operational (KSO); and the off-taker market has affected the business activities of companies have become increasingly complex and less focused on their core competencies.

In terms of capabilities, based on interview results, two respondents noted that managing projects across various sectors and schemes on an end-to-end basis contributes to the company’s burden (R3, R5). For example, the concession project for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) can create new business opportunities, such as the development of properties around LRT stations. This opportunity in the property business requires the company to engage in end-to-end business activities, from design, build, finance, operate, and maintain—especially investments in finance, this investment activity has reduced the company’s profits due to high short-term interest expenses or the implementation of projects with an Operation Cooperation (KSO) scheme for the constructed hotel, which requires the company to be involved in the operation or management of the asset. This has led to a decline in the company’s profits if the revenue generated is lower than the operational costs. These end-to-end business activities outside of the company’s core competencies increase the company’s burden. In the future, as the market becomes more volatile and project complexity rises, SOE construction companies will need to adapt to these developments.

From a resource perspective, as the company takes on more projects and schemes, the number of resources or assets owned by the company grows—whether in terms of human resources; tangible assets such as toll roads, railways, property, equipment, and so on; or intangible assets like intellectual property rights, licenses, and software. One respondent explained that the increase in resources has not been matched by proper management and utilization (R3). For example, applying the KSO scheme to hotels, apartments, or other commercial assets recorded as tangible assets owned by the company can lead to increased operational costs. This occurs particularly when there is a lack of sufficient marketing activities, which may result in the assets not generating revenue. Moreover, employee’s integrity and work culture also emerge as critical issues. The acquisition of fixed assets, such as land that is non-marketable, legally questionable, financially unviable, or technically impracticable, constitutes fraud and contributes to the deterioration of the company’s cash flow (R3). Therefore, it can be concluded that the core competency of the company lies solely in building activities, while its capability to manage projects outside of its core competency is insufficient, and the utilization of company resources remains suboptimal. These factors form the root of the problems faced by SOE construction companies for now. As a result, SOE construction companies must be able to transform in order to handle the complexities of both the present and the future at macro, meso, and micro levels.

4.1.4. Key Findings

Based on the foresight analysis at the macro, meso, and micro levels, several key findings can be outlined, as seen in Table 7.

5. Discussions

6. Conclusions

References

1. Bappenas Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional 2025-2045.; 2021;
2. Wibowo, F.A.; Satria, A.; Gaol, S.L.; Indrawan, D. Financial Risk, Debt, and Efficiency in Indonesia’s Construction Industry: A Comparative Study of SOEs and Private Companies. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2024, 17, 303. [CrossRef]
3. Chih, Y.-Y.; Hsiao, C.Y.-L. Brace for Another Crisis: Empirical Evidence from US Construction Industry and Firm Performance during and after 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis. Journal of Management in Engineering 2023, 39, 04022069. [CrossRef]
4. Bajjou, M.S.; Chafi, A. Identifying and Managing Critical Waste Factors for Lean Construction Projects. Engineering Management Journal 2020, 32, 2–13. [CrossRef]
5. Mahamid, I. Impact of Rework on Material Waste in Building Construction Projects. International Journal of Construction Management 2022, 22, 1500–1507. [CrossRef]
6. Fadhillah, M.R.; Riantini, L.S.; Latief, Y. Objective Identification from Every Success Factors or Clause of the Integration Process Management System to Increase the Performance Efficiency of State-Owned Construction Services Organization in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2020, 426, 012025. [CrossRef]
7. Vidiola, J. Increasing Investment Effectiveness In State-Owned Companies In Indonesia By Implementing Measurable And Careful Risk Management. Asian Journal of Social and Humanities 2023, 1, 484–495. [CrossRef]
8. Fehan, H.; Aigbogun, O. Impact of External Environmental Factors on Construction Firms’ Performance, Mediated By Institutional Pressures. Civil Engineering Journal 2022. [CrossRef]
9. Fisunenko, N.; Sidorov, O. THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON THE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES. Eastern Europe: economy, business and management 2021. [CrossRef]
10. Blayse, A.M.; Manley, K. Key Influences on Construction Innovation. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management 2004, 4, 143–154. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, W. A Case Study of Market Strategy in Foreign Direct Investment in Kenya’s Construction Industry. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 2023, 13, 761–777. [CrossRef]
12. Benson; Rahayu, S.A. Analysis of Factors Shaping Project Portfolio Management at Indonesia Construction Public State-Owned Enterprise to Increase Workforce Management. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP) 2021, 11, 324–329. [CrossRef]
13. Fatima, I. Main Performance Indicators for A Construction Company in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies 2017, 3. [CrossRef]
14. Huda, M.; Soepriyono; Siswoyo Study of Parameters for Improving Performance and Competitiveness of Construction Companies in Indonesia 2019.
15. Adeleke, A.; Bahaudin, A.; Kamaruddeen, A.M.; Bamgbade, J.; Salimon, M.G.; Khan, M.; Sorooshian, S. The Influence of Organizational External Factors on Construction Risk Management among Nigerian Construction Companies. Safety and Health at Work 2017, 9, 115–124. [CrossRef]
16. Rust, F.; Koen, R. Positioning Technology Development in the South African Construction Industry: A Technology Foresight Study. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering 2011, 53, 02–08.
17. Alizadeh, R.; Soltanisehat, L. Stay Competitive in 2035: A Scenario-Based Method to Foresight in the Design and Manufacturing Industry. foresight 2020, 22, 309–330. [CrossRef]
18. Teece, D.; Pisano, G. The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms; Springer, 2003;
19. Sandee, H. Improving Connectivity in Indonesia: The Challenges of Better Infrastructure, Better Regulations, and Better Coordination. Emerging Markets Economics: Industrial Policy & Regulation eJournal 2016. [CrossRef]
20. Dopfer, K.; Foster, J.; Potts, J. Micro-Meso-Macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2004, 14, 263–279. [CrossRef]
21. Roberts, A. Bridging Levels of Public Administration: How Macro Shapes Meso and Micro. Administration & Society 2019, 52, 631–656. [CrossRef]
22. Serpa, S.; Ferreira, C. Micro, Meso and Macro Levels of Social Analysis. International Journal of Social Science Studies 2019. [CrossRef]
23. Bourgeois, R.; Sette, C. The State of Foresight in Food and Agriculture: Challenges for Impact and Participation. Futures 2017, 93, 115–131. [CrossRef]
24. Vecchiato, R. Creating Value through Foresight: First Mover Advantages and Strategic Agility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2015, 101, 25–36. [CrossRef]
25. Amer, M.; Daim, T.U.; Jetter, A. A Review of Scenario Planning. Futures 2013, 46, 23–40. [CrossRef]
26. Vecchiato, R.; Favato, G.; Di Maddaloni, F.; Do, H. Foresight, Cognition, and Long-term Performance: Insights from the Automotive Industry and Opportunities for Future Research. FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE 2020, 2, e25. [CrossRef]
27. Rohrbeck, R.; Battistella, C.; Huizingh, E. Corporate Foresight: An Emerging Field with a Rich Tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2015, 101, 1–9. [CrossRef]
28. Petrenko, Y.; Denisov, I.; Metsik, O. Foresight Management of National Oil and Gas Industry Development. Energies 2022, 15, 491. [CrossRef]
29. Xiang-fang, M. Application of Technology Foresight in Leading High-Tech Industries. Science-technology and Management 2008.
30. Danko, T.; Shyriaieva, N. Industry 4.0 Technology Foresight in Electrical Engineering Sector. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 4th KhPI Week on Advanced Technology (KhPIWeek); IEEE: Kharkiv, Ukraine, October 2023; pp. 1–6.
31. Haiyan, L. Technology Foresight in Energy Industries. Journal of Chemical Industry and Engineering 2006.
32. Costanzo, L.A. Strategic Foresight in a High-Speed Environment. Futures 2004, 36, 219–235. [CrossRef]
33. Broyd, T.W. Constructing the Future. In Advances in Building Technology; Elsevier, 2002; pp. 1519–1526 ISBN 978-0-08-044100-9.
34. David, J.P.; Imbang, G.A.; Cruz-Arreza, J.F.; Belbes, J.L.; Capa, K.; Caparas, J.F.; Vera, D.D.; Mabuti, M.; Maristela, C.M.; Ramos, J.B.; et al. Scenario-Driven Technology Foresight For BIM-Assisted Green Construction Technology. 2020, 241, 235–245. [CrossRef]
35. Van Der Duin, P.; Ligtvoet, A. Defending the Delta: Practices of Foresight at Dutch Infrastructure Providers. In Futures Thinking and Organizational Policy; Schreiber, D.A., Berge, Z.L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2019; pp. 71–90 ISBN 978-3-319-94922-2.
36. Arditi, D.; Mochtar, K. Productivity Improvement in the Indonesian Construction Industry. Construction Management and Economics 1996, 14, 13–24. [CrossRef]
37. Susilowati, F.; Chrishnawati, Y. Strategic Approach in Human Resource Management at Construction Companies in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2021, 832, 012067. [CrossRef]
38. Kusumawati, Q.A.; Pranjoto, R.G.H. Pengaruh Likuiditas, Profitabilitas, Dan Leverage Terhadap Pertumbuhan Laba Dengan Ukuran Perusahaan Sebagai Variabel Moderating Pada Perusahaan SubSektor Kontruksi Dan Bangunan Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2018-2022. Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Manajemen (JKIM) 2023, 3.
39. Yusof, M.N.; Indah Yunitasari; Bakar, A.H.A. Strategic Management In Construction Industry: Case Study In Indonesia. 2008. [CrossRef]
40. Sawlani, D.K.; So, I.G.; Furinto, A.; Hamsal, M. The Effect of Competitive Advantage on Company Performance in the Construction Industry Sector in Indonesia. Psychology and Education Journal 2021, 58.
41. Musa, M.M.; Amirudin, R.; Sofield, T.; Musa, M.A. Influence of External Environmental Factors on the Success of Public Housing Projects in Developing Countries. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 2015, 15, 30–44. [CrossRef]
42. Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance; simon and schuster, 2008;
43. Alexandra, C.; Wyborn, C. Foresight in Natural Resource Management: A Case Study in Australia. Futures 2023, 154, 103259. [CrossRef]
44. Cuhls, K. The Delphi Method: An Introduction. In Delphi Methods In The Social And Health Sciences; Niederberger, M., Renn, O., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, 2023; pp. 3–27 ISBN 978-3-658-38861-4.
45. Keuangan, O.J. Roadmap Keuangan Berkelanjutan Tahap II (2021-2025) Sustainable Finance Roadmap Phase II (2021-2025) the Future of Finance 2020.
46. Permani, R.; Sadicon, M.F.; Mahyassari, R.K. Identifying Opportunities in the Midst of Global Megatrends: A Tool for Policymakers. Global Megatrends: Implications for the ASEAN Economic Community. Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nations 2017.
47. Sawhney, A.; Riley, M.; Irizarry, J.; Riley, M. Construction 4.0. Sawhney, A., Riley, M., Irizarry, J., Eds 2020.
48. Badan Pusat Statistik [BPS] Laju Pertumbuhan Penduduk 2023.
49. Lidyah, R.; Hartini, T.; Krisdayanti, H.; others The Effect on Inflation, Exchange and BI Rate on Third Party Funds With Equivalent Rate (Er) as an Intervening Variable in Shariah Commercial Banks in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the Proceeding International Conference on Islamic Economics and Business (ICIEB); 2024; Vol. 3, pp. 74–93.
50. Perdagangan, K. Nilai Tukar Mata Uang Asing Terhadap Rupiah. Satudata. Kemendag. Go. Id 2022.
51. Hermawan, Y.P. G20, Indonesia and the Quest for Parameters of Sustainable Infrastructure. 2017.
52. Caglayan, M.; Machokoto, M. The Sensitivity of Investment to Internal and External Funds: New Emerging Market Evidence. Research in International Business and Finance 2024, 67, 102099. [CrossRef]
53. Mordor Intelligence Indonesia Construction Market 2024.
54. Bursa Efek Indonesia [BEI] Daftar Saham 2024.
55. Indrarathne, P.; Ranadewa, K.; Shanika, V. Impact of Competitive Forces to the Contractors in Sri Lanka: An Industry Analysis Using Porter’s Five Forces. 2020.
56. Jeong, J.-W.; Lee, J.-H. ESG Factors and Their Impact on the Corporate Performance of Construction Firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4070.
57. Khan, M.; Serafeim, G.; Yoon, A. Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality. The Accounting Review 2020, 91, 1697–1724.
58. Pizzi, S.; Rosati, F.; Venturelli, A. ESG in the Construction Industry: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 281, 125357.
59. Li, J.; Li, Y. Literature Study of ESG in Corporate Investment and ESG Rating Status. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences 2023. [CrossRef]
60. Markopoulos, E.; Ramonda, M.B. An ESG-SDGs Alignment and Execution Model Based on the Ocean Strategies Transition in Emerging Markets. Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2022. [CrossRef]
61. Hossain, A.; Chua, D.K.H.; Yang, Y. Enhancing Construction Project Outcomes through Predictive Analytics and Technology Integration. Automation in Construction 2022, 136, 104184.
62. Smith, P.; Tardif, M. The Impact of Digital Technology on Project Delivery in the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2021, 147, 04021038.
63. Zhao, Z.; Kwon, O.; Li, H. The Role of Employee Competence in Addressing Increasing Project Complexity in Construction. International Journal of Project Management 2019, 37, 527–539.
64. Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, F. Sustainable Construction: The Role of Digital Technologies in Enhancing Resource Efficiency and Reducing Waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 368, 133028.
65. Smith, J.; Jones, M.; Brown, C. Advancing Managerial Evolution and Resource Management in Contemporary Business Landscapes. Journal of Management Studies 2020, 58, 1–25.
66. Choi, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-S. An Analysis of Core Competency of Construction Field Engineer for Cost Management. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2013, 14, 26–34. [CrossRef]
67. Haan, J.D.; Voordijk, H.; Joosten, G. Market Strategies and Core Capabilities in the Building Industry. Construction Management and Economics 2002, 20, 109–118. [CrossRef]
68. McAdam, R.; Miller, K.; McMacken, N.; Davies, J. The Development of Absorptive Capacity-Based Innovation in a Construction SME. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2010, 11, 231–244. [CrossRef]
69. Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches; Sage publications, 2016;
70. Denzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research; sage, 2011;
71. Putri, R.N.; Syarief, R.; Asnawi, Y.H. Core Competence Development Strategy to Achieve Competitive Advantage (Case Study: Dawoon Tea). Indonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship (IJBE) 2023, 9, 1–1.