Search results

The authors provide new quantitative evidence of the relationship between technologies and organizational design in the context of complex one-off products. The systems that produce complex, one-off products in mature, fragmented industries such as construction lack many of the typical organizational features that researchers have deemed critical to product development success (e.g., team familiarity, frequent communication, and strong leadership). In contrast, the complexity of these products requires a diverse knowledge base that is rarely found within a single firm. The one-off nature of construction’s products further requires improvization and development by a distributed network of highly specialized teams. And because the product is complex, significant innovations in the end product require systemic shifts in the product architecture. Riitta Katila, Raymond E. Levitt and Dana Sheffer use an original, hand-collected dataset of the design and construction of 112 energy-efficient “green” buildings in the United States, combined with in-depth fieldwork, to study these questions. A key conclusion is that the mature US construction industry, with its particularly fragmented supply chain, is not well suited to implementing “systemic innovations” that require coordination across trades or stages of the project. However, project integration across specialists with the highest levels of interdependence (i.e., craft, contract integration) mitigates the knowledge and coordination problems. There are implications for research on how technology shapes organizations (and particularly how organizations shape technology), and on the supply chain configuration strategies of firms in the construction industry as well as building owners who are seeking to build the best buildings possible within their budgets.

This paper aims to develop a practical tool to evaluate the outcomes of innovative practices in the building and construction industry.

A practical tool was proposed. It is an online tool programmed in a JavaScript environment. A previously developed and tested framework was the basis for this tool. Six case projects were used to test and validate the reliability of the tool. The outcomes of the building projects were categorized into six categories of economic, quality, social, environmental, satisfaction and soft and organizational impacts.

The most important finding of this research was that the evaluation of innovation in building and construction would be possible only if the subjective assessment is tolerated to include the non-monetary outcomes in the evaluation, as well as the monetary outcomes.

The findings of this research are limited to the domestic and medium density building projects; thus, the outcomes might be generalized with appropriate care. The developed tool would assist practitioners in the field of building and construction to realize the impacts of innovation introduced into their projects. The project owners and developers could be the main audience of this tool.

The main contribution of the current study into the literature is the consideration of tangible and intangible outcomes of innovation together. In other words, this tool not only evaluates monetary outcomes but also takes into account non-monetary outcomes. It has been stated in the literature that 80 per cent of firms choose “non-numeric” project selection models (Meredith and Mantel, 2006). To provide a full representation of the reality, this model considers both numeric and non-numeric measures by applying both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. The project owners and developers could be the main audience of this tool. It is worth mentioning that this tool is the first attempt of its kind for building and construction projects, and it is applicable and fully practical.

This tool is the first attempt of its kind to evaluate practically the outcomes of innovation in the building and construction industry. The tool practicality and applicability in the real-world project is a privilege which gives more reliability and credibility to the proposed approach of innovation evaluation.

This study aims to examine how innovation can be accelerated within the New Zealand (NZ) building industry to improve the productivity and efficiency of the industry.

The study adopted a mixed philosophical approach combining interpretivism and post-positivism. Data for the study were obtained through a focus group of 50 practitioners that were selected using a stratified sampling procedure. All focus group data were audio-recorded, notes of the discussions were taken and then transcribed, de-identified and managed using NVivo software. Data analysis was undertaken using thematic analysis and inductive reasoning consistent with interpretative phenomenological analysis.

The study findings revealed that the industry could benefit from the adoption of new and emerging technologies to improve its performance, especially its productivity and efficiency. Key drivers for the adoption of innovative practices included the adaptation of “local best practices” from case studies that would consist of stories of successful innovations that could foster confidence in future innovation. It was also identified that Government and industry should nurture innovation through collaborative contracts, policies and regulations. Further, it was highlighted that a culture of innovation needed to be developed to help nurture competencies and capability within the industry workforce.

This study provides an in-depth examination of the need for innovation from the point of view of building industry practitioners. This study provides a useful starting-off point for further research and for the creation of policies that could help to support and accelerate innovation within the NZ building industry.

NZ’s building industry productivity and efficiency have been sub-optimal relative to other industries. But using evidence from the experiences and knowledge of industry practitioners, strategies can be developed to accelerate innovation within the NZ building industry that could help reverse industry performance. Further, the research findings can help inform government policies to develop support mechanisms that could encourage innovation in the industry in NZ. In addition, it is anticipated that the findings will provide a useful set of guidance for other countries that have similar market and physical constraints as those encountered by NZ.

There is a dearth of empirical studies on innovation in the NZ building industry which the current study contributes to. By sharing industry practitioners’ experiences and knowledge of innovation, the paper seeks to counteract more technocratic and technological optimist accounts of innovation within the building industry. Further, the paper provides insights into how the NZ building industry can transform its performance through innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the risks of building defects associated with rapid advancement of “green” construction technologies. It identifies the methods adopted by the sector for the determination of pre-construction defects that are framed within the context of, traditional; scientific; and professional design approaches. These are critically evaluated and utilised in attempts to mitigate defects arising from diffusing low carbon construction innovations.

The paper takes the form of an evaluative literature review. Polemic in orientation, the paper critically compares two periods of time associated with rapid advancement of innovation. The first, the post-Second World War housing boom is synonymous with a legacy of substandard buildings that in many cases rapidly deteriorated, requiring refurbishment or demolition shortly after construction. The second, is today’s “green” technology “shift” with its inherent uncertainty and increased risk of latent building defects and potential failure to deliver meaningful long-term performance. Central to this is an exploration of the drivers for innovation, and subsequent response, precautionary measures initiated, and the limitations of institutionalised systems to identify and mitigate defects. Similarities and differences between these historical periods frame a discussion around the theoretical approaches to defects and how these may be limited in contemporary low carbon construction. A conceptual framework is presented with the aim of enhancing the understanding for obviation of defects.

Sufficient commonality exists between the periods to initiate a heightened vigilance in the identification, evaluation and ideally the obviation of defects. Design evaluation is not expressly or sufficiently defect focused. It appears that limited real change in the ability to identify defects has occurred since the post-war period and the ability to predict the performance of innovative systems and materials is therefore questionable. Attempts to appraise defects are still embedded in the three principle approaches: traditional; scientific; and professional design. Each of these systems have positive characteristics and address defect mitigation within constrains imposed by their very nature. However, they all fail to address the full spectrum of conditions and design and constructional complexities that lead to defects. The positive characteristics of each system need to be recognised and brought together in an holistic system that offers tangible advantages. Additionally, independent design professionals insufficiently emphasise the importance of defect identification and holistic evaluation of problems in design failure are influenced by their professional training and education. A silo-based mentality with fragmentation of professional responsibility debases the efficacy of defect identification, and failure to work in a meaningful, collaborative cross professional manner hinders the defect eradication process.

Whilst forming a meaningful contribution to stimulate debate, further investigation is required to tangibly establish integrated approaches to identify and obviate defects.

The structured discussion and conclusions highlight areas of concern for industry practitioners, policy makers, regulators, industry researchers and academic researchers alike in addressing and realising a low carbon construction future. The lessons learned are not limited to a UK context and they have relevance internationally, particularly where rapid and significant growth is coupled with a need for carbon reduction and sustainable development such as the emerging economies in China, Brazil and India.

The carbon cost associated with addressing the consequences of emerging defects over time significantly jeopardises attempts to meet legally binding sustainability targets. This is a relatively new dimension and compounds the traditional economic and societal impacts of building failure. Clearly, blindly accepting this as “the cost of innovation without development” cannot be countenanced.

Much research has been undertaken to evaluate post-construction defects. The protocols and inherent complexities associated with the determination of pre-construction defects have to date been largely neglected. This work attempts to rectify this situation.

A perceptible gap has been observed in the literature concerning the adoption of product innovations into construction projects by designers (architects and engineers). This is seen specifically in the scant investigation into this group as a relevant source of construction innovation. It is also seen in the failure of current literature to reflect this group's interpretation of innovation linkages. The result is a gap in knowledge and a difficulty in correlating construction innovation models to the work of designers. The purpose of this paper is to seek to address this gap by identifying and classifying recent examples of innovation using an accepted construction innovation model.

The primary objective was to expand this accepted construction innovation model's interpretation of innovation linkages and identify those linkages that directly relate to the work of designers and address aspects of building form rather than merely aspects of cost and process efficiencies.

The results revealed that the interpretation of building linkages by designers were much more diverse than those as perceived by the manufacturers and suppliers of the products. New linkages included aspects of building orientation, facade design, services integration, floor layouts, lighting design, fire safety and sustainability. In some cases, the designer's interpretation of the product's linkages had substantial implications for the marketing strategy of the products, and even the potential to change the classification grouping of the innovation.

This paper forms part of a wider piece of research into the management of innovation for construction professionals. The timely research is necessary to motivate design professionals in the adoption of new product innovations into their building designs.

Although the construction industry is known for its low level of innovation and slow pace of change, some of its characteristics not only make this sector unique but also provide some opportunities to innovate. Innovation evaluation has become one of the priorities for building practitioners. This study aims to develop a practical methodology to evaluate the outcomes of innovation in small building and construction projects.

The research used three real case projects and information along with what was found in the literature. A framework was developed based on an extensive literature review of innovation outcomes evaluation.

The outcomes of the building projects were categorized into six categories of economic, quality, social, environmental, satisfaction and soft and organizational impacts. It was found that the outcomes of innovative practices in construction projects could be evaluated if subjective assessment is tolerated. The findings of this research are limited to the domestic and medium-density building projects, thus the outcomes might be generalized with appropriate care. The proposed practical framework would assist practitioners in the field of building and construction to realize the impacts of innovation introduced in their projects. The project owners and developers could be the main users of this framework.

Previously developed models or frameworks have mainly remained at the abstract level that could be used as guidelines, but the proposed framework in this study is practical and applicable to real building projects.

The purpose of this paper is to present the construction process innovations that enabled the successful delivery of the hybrid mass timber high-rise building in Canada, the Brock Commons Tallwood House at the University of British Columbia. It is one of a set of papers examining the project, including companion papers that describe innovations in the mass timber design process and the impact of these innovations on construction performance. The focus of this paper is on innovation in the construction phase and its relationship to innovations implemented in previous project phases.

A mixed-method, longitudinal case study approach was used in this research project to investigate and document the Tallwood House project over a three-year period. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques were used. Members of the research team observed prefabrication and construction, conducted periodic interviews and reviewed project artefacts.

The research identified three innovation “clusters,” including the use of innovative tools, techniques and strategies in the design and construction processes and the role they played in delivering the project. The “clusters” were further characterized according to the type of “connectivity” they afforded, either facilitation, operationalization or materialization. These two perspectives support a compounding view on innovation and help to understand how it can flow throughout a project’s life cycle and across its supply chain. Three process-based innovations were initiated during the design phase, integrated design process, building information modeling and virtual design and construction and flowed through to the construction phase. These were seen to enable the creation of connections that were crucial to the overall success of the project. These innovations were operationalized and enacted through the construction phase as design for manufacturing and assembly and prefabrication, staged construction and just-in-time delivery, integration of safety and risk management and a rigorous quality control and quality assurance process. Finally, a full-scale mock-up was produced for practice and constructability assessment, materializing the radical product innovation that was the mass timber structure. These strategies are used together for a synergistic and integrated approach to increase productivity, expedite the construction schedule and develop an innovative building product.

This paper details an in-depth investigation into the diffusion dynamics of multiple systemic innovations for the construction process of a unique building project, the tools and techniques used by the construction manager and team, and the challenges, solutions and lessons learned.

The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that influence the diffusion of a systemic innovation in the Swedish construction sector. The focus is on high-rise multi-storey timber housing; the development of which was enabled by a change in building regulations. This allowed building higher than two stories in timber.

A longitudinal case study was used with multiple data collection methods to study the development and diffusion of a multi-storey timber house system by a case study organisation.

The findings contribute to understanding for a number of interacting factors influencing the diffusion of a systemic innovation related to the case study organisation.

The research provides a holistic view of interacting factors influencing the diffusion of a systemic innovation. The results have value to the Swedish construction sector and to the global community of construction researchers, as it provides empirical findings that further increase the understanding for diffusion of systemic innovations in a specific context.

The purpose of this paper is to study the design process innovations that enabled the successful delivery of a hybrid, mass-timber high-rise building in Canada, the Brock Commons Tallwood House at the University of British Columbia. It is one of a set of papers examining the project, including companion papers that describe innovations used during the mass timber construction process and the impact of these innovations on construction performance.

A mixed-method, longitudinal case study approach was used in this research project to investigate and document the Tallwood House project over a three-year period. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques were used. Graduate student researchers were embedded within the project team to observe meetings and decision-making and to conduct periodic interviews.

The research highlights a case of a balanced triple-helix system that provided a context for the successful “clustering” of product and process innovation, which were developed and implemented to flow throughout the project’s lifecycle and across its supply chain to provide benefits at each stage. Four significant process-based innovations were implemented at the design phase of the building project to support radical product innovation: an integrated design process, virtual design and construction, designing for manufacturing and assembling and a rigorous quality control and quality assurance process. The product innovations developed through these process innovations were the structural system and the prefabricated envelope system. The context of innovation was seen to allow this “clustering,” which is believed to be a key condition of success and enabled the efficient and successful delivery of the project. Generally, the approach was successful; however, some factors including the number of stakeholders and good-faith collaboration may limit the replicability of these strategies.

This paper presents an in-depth investigation into the instantiation of an innovation system, identified as a balanced triple-helix system, which enabled and facilitated the design and decision-making process for a radical product innovation. Moreover, this paper describes the deployment of a “cluster” of process innovations that flowed throughout the project’s lifecycle and across the project supply chain. This was seen as a key factor in ensuring the successful delivery of the project.

The aim of this study is to explore the current situation in the Russian construction industry and the obstacles, drivers and strategies that affect innovation implementation most significantly. The Russian construction industry is highly conservative and is often criticised for its lack of innovation. Construction firms invest relatively little in innovation adoption, development of new ideas and formal research and development.

This study utilised an extensive literature review followed by a questionnaire survey incorporating some post hoc interviews with 52 experts from the Russian architecture, engineering and construction industry to identify the most significant drivers, enablers, barriers and strategies related to innovation diffusion in construction.

Findings indicated that economic and financial difficulties, as well as inappropriate legislation, are the most significant barriers to innovation. Financial incentives, legislative improvements and the promotion of alternative construction procurement methods were viewed as the most critical strategies to improve the current lacklustre rate of innovation diffusion.

While there is anecdotal evidence that the Russian construction industry is lagging in terms of technological advancement, its closed nature means that there is still little reported evidence on what are the main barriers to innovation diffusion in this country. Hence, there is a lack of focus on innovation diffusion rates in different construction sectors, such as building and civil infrastructure and limited consideration on how effectively the research and development sector contributes to innovation.