Anyone involved with developing a new building system knows that it’s incredibly difficult to get anyone in the industry to actually use your system. Anything that requires the slightest bit of process change faces an enormous uphill battle that mostly doesn’t get easier or gain momentum. Even if you win one big client, the next client will still be just as hard to convince (21 years after the introduction of Revit, a
It's interesting to compare this to the software industry, which seems to share a lot of characteristics with construction (high dollar value, each project has unique conditions, many sequential dependencies, mistakes are often difficult to fix though maybe not as difficult as construction). My impression is that people come up with new/better ways of building software much more frequently.
I think this is good evidence for your idea that a less-fragmented construction industry might be more innovative: a lot of new software tools were pioneered inside one of the few largest tech companies.
(A large part of this is also obviously that the construction industry has existed for >100x longer than the software industry, so there's much more low-hanging fruit in software. Another relevant difference might be that it's easier to experiment with new software tools in a low-stakes way via side projects; I'd guess that the minimum practical size for a software project is much smaller than for a construction project?)
Robert Gordon finds that the construction industry recorded negative productivity growth from 1995-2005 in both the US and EU-10, owing entirely to declining multi-factor productivity, i.e. the residual that's supposed to capture output from new ideas and innovation.
Construction productivity is notoriously hard to measure, but stipulate that these estimates are at least directionally correct. What drove the decline in construction MFP? Would you consider doing a post on why and how construction innovation is not just hard, but may even be somehow regressing?
You might enjoy https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHGEA, which looks at a very similar set of constraints and processes in evolutionary biology. Under that model, I would anticipate the most innovative areas of the construction industry to either be, as you said, ones that improve something without changing other parts, or to be "finishing touches": how plumbing gets installed should change rarely, but the quality of tile in bathrooms could improve at a reasonable clip, because it is harder for failures at the end of a process to cascade substantially.
I LOVE your newsletter!!! Please keep it coming... It so much helps to think of system-level changes needed to drive this great industry forward to productivity and sustainability <3
It seems like the nature of cost overruns and their distribution is maybe related to the bidding process as well? Like if you see something that might decrease your costs, you assume everyone else sees it as well, so you lower your price accordingly. On the other hand, if you see something that might increase your costs, you're gonna look real hard at how likely that thing is to be an issue, and you might bid optimistically, hoping it's not a problem (knowing that it's not the worst thing in the world to come in over budget for "unexpected" reasons).
And I don't know exactly how all this works (like how they calculate cost exactly), but if a project ends up being cheaper than expected, the contract price doesn't usually get lowered, does it? So we'd expect the distribution to be skewed to the right no matter what, just because construction companies generally don't give price breaks if it turns out, after the fact, that their costs were low.
Isn't it true that manufacturing and agriculture also had innovations that were incremental and slow? After all, the processes of agriculture also basically stayed the same for hundreds of years. Before mechanized vehicles came into use. A great book on the topic of innovation itself is the excellent book How Innovation Works, by Matt Ridley. Using dozens of examples, Ridley shows how in most cases innovation is incremental and slow. The major exceptions being the rapid pace of technological evolution in the past 50 years or so. So I think that the construction industry having slow and incremental innovation isn't a bad thing. As long as innovation is there and continues to be there.
To achieve significant change (and risk reduction!) you need to vertically integrate and internalize. SpaceX is my favorite example of getting a stagnant industry into innovation mode. I think the problems of the Space Industry before SpaceX are similar to Construction now. And it's also massive, bold and complicated undertaking to establish a successful "BuildX". But the upside should be even more massive than in Space.
I think that it is difficult to get certified and achieve a reputation with other builders. For example, now there are technologies such as drone photogrammetry https://www.propelleraero.com/use-cases/drone-photogrammetry/ but they did not immediately take root, although they showed their effectiveness
Would appreciate if you could look into this startup, they are making some impressive claims and getting lots of funding but do not disclose much in detail about their product: https://www.nexii.com/
Its partially true. Specially the industry has changed gears during pandemic and many clients and contracting companies are now investing in digalitization. Digital Transformation in construction sector is the next big bet. Recent construction tech billion dollar acquisitions is testimony for the same.
Interesting article. My guess is that it reflects modest experience/involvement with actually buildings. Typically software deals with abstractions; physical reality is much more complex. Re: Revit adoption. as an example. Keep in mind that the economics of designers and contractors are totally different. If you want a detailed critique of the article, contact me.
This is an excellent overview. It seems like the thing that most contractors rely on to absorb the risk of much of their work, including indemnity obligations baked into contracts, is not mentioned at all. In part this makes sense to me, but in other ways it seems like the insurers who are asked to underwrite innovative design and construction methods would be a perfect source of “absorption” since they’ve really got the ability to run the numbers to determine success and failure ratios.
It's interesting to compare this to the software industry, which seems to share a lot of characteristics with construction (high dollar value, each project has unique conditions, many sequential dependencies, mistakes are often difficult to fix though maybe not as difficult as construction). My impression is that people come up with new/better ways of building software much more frequently.
I think this is good evidence for your idea that a less-fragmented construction industry might be more innovative: a lot of new software tools were pioneered inside one of the few largest tech companies.
(A large part of this is also obviously that the construction industry has existed for >100x longer than the software industry, so there's much more low-hanging fruit in software. Another relevant difference might be that it's easier to experiment with new software tools in a low-stakes way via side projects; I'd guess that the minimum practical size for a software project is much smaller than for a construction project?)
Great piece.
Robert Gordon finds that the construction industry recorded negative productivity growth from 1995-2005 in both the US and EU-10, owing entirely to declining multi-factor productivity, i.e. the residual that's supposed to capture output from new ideas and innovation.
See: "The Industry Anatomy of the Transatlantic Productivity Growth Slowdown" https://www.nber.org/papers/w25703
Construction productivity is notoriously hard to measure, but stipulate that these estimates are at least directionally correct. What drove the decline in construction MFP? Would you consider doing a post on why and how construction innovation is not just hard, but may even be somehow regressing?
You might enjoy https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHGEA, which looks at a very similar set of constraints and processes in evolutionary biology. Under that model, I would anticipate the most innovative areas of the construction industry to either be, as you said, ones that improve something without changing other parts, or to be "finishing touches": how plumbing gets installed should change rarely, but the quality of tile in bathrooms could improve at a reasonable clip, because it is harder for failures at the end of a process to cascade substantially.
I LOVE your newsletter!!! Please keep it coming... It so much helps to think of system-level changes needed to drive this great industry forward to productivity and sustainability <3
Great article. I am always trying to think of non-normal distributions in real life and the nail example is such a good one!
It seems like the nature of cost overruns and their distribution is maybe related to the bidding process as well? Like if you see something that might decrease your costs, you assume everyone else sees it as well, so you lower your price accordingly. On the other hand, if you see something that might increase your costs, you're gonna look real hard at how likely that thing is to be an issue, and you might bid optimistically, hoping it's not a problem (knowing that it's not the worst thing in the world to come in over budget for "unexpected" reasons).
And I don't know exactly how all this works (like how they calculate cost exactly), but if a project ends up being cheaper than expected, the contract price doesn't usually get lowered, does it? So we'd expect the distribution to be skewed to the right no matter what, just because construction companies generally don't give price breaks if it turns out, after the fact, that their costs were low.
Isn't it true that manufacturing and agriculture also had innovations that were incremental and slow? After all, the processes of agriculture also basically stayed the same for hundreds of years. Before mechanized vehicles came into use. A great book on the topic of innovation itself is the excellent book How Innovation Works, by Matt Ridley. Using dozens of examples, Ridley shows how in most cases innovation is incremental and slow. The major exceptions being the rapid pace of technological evolution in the past 50 years or so. So I think that the construction industry having slow and incremental innovation isn't a bad thing. As long as innovation is there and continues to be there.
I very much agree with your conclusion:
To achieve significant change (and risk reduction!) you need to vertically integrate and internalize. SpaceX is my favorite example of getting a stagnant industry into innovation mode. I think the problems of the Space Industry before SpaceX are similar to Construction now. And it's also massive, bold and complicated undertaking to establish a successful "BuildX". But the upside should be even more massive than in Space.
I think that it is difficult to get certified and achieve a reputation with other builders. For example, now there are technologies such as drone photogrammetry https://www.propelleraero.com/use-cases/drone-photogrammetry/ but they did not immediately take root, although they showed their effectiveness
Would appreciate if you could look into this startup, they are making some impressive claims and getting lots of funding but do not disclose much in detail about their product: https://www.nexii.com/
having built the first BIM systems, I can only agree
Its partially true. Specially the industry has changed gears during pandemic and many clients and contracting companies are now investing in digalitization. Digital Transformation in construction sector is the next big bet. Recent construction tech billion dollar acquisitions is testimony for the same.
I couldn't help but think about this in the context of Katerra
Interesting article. My guess is that it reflects modest experience/involvement with actually buildings. Typically software deals with abstractions; physical reality is much more complex. Re: Revit adoption. as an example. Keep in mind that the economics of designers and contractors are totally different. If you want a detailed critique of the article, contact me.
Nice piece!
This is an excellent overview. It seems like the thing that most contractors rely on to absorb the risk of much of their work, including indemnity obligations baked into contracts, is not mentioned at all. In part this makes sense to me, but in other ways it seems like the insurers who are asked to underwrite innovative design and construction methods would be a perfect source of “absorption” since they’ve really got the ability to run the numbers to determine success and failure ratios.