ME - iNOVAÇÃO
-
Upload
pedro-henrique-rosa -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of ME - iNOVAÇÃO
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
1/56
4SCRI Research Report
Innovation in Construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
Beliz Ozorhon,
Carl Abbott,
Ghassan Aouad,
James Powell
May 2010
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
2/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
ii
4Dr Beliz Ozorhon
Dr Beliz Ozorhon is a civil
engineer. Her PhD work
ocused on modelling the
perormance o international
joint ventures in construction.
She joined Salord Centre or
Research & Innovation in July
2008 as a Research Fellow
to investigate the ways howinnovation occurs in the
construction industry. Her
research interests mainly
include innovation, knowl-
edge management, strategic
collaborations, international
construction, and project man-
agement.
Mr Carl Abbott
Mr Carl Abbott is a Senior
Research Fellow at the
University o Salord and
Manager o Salord Centre or
Research & Innovation. Since
he joined the University o
Salord in 1999, he has
worked closely with
industry in the region, helping toestablish the Centre or
Construction Innovation and
working as the Constructing
Excellence Regional Innovation
Director. He is joint co-ordina-
tor o the recently established
CIB task group on Recognising
Innovation in Construction.
His current research interests
include innovation, osite
manuacture, benchmarking,
and ICT.
Professor GhassanAouad
Proessor Ghassan Aouad is
the Pro-Vice-Chancellor or
Research and Innovation at
the University. Ghassan is
also Co-Director o the 5m
EPSRC unded Salord Centre
or Research & Innovation in
the Built & Human Environ-ment, a visiting proessor at
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), and Fellow o the CIOB.
Ghassan has spent the last 20
years teaching and researching
subjects related to the areas
o Inormation Modelling and
Visualisation, nD simulation,
and process mapping.
Professor James Powell
Proessor James Powell is
the Director o UPBEAT &
Smart City Futures. His
research areas include space
and resource utilisation,
design methods, the product
introductory process, tech-
nology and knowledge
transer, multi-media orproessional communica-
tions, partnering, cultural
change, action learning, the
inormation superhighway and
simulation, including virtual
reality.
Contacting SCRII you would like to fnd out more o this project please contact any o the ollowing team members:
Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in the built and human environment (SCRI)
University o Salord, 4th Floor, Maxwell Building, Salord M5 4WT, United KingdomTel: +44 (0) 161 295 2649 Fax : +44 (0) 161 295 4587 Web: www.scri.salord.ac.uk
Beliz Ozorhon
Research Fellow
Carl Abbott
SCRI Manager
Ghassan Aouad
Pro Vice Chancellor
James Powell
UPBEAT
Pam Allen
SCRI Administrator
Printing copyrightDesign and Print Group,University o Salord, Maxwell 100,
Salord, M5 4WT, England.
Beliz Ozorhon, Carl Abbott, Ghassan Aouad, James Powell 2010
All rights reserved; no part o this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyorm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission
o the copyright owner. However, there is no restriction on the onward circulation o this report in electronic ormprovided it is transmitted in its entirety.
First published 2010
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
3/56
iii
Acknowledgements
We are grateul to those who contributed in our research in dierent stages.
Our research partner Centre or Construction Innovation (CCI) Northwest deserves special thanks.They provided the contacts or our survey and case studies.
We thank all organisations and interviewees that contributed to our below case studies:
nCleveleys Sea Deence and Promenade SchemeBirse Coastal (Caroline Mottram and Dave Fazakerley) and Wyre Borough Council (Carl Green)
nThe Castlefelds Estate Regeneration ProjectCruden Construction (Stephen Morris and Dave Woodward) and Plus Dane Group (Inger Leach)
nLancaster University County and Grizedale Eco-ResidencesUniversity Partnerships Programme (Bob Giles) and GWP Architecture (John Wybor and Chris Guyatt)
nCheetham Hill Tesco Eco-StoreVinci (Andrew Besant-Roberts)
We also thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) or the fnancial supportthat they provided or this project.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
4/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
iv
4Executive summary
The construction industry has long been criticised or its conservatism and lack o innovation. But is this characterisa-
tion air? Much o the innovation in the sector occurs at the project level and tends to be process and organization based.
According to ofcial statistics construction companies invest comparatively little in ormal R&D, but rather adopt new
technology and develop new ideas to improve their operations. Such innovations are difcult to capture with standard
indicators which tend to be more suitable or technology intensive sectors. Consequently, more research is required to develop
appropriate metrics or the dierent types o innovative activities that are carried out throughout the liecycle o construction projects.
This report investigates the ways that construction innovation occurs and tries to address the difculties in measuring this. Firstly, it
introduces the basic concepts related to innovation and emphasizes the importance o systemic innovation metrics that reect the
breadth o the sector. It provides a list o indicators currently used to measure construction innovation based on a literature review
and discusses the adequacy o these metrics. Then, it proposes a ramework that analyses the innovation value chain (IVC) through
the investigation o components o the innovation process including the drivers, inputs, enablers, barriers, tools, and outcomes.
The IVC view considers three stages o innovation: idea generation, conversion, and diusion. A questionnaire was designed based
on this ramework and a survey was administered to investigate the innovative activities o construction companies. The fndings
o the survey suggest that the contractors largely innovate to improve their processes and services; their innovations are mainly
organization-based and incremental and driven by their clients. Although they are successul at generating ideas, they struggle to
diuse these ideas and convert them into products and services at the same level.
The project level has been largely ignored in analysis so ar; however it is the key to improving innovation perormance. The
report extends the IVC analysis at the project level, by adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, through the production o our case
studies. These case studies have been selected among award winning projects at the North West Regional Construction Awards
2009. Interviews have been conducted with the key actors to track the collaborative ways in which the successul innovations have
been generated and to investigate the consequent benefts o innovation at the project and company level. The reported cases are
all examples o collaborative partnership among project teams and demonstrate a number o technical and organisational innova-
tions and good practices. These are grouped under our categories namely, strategic partnership, Modern Methods o Construction,
lean construction, and community engagement. The innovative practices not only led to a number o project level benefts such
as reduction in duration and cost, improved quality and environmental perormance but also wider benefts such as enhanced
corporate image, knowledge transer to inorm uture decisions, client and end-user satisaction, and improved quality o lie.
The fndings o this survey are expected to illuminate urther studies that will investigate the dynamics between project and frm level
innovation that will help understand the role o dierent actors in acilitating innovation throughout the liecycle o a construction
project. The key lessons rom this report are as ollows:
nTo present a uller picture o construction innovation, a wider built environment perspective should be adopted.
nMuch R&D activity is taking place that is not registered ofcially. More should be done to raise awareness o the R&D Tax Credit
scheme to construction companies.
nA representative range o measures or construction innovation needs to be created. In this regard, the Innovation Value Chain
approach to the measurement o innovation provides a exible and simple system that can useully be adopted alongside
measures that consider the economic, social and environmental impacts o innovation.
nMore research is required to better understand the complex relationship between regulation, innovation and business need to
inorm uture policies.
nThe benefts o innovation can only be realised by ully understanding the components o the whole innovation process that is
based on knowledge acquisition, transormation, and diusion. Our understanding o innovation and how it occurs in the sector
can be enriched urther by detailed work that brings together dierent theoretical perspectives on innovation that will enable the
development o context sensitive ways o recognising and measuring innovation.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
5/56
v
Table o Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................................................................iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................................................................vi
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................1
2. WHAT IS INNOVATION?.......................................................................................................................................2
3. MEASURING CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION........................................................................................................3
3.1 Measuring Innovation as a System............................................................................................................4
3.2 Indicators for Measuring Construction Innovation..................................................................................4
4. A SURVEY OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION AT THE FIRM LEVEL....................................................................7
4.1 The Innovation Value Chain.......................................................................................................................7
4.2 Innovation Framework for Construction...................................................................................................8
4.3 The Research Methodology........................................................................................................................9
4.4 Findings of the Survey................................................................................................................................9
5. CASE STUDIES ILLUSTRATING A PROJECT LIFE CYCLE APPROACH TO CONSTRUCTION
INNOVATION.......................................................................................................................................................15
5.1 The Research Methodology......................................................................................................................17
5.2 Case Study 1: Cleveleys Coastal Defence and Promenade Enhancement Schemme...........................17
5.3 Case Study 2: The Castleelds Estate Regeneration Project................................................................23
5.4 Case Study 3: Lancaster University Eco-Residences Project...................................................................28
5.5 Case Study 4: Cheetham Hill Tesco Environmental Format Store..........................................................33
5.6 Cross-case Analysis...................................................................................................................................38
6. DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................41
6.1 Measurement of Construction Innovation..............................................................................................41
6.2 How Innovative is Construction? ............................................................................................................41
6.3 The Results of Innovation.........................................................................................................................42
6.4 Clients Driving Innovation........................................................................................................................42
6.5 Summary....................................................................................................................................................43
7. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................44
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
6/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
vi
4List o tables
Table 1: Measures of innovation at rm level.................................................................................................................5
Table 2: The innovation value chain at rm-level...........................................................................................................7
Table 3: Drivers of innovation..........................................................................................................................................9
Table 4a: Internal inputs of innovation............................................................................................................................10
Table 4b: External knowledge sources of innovation.....................................................................................................10
Table 5: Enablers of innovation......................................................................................................................................11
Table 6: Barriers to innovation.......................................................................................................................................11
Table 7: Innovative practices..........................................................................................................................................12
Table 8: Innovators within construction sector.............................................................................................................12Table 9: Innovation benets/impacts.............................................................................................................................13
Table 10: The innovation register for Case Study 1........................................................................................................22
Table 11: The innovation register for Case Study 2........................................................................................................27
Table 12: The innovation register for Case Study 3........................................................................................................32
Table 13: The innovation register for Case Study 4........................................................................................................37
Table 14: The combined innovation register...................................................................................................................39
List o fgures
Figure 1: Framework for analysing innovation in construction.......................................................................................8
Figure 2: Innovation value chain in a construction project............................................................................................16
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
7/56
1
Innovation is a complex and multidimensionalprocess that has received the attention o
researchers in all felds due to its contribution toeconomic growth, competitiveness and quality o lie.Innovation in general terms is the creation and adoption
o new knowledge to improve the value o products,processes, and services. Innovation in constructionservices has been recognized as a source o competitive
advantage by the policy makers as well as industrypractitioners.
The construction industry has always been amongthe driving orces o the economy, however it hasalso long been criticised or its lack o efciency incomparison to other industries and its unwillingness
to innovate. The perormance o the UK constructionindustry was analysed in the Rethinking Constructionreport (Egan, 1998). In addition to creating a Movement or
Innovation the report described how the UKconstruction industry, at its best, displayedexcellence and delivered the most difcult and
innovative projects. It is now over 10 years sincethe Egan report and the image o the industry as
lacking innovation still persists, but is this image air?This report aims to shed light on this basic question.
The report attempts to provide answers to this question
through three approaches:
1) Through an analysis o existing measures o
innovation in construction, the report investigateswhether the measures currently used capture the ullextent o innovative activities in construction.
2) The results o a frm level analysis o innovation inconstruction are presented to better understand
companies perceptions o innovation. The analysis is
based upon a survey o entrants into the NorthwestRegional Constructional Awards and investigates
company perceptions o innovation via an InnovationValue Chain approach.
3) The fndings o this survey were used to guide
the next stage o the research that involved adeeper analysis o innovation and its associatedprocesses through the production o case studies and
interviews with key parties in selected projects. Four detailed case studies taken rom winning projectsorm the Northwest Construction Awards are present-
ed. The case studies extend the Innovation Value Chainapproach to a multi-stakeholder project level. Throughthe case studies a comparison o standard measures
and perceptions against the reality o innovation as itoccurs at the project level can be made.
1 Introduction
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
8/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
2
4This section o the report provides a brie overview
o inn ovation, its importance to companies and theeconomy in general, and the various types andclassifcations o innovation. Innovation is regarded as one
o the key actors contributing to national economic growth,competitiveness, and higher living standards and is atthe heart o the knowledge-based economy (OECDand Eurostat, 2005). However, there is not a single and
complete defnition o innovation. The UKs Departmento Trade and Industry (DTI) states that innovation is the
successul exploitation o new ideas and that it isthe key business process to compete eectively in theincreasingly competitive global environment (DTI, 2007).
There are many attempts to classiy dierent typeso innovation. For example, Henderson and Clark(1900) classiy innovation as incremental, modular,
architectural and radical depending on the degree oproduct/architectural knowledge required to implement.In the UK the DTI (2007) state that innovation can take
several orms including product innovation (changes in theproducts/services) which an organisation oers; processinnovation (changes in the ways in which they are
created and delivered); position innovation(changes in the context in which the products/services areintroduced); paradigm innovation (changes in the
underlying mental models which rame what theorganisation does). Phillips (1997) distinguishesbetween technological innovation and non-technolog-
ical (including organizational and marketing) innova-tion. Technological innovations comprise implementedtechnologically new products and processes and
signifcant technological improvements in products andprocesses. Organisational innovation in the frm includessignifcant changes in organisational structures; the
implementation o advanced management techniques;and the implementation o new or substantially changed
corporate strategic orientations. Marketing innovation,on the other hand, is the implementation o a newmarketing method involving signifcant changes inproduct, price, and promotion strategy (OECD and
Eurostat, 2005).Innovation diers in every sector and patterns oinnovation in manuacturing dier rom those in
services (DTI, 2007). Organisational change oten drivesinnovation in services (NESTA, 2008). InnovationNation White Paper (DIUS, 2008) presents a broad vision o
innovation and its importance not only to manuacturingbut also or services, the creative industries, the publicsector and the third sector.
The White Paper explicitly recognies
the importance o orms o innovationbeyond the invention o new (technological)products and points out the changing ace o innovation
that includes services, business processes and models,marketing and enabling technologies (DIUS,2008). Research and development is not a good
indicator o innovation or knowledge generation in manyservices sectors; high levels o innovation activity areoten not based on R&D expenditures (NESTA, 2008)
unlike the case in manuacturing. Construction is partlymanuacturing and partly services, so constructioninnovation needs to be investigated taking into account
its unique nature.
Construction is a very diverse sector and there is not
one single way in which innovation occurs. It willvary throughout the supply chain and project stages,and just as innovation will mean dierent things to
dierent economies, so it is equally important to realisethat the challenge and meaning o innovation or a smallspecialist sub-contractor will almost certainly be very
dierent rom that o a multinational constructioncontractor (Abbott et al., 2008). As Blayse andManley (2004) stated, building and construction is partly
manuacturing (materials, components, equipment)and partly services (engineering, design, surveying,consulting, and management) industry. Thereore, the
organisational context o construction innovationsdiers signifcantly rom a great portion omanuacturing innovations (Slaughter, 1998).
2 What is Innovation?
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
9/56
3
The construction industry consistently scores poorly
against standard measures o innovation. (NESTA, 2006).This is one o the reasons or the negative perceptiono innovation in construction. But do these measures
reect the real situation? This section o the reportexamines the need to take a systemic view oinnovation or measurement purposes and shows that iwe are to be able to better understand innovation in con-
struction, appropriate measures that reect the reality oinnovation in construction are necessary.
As a signifcant economic variable, the measuremento innovation has attracted a lot o attention. However,due to the complexities inherent in the whole process,
measuring innovation is not an easy task. Aneconomys rate o innovation depends on a range oactivities and the links between them. Companies may take
the lead, but do not innovate in isolation. Most innovationsinvolve a multitude o organizations. This is especiallythe case or the most knowledge-intensive, complex
technologies (Milbergs and Vonortas, 2004).
Innovative activities and eects o innovation
depend extensively on the why innovation takes place(drivers) and who innovates (actors) as well as the externalenvironment the innovation takes place. Proper
indicators are necessary to link the outputs oinnovation at frm level to the impacts at national level.Innovation measurement tended to ocus on products
and related production systems that is based on measur-ing inputs to innovation (R&D expenditures, educationexpenditures, capital investment) and intermediate outputs
(publications, patents, workorce size and experience,innovative products) (Milbergs and Vonortas, 2004).Although extensively used, these indicators are not
sufcient to measure the innovation process as a wholeand especially that in construction. As NESTA (2006)
stated, traditional indicators o innovation perormanceare heavily biased toward investments in scientifc andtechnological invention and so do not captureinnovation in non-research intensive industries and
there is a gap between actual innovative activity and theconventional measures that are intended to represent it.
Much literature has ocussed on how innovation
could be implemented in construction projects (Tatum,1987; Slaughter, 1998, 2000; Winch, 2003) and howconstruction companies manage the innovation
process based on some conceptual models (Seaden andManseau, 2001; Dikmen et al., 2005), and some casestudies (Slaughter, 1993; 1998; Veshosky, 1998; Koskela
and Vrijhoe, 2001; Sexton and Barrett, 2003; Cleas-by, 2004). Seaden and Manseau (2001) developed a
conceptual model or the analysis o innovation in
construction to describe the linkages between thebusiness environment, business strategy, innovativepractices and business outcomes. Dikmen et al. (2005)
developed a conceptual ramework to investigate valueinnovations within construction companies in the Turk-ish construction industry, where the elements o the
model are objectives, strategies, environmental barri-ers/drivers, and organizational actors. Yitmens (2007)study ocused on the investigation o the challenge o
change or innovation in the North Cyprus constructionindustry. These studies typically ocus on how innovation ismanaged within one frm and there is a lack o ocus
on the specifc project stages o innovation as wellas a lack o specifc ocus on dierent constructionsectors. Only a small minority o the research articles
have considered innovation at a specifc stage o theproject liecycle or rom the point o view o the projectliecycle in general (Dickinson et al., 2005). Moreover,
none o these studies discussed the accurate measure-ment and proper indicators or construction innovation.
The problem o developing appropriate measures orconstruction innovation is compounded by the actthat construction is a very diverse sector and there isnot one single way in which innovation occurs. The
organizational context o construction innovationsdiers signifcantly rom much o traditionalmanuacturing innovations (Slaughter, 1998).
Building and construction is increasingly conceivedas partly manuacturing (materials, components,equipment) and partly as a services industry (engineer-
ing, design, surveying, consulting, and management see Blayse and Manley, 2004). In general terms, how-ever, innovation can be observed at three dierent levels:
namely the sector-level, business-level and projectlevel.
As a project-based and ragmented industry, much othe innovation in construction is co-developed at theproject level and thereore remains hidden (NESTA, 2006;
Barrett et al., 2007).This means the constructionindustry is a sector within which traditional measures do notreect the true extent o the innovative activity that is
taking place (NESTA, 2006; Barrett et al., 2007). As mucho this innovation is process and organization-basedand thereore hidden at the project level, construction
companies tend to invest less in R&D and rarely createnew patents (NESTA, 2007; BERR, 2008). Sound policyanalysis and business level decision-making requires
relevant indicators in order to remove this gap andcapture the hidden innovation in construction (Barrettet al., 2007).
3 Measuring Construction Innovation
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
10/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
4
43.1 Measuring innovation as a
system
Systemic innovation metrics are necessary to capture
the context in which organizations orm and matchexpectations and capabilities to innovate. Besidesmeasuring the inputs and outputs o innovation, theprocess and contextual variables should be investigat-
ed as well as the impacts in order to ully realize thebenefts o innovation. Besides measuring the inputs and
outputs o innovation, the process and contextualvariables should be investigated as well as the impactsin order to ully capture the extent o innovation activity.
The systems o innovation approach (Edquist, 1997,2001, 2005) argues that innovation should be seenas an evolutionary, non-linear and interactive process,
requiring intensive communication and collaborationbetween dierent actors. Howells (1999) identifes atleast our overlaid innovation system sub-regional,
regional, national and international level. The linksbetween sub-regional, regional, national andinternational systems o innovations imply that analyses
should include actors and institutions at all our levels.
Initially, the concept o innovation system has been
applied to the national level (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson,1993; Niosi et al., 1993; OECD, 1999). The nationalsystems o innovation (NSI) studies innovating frms in
the context o the external institutions, governmentpolicies, competitors, suppliers, customers, valuesystems, and social and cultural practices that
aect their operation (OECD and Eurostat, 2005). NSIprovides a ramework in which the whole innovationprocess can be analyzed in detail that has become an
appealing ramework or policy makers. The concepto a NSI comprises the variables related to innovation
processes within and among frms, and to theinnovation inrastructure surrounding and enablinginnovations by frms that represent the structuraldimensions o the NIS concept (Faber and
Hesen, 2004). The literature on NSI emphasizes theimportance o strong linkages among these various insti-tutions in improving national innovative and competitiveperormance, and this emphasis applies in
particular to universities within national innovation systems(Nelson, 1993). The exchange o knowledge, cross-sectoralcollaborations and interdisciplinary research have been
shown to be essential to the innovation process in all thecase studies. Networks require links not only between
sectors, departments and institutions but also withinthem (NESTA, 2009).
Milbergs (2004) proposed a ramework to analyse
innovation at the national level, where the majorcomponents o innovation are defned as the inputs,implementation (processes/activities), outputs,
and impact. According to Milbergs (2004), ourcontextual domains are distinguished that inuencethe rate and direction o innovative activity. These in-clude the macro-economic conditions such as fscal/
monetary environment, interest rates, global economicgrowth rates, demographics; public policy conditions
such as R&D unding policy, taxes, intellectual property,regulations, standards and market access policies;innovation inrastructure conditions such as universityresearch inrastructure, ederal labs, capital markets,
power and transportation systems, regional clusters;and national mindset such as public attitudes to science,cultural actors, and political issues related innovation.
3.2 Indicators for measuringconstruction innovation
The preceding sections have identifed the need or
innovation metrics to take account o the varied waysin which innovation can happen in less technologi-cally ocussed sectors and the level o analysis. This is
particularly true or construction as modern construc-tion companies largely unction and innovate by thequality o their processes, the people operating them
and the way in which they change and adapt to suitthe changing business environment. Much construc-tion innovation is project-based and unrelated to ormal
R&D expenditure and many innovations, particularlyorganizational or process innovations are neitherpatented nor trademarked (Slaughter, 1993). There-
ore, traditional indicators poorly reect the true level oinnovative activity in construction. This gul between
practice and measurement is the real innovation gap(NESTA, 2006).
Based on the analysis o construction innovation
literature by Dickinson et al. (2005), studies onconstruction innovation so ar lack specifc ocus onlevel o analysis, stage o liecycle, and sector. The levels
o analysis they suggested involved the product, proj-ect, frm, industry and national levels. The constructionfrm level has received most attention in the analysed
literature; this might be because the principal drivers orinnovation are oten created at the frm level (Seadenand Manseau, 2001). Innovation could be investigatedin dierent stages o the liecycle including the design,
preparation, construction, and maintenance. As Winch(2003) argues, most product innovation in construction
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
11/56
5
is excluded rom the analyses in industry-based surveys.Architectural and engineering consulting frms that carry
out most o the design work in construction, typicallythe most innovation in construction, are also excludedrom the standard construction industry innovation
classifcations. This point is developed urther byBarrett et al. (2007) who point out that the standarddefnition o construction does not include much o the
innovation rich and value-adding constructionactivity such as manuacturing, architectural and
technical consultancy, business services, and realestate activities. The built environment cluster analysisprovides a wider approach to analyse the operations andunctions o the construction sector within the overalleconomy o a country (Carassus et al., 2006).
Adopting a built environment view helps analyse the majoreconomic activities o manuacturing, production, assetmanagement, project management, distribution, and
services. A similar approach was adopted in one o thestudies (Reichstein et al., 2005) that included all frmsin traditional construction as well as the frms involved
in architectural activities, urban planning and landscapedesign, quantity surveying and engineering consultancyand design activities in the variable broad construction
sector.
It is possible to apply the basis o Milbergss (2004)
ramework and investigate the innovation process inconstruction at the business level. Based on an extensiveliterature review, Table 1 presents a list o metrics or
inputs, contextual variables, implementation, outputs,and impacts o innovation at the construction frm level.
Table 1: Measures o innovation at frm level (Ozorhon et al., 2009)
Inputs
Contextual (institutional)
variables
Implementation
(processes/activities)
Outputs
Impacts
R&D spending
Number o R&D projects
Number o ideas or concepts
Number o people actively devoted to innovation
Sources o inormation (internal and external)
Capital (investment in ICT, purchase o sotware and equipment)
Networks (technology alliances)
Organizational actors (company structure, culture, organizational learning, resources)
Country related actors (political, economic, regulations, public policies, socio-cultural conditions)
Industry-related actors (ragmentation, competitiveness, technological advancement,
project-based, lack o an agenda, no o parties, legal issues )
Tools, techniques, strategies (knowledge management, human resources, IT and R&D, design,
marketing, distribution, business process reengineering)
Number o new products introduced/commercialized/exportedNumber o new processes/services introduced
Intellectual property (patents, trademarks, designs)
Revenue growth due to new products or services
Short and long-term proftability
Increase in organizational eectiveness
Increase in technical capability
Improvement o service/product quality/processes
Improvement o organizational structure
Improvement o human resources
Market penetration and growth
Better company image
Innovation collaborations
Improvement o client satisaction
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
12/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
6
4This section has shown that measuring constructionnnovation is an important yet difcult task. There are
available indicators; however they are not really su-fcient to capture the reality o the process particularlywith regard to the co-developed multi-actor hidden
innovation that occurs at the project level. One othe main objectives o this research is to shed morelight on this matter through the ollowing analysis and
subsequent case studies. In this respect, the nextsection presents the fndings o a questionnaire survey
that investigated dierent components o innovation atthe frm level that is ollowed by case studies that dealtwith the project level activities.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
13/56
7
4. A Survey o Construction Innovation at the Firm-Level
In order to develop measures or innovation that areappropriate to particular sectors it is necessary to
understand the sectors own view o the signifcanceo innovation and how and why it does (or does not)occur. To this end, this section o the report presents
an analysis o innovation at the frm level that is theresult o a survey o entrants or the 2009 NorthwestRegional Construction Awards. The entrants or the
awards provide and interesting sample or analysis as,by defnition, they believe themselves to be at the ore-
ront o current practice. The survey itsel used an Inno-vation Value Chain (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007) ap-proach so that although the survey considers innovationrom a frm-level it considers all stages in the process odeveloping new ideas, putting these ideas into practice
and diusing successul practice to the wider organisation.
4.1 The innovation value chain
The stages o innovation have been classifed invarious ways by dierent authors. Rogers (2003)oers fve stages namely, knowledge, persuasion,
decision, implementation and confrmation. Wole (1994)suggests ten stages including idea conception,awareness, matching, appraisal, persuasion, adoption
decision, implementation, confrmation, routinization,and inusion.
Tangkar and Arditi (2000) proposed asix-phase labyrinth o innovation, where the ow osuccessul innovation comprises need, creation,
invention, innovation, diusion, and adoption.Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) on the other hand presentsinnovation as a sequential, three-phase process that
involves idea generation, idea development, and thediusion o developed concepts that includes sixcritical tasks namely, internal sourcing, cross-unit sourcing,
external sourcing, selection, development, and
companywide spread o the idea. In their classifcation,the whole process is reerred as the IVC. The frst phase
is to generate ideas that can happen inside a unit, acrossunits in a company, or outside the frm; the second phaseis to convert or select ideas or unding and developing
them into products or practices; and the third is to di-use those products and practices. Similarly, Roper et al.(2008) model IVC as a recursive process that has three
main links such as knowledge sourcing to assembleknowledge necessary or innovation, knowledge trans-ormation to translate knowledge into physical innova-
tion, and fnally knowledge exploitation to improve theenterprise perormance. The IVC oers a tailored and
systematic approach to assessing frm-level innovationperormance (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). It is pos-sible to apply the basis o the IVC ramework and inves-tigate the innovation process at the project level as well
as the frm level. Table 1 shows the links o value chainand key questions to measure each link.
Table 2: The innovation value chain at frm-level (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007)
IDEA GENERATION
In-house
Creationwithin a unit
Do people in
our unit creategood ideas on
their own?
Key
questions
Cross-pollination
Collaborationacross units
Do we creategood ideas by
working acrossthe company?
Selection
Screening and
initial unding
Are we good at
screening and
unding new
ideas?
External
Collaboration
with parties
outside the frm
Do we source
enough good
ideas rom outside
the frm?
Development
Movement rom
idea to frst result
Are we good at
turning ideas into
viable products,
businesses, and
best practices?
Spread
Dissemination
across the
organisation
Are we good at
diusing
developed ideas
across the
company?
CONVERSION DIFFUSION
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
14/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
8
44.2 Innovation framework for
construction
Figure 1 shows the proposed innovation ramework, this
paper has adopted, where the stages o innovation aredetermined as ideas, conversion, and diusion based onthe IVC by Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007). In this model,based on the level o innovation capacity, ideas are gen-
erated through the acquisition o necessary knowledgeand investment; these ideas are converted into product/
process/service innovations within the company; fnallythese innovations are exploited to achieve perormancebenefts and impacts.
An innovation event, in the orm o a new product orprocess, represents the end o a series o knowledgesourcing and translation activities and also the begin-
ning o a process o value creation which may result inan improvement in the perormance o the innovatingbusiness (Roper et al., 2008). The organisations employ
a number o tools, techniques and strategies through-out the whole process and external actors such as driv-ers, barriers and enablers determine the eectiveness o
creation and diusion o innovation. In this respect, it
can be stated that Milbergss (2004) ramework at thenational level is adapted or the construction industry
to analyse frm level innovation process. The overall in-novation perormance is determined by the success othe IVC together with the benefts and impacts achieved
through the innovations.
Figure 1: Framework for analysing innovation in construction
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
15/56
9
4.3 The research methodology
One o the major objectives o this report is toprovide insights as to how innovation is transormedrom knowledge production, transerred into the
construction industry and is diused and embedded intothe normal processes o construction companies. To thisend, a ramework or analysis has been developed based
on the innovation value chain (IVC) approach wherecomponents o the innovation process are defned
which clearly ocus on the internal and external determi-nants and outcomes o construction innovation. In thiscontext, in collaboration with the Centre or Con-struction Innovation (CCI) Northwest, a survey was
administered to the applicants o the 2009 North WestRegional Construction Awards that constituted a samplesize o 47. The awards entrants were chosen as they all
believe that they are at the leading edge o construc-tion in the region and were willing to share their innova-tions, and so the sample should provide an insight into
perceived best practice. A total o 30 completedquestionnaires were returned resulting in a 64%response rate. The ollowing questions aimed to
measure the dierent components o innovation at thefrm level using a Likert Scale (1-5) or each question:
nTo what extent do the ollowing actors create theneed or your organisation to innovate?
nTo what extent do the ollowing actors acilitate
innovation within your organisation?
nTo what extent does your organisation utilize theollowing external sources o innovation?
nTo what extent do the ollowing actors help promoteinnovation within your organisation?
nTo what extent do the ollowing actors impede the
uptake o innovation within your organisation?nTo what extent does your organisation excel at the
ollowing innovative practices?nTo what extent do you think the ollowing actors drive
innovation within the construction sector?
nTo what extent does your organisation derive theollowing outcomes o innovation?
nTo what extent is your organisation good at the threedierent stages o the IVC?
nDoes your organisation have an innovation policy/
strategy?
nDoes your organisation have a procedure to monitorthe success o innovation?
4.4 Findings of the survey
The major aim o this survey was to provide insights oncurrent innovation practices and perormance o theindustry that would inorm the case studies that
were produced in the next stage o the research. Thequestions ocussed each construction frm on thedrivers; internal inputs and external knowledge sources;
enablers; barriers; innovative practices; benefts/outputs;actors; and innovation perormance.
Drivers o innovation: In order to understand whatdrives an organisation to innovate the question wasasked: To what extent do the ollowing actors create
the need or your organisation to innovate? (1-5)
Drivers Mean
Perormance (cost reduction,
productivity, eectiveness) 4.8
Environment/sustainability 4.7
End-user requirements 4.6
Technological developments 4.3
Competition 4.1
Regulation and legislation 4.0
Aesthetics/design trends 4.0
The results are intended to shed light on the main
drivers or innovation at the frm level. Unsurprisingly
the results show that the main driver is perormanceimprovement. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the
environment/sustainability, and meeting end-userrequirements are close behind. This indicates thatalthough there is a recognition that successul
innovation ought to bring improvement in its own rightbut even so it is oten something that has to be doneto meet external actors such as environmental actors
or client/user requirements. These fndings are similarto those ound in other studies (e.g., Slaughter, 1993;1998; Gann, 2000; BERR, 2008).
Table 3: Drivers o innovation
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
16/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
10
4Internal inputs and external knowledge sources oinnovation:The IVC begins with the generation o new ideas. The
ollowing two questions were designed to better under-stand the actions/processes that organisations take togenerate new ideas and the sources o the new ideasthemselves.
Inputs Mean
Inormation 4.2
Investment in training and education 4.1
Number o ideas or concepts 4.0
Establishment o networks
(technology alliances) 3.8
Investment in ICT, purchase o sotware
and equipment 3.8
Number o people actively devoted
to innovation 3.6
R&D spending 3.0
Number o R&D projects 3.0
The respondents indicated that provision o inormation,training and education, and generation o ideas and orconcepts are the main actors in ostering innovation. It
is interesting to note that R&D spending and projects arenot regarded as an important input as also suggested by
NESTA (2006).
Sources Mean
Clients 4.3
Partners 4.2
End-users 4.1
Suppliers/manuacturers 4.0
Contractors 3.9
Designers 3.9
Consultants 3.8
Conerences, workshops 3.8
Research institutes/universities 3.7
Best practice clubs 3.7
Construction Skills 3.6
Competitors 3.6Fairs, exhibitions 3.6
Government 3.5
Proessional bodies 3.4
Companies rom other industries 3.2
Facility managers 3.3
Business Link 3.1
Financial advisors 2.6
Table 4a indicates that inormation and the generationo new ideas are the key actors in ostering innova-
tion. Table 4b above examines the relative importance othe various sources o knowledge towards innovation.Signifcantly the top 7 sources o knowledge are all rom
within the construction supply-chain, with the mostsignifcant knowledge sources listed as clients,partners, and end-users ollowed by suppliers. This tends to
indicate that the pull or innovation in order to meetdemand is more signifcant than the push towardsinnovation in the orm o new products/materials rom
suppliers or new concepts/models rom external sourc-es. This mirrors fndings by Dikmen et al. (2005), whoshowed that clients, consultants, and suppliers were the
major sources o knowledge that supported innovations.These fndings points out the signifcance o the knowl-edge application and exploitation subsystem that is pro-
posed in regional innovation systems (Autio, 1998).
Table 4a: Internal inputs o innovation
Table 4b: External knowledge sources o innovation
To what extent does your organisation utilize the ollowing
external sources o innovation (1-5)?
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
17/56
11
Enablers o innovation:This question was intended to help understand the
actors that are seen as signifcant in enabling innovationwithin an organisation.
Enablers MeanLeadership 4.6
Supportive work environment 4.4
Collaboration with partners 4.4
Deep understanding o the customer 4.3
Education & training policy 4.1
Knowledge management practices 4.1
Encouraging sta to get involved with
external networks 3.9
Use o problem solving techniques 3.7
Awards, grants, unds 3.6
Government schemes 3.5
Reward schemes 3.3
Emphasis on research & development 3.2
The top two actors are seen to be leadership and asupportive work environment. These outweigh the other
more ormal enablers which tends to indicate that whereschemes are put in place without the surrounding cul-tural actors o leadership and supportive environment
they are not likely to ourish. The next most signifcantactors are collaboration with partners, and deep under-standing o the customer which reinorces the fndings
o the previous questions and strengthens the impres-sion that innovative solutions are oten co-developed atthe project level rom within the supply chain. This is also
suggested by Tatum (1987) who has shown that leader-ship, supportive organisational structure, collaboration,and customer orientation are the main enablers o in-
novation within the organisation. On the other hand,reward schemes and emphasis on R&D do not appearto be seen as signifcant enablers o innovation. In the
case o reward schemes this may be because it is a spe-
cifc type o scheme that may only be used in certainorganisations, nevertheless the low ranking o R&D asan enabler o innovation again appears to confrm the
fndings o the previous questions.
Barriers to innovation:This question was intended to elicit rom therespondents the main barriers to innovation or their
frms.
Barriers MeanEconomic conditions 3.9
Availability o fnancial resources 3.6
Fragmented nature o construction business 3.4
Unwillingness to change 3.3
Lack o government role model 3.3
Inappropriate legislation 3.3
Risk in commercialising innovations 3.2
Temporary nature o construction projects 3.2
Extensive inter-organisational change required 3.1
Lack o awareness 3.0
Lack o qualifed sta 3.0
Lack o end-user involvement 3.0
Lack o innovative investments /procedures
/ practices (R&D, training and education) 3.0
Adversarial approaches within the
supply chain 2.9
Lack o clear benefts 2.9
Belie that the industry is doing well
without innovation 2.8
The two top barriers to innovation are clearly seen tobe economic conditions and availability o fnancialresources. It is interesting to note that fnancial con-
cerns can both act as a driver and a barrier; there is aparadox in the sense that the companies surveyed claimto innovate in order to increase their proftability but
believe that they cannot innovate unless economicsallow. These two actors are ollowed by a group o actorsled by the ragmented nature o construction ollowed by
unwillingness to change, lack o government supporand inappropriate legislation.
Table 5: Enablers o innovation
To what extent do the ollowing actors help promote innovation
within your organisation (1-5)?
Table 6: Barriers to innovation
To what extent do the ollowing actors impede the uptake o
innovation within your organisation (1-5)?
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
18/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
12
4Adoption o advanced practices:Having asked questions relating to the generalconditions or and against innovation this questionwas intended to provide evidence as to which practices
contractors believe they excel, as an understanding othis will help inorm the types o innovation that theymight be expected to introduce.
Practices Mean
Collaborative practices 4.3
Contract management/client relations 4.3
Waste management 4.1
Energy efciency/carbon reduction 4.0
Knowledge management 3.9
Design solutions (virtual/collaborative
design, modelling and simulation tools, BIM) 3.8
Web-based project management/extranets 3.8
O-site manuacturing, modern methods o
construction 3.7
Business process reengineering 3.7
Marketing strategies 3.7
Inormation and communication
technologies (ICT) 3.6
Advanced materials (composite,
high perormance) 3.3
On-site IT applications (GIS, GPS, RFID) 3.3
Automation o processes 3.2
Based on the responses (Table 6), it is observed thatcontractors believe that they are good at organisation-al innovations such as collaborative practices, contractmanagement/client relations. In terms o technological
innovations they practices mirror the second most sig-nifcant driver or innovation (environment/sustainability)with contractors now believing that they excel at waste
management and energy efciency/carbon reduction.
It is worth mentioning that inormation and
communication technologies (ICT), advancedmaterials (composite, high perormance), on-site ITapplications (GIS, GPS, RFID), and automation o
processes are among the least adopted practices.These fndings also support previous evidence thatmuch o construction innovation is process and
organisation-based (Slaughter, 1993) and otencharacterised by the widespread adoption o newpractices as a result o advances in technological and
business processes (Lansley, 1996).
Role o actors in construction innovation:The respondents were asked to identiy the major
innovators within the construction sector. This issignifcant as it can illustrate not only rom which party
do most innovations come rom but also provide insightsas to which types o innovation are considered to besignifcant by the contractors surveyed.
Actors of innovation Mean
Suppliers/manuacturers 4.0
Design teams 3.9
Clients 3.8
Consultants 3.6
Contractors 3.5
Project managers 3.5
Subcontractors 3.4
End-users 3.3
Facility managers 3.3
Table 7: Innovative practices
To what extent does your organisation excel at the ollowinginnovative practices?
Table 8: Innovators within construction sector
To what extent do you think the ollowing actors drive
innovation within the construction sector?
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
19/56
13
The fndings reveal that the major innovators areviewed as the suppliers, ollowed by the designers,clients (Table 7). Being in the fth place, contractorswould appear to believe, that in comparative terms,
they do not perorm well. The results support the ideathat suppliers act as key driver o technical innovationin the construction industry, since they invest ar more
in R&D than contractors or consultants and thereoremore likely to develop product innovations (Gann,1997). The result is perhaps also interesting in terms
o what it reveals about the mindsets o the contrac-tors surveyed. The previous question revealed thatcontractors believe that they are good at organisational
innovation and waste and energy reduction, yet despitethis they do not eel that they contribute to innovationas much as suppliers, designers, clients and consultants.
The question remains is this because these our typeso organisations are outperorming them in terms oinnovation or is it because the types o innovation
(product/material) rom suppliers and designers areviewed as more signifcant than the more processoriented innovation typical o a contractor. In the same
vein, it is also interesting also to note that end users
and acility managers are not viewed as signifcantactors in the innovation process despite the act that
client satisaction and improvement o services are citedin the subsequent question as two o the major beneftso innovation. This would seem to indicate a mindset
within the industry that still views innovation rom atechnology push rather than a user pullperspective despite the growing recognition in the
literature o the importance o service driven innova-tion (Barrett, 2007) and the evidence rom elsewhere inthis survey that client/end user pull is a more signifcant
driver o innovation.
The role o dierent participants in stimulating and
achieving innovation will be revisited in the ollowingcase study section.
Benefts/impacts o innovation:By obtaining a better idea o the expected beneftso innovation, we can improve our understanding owhy a company would choose to innovate and how it
might measure its success. Outputs o innovation aretraditionally measured by patent or trademarkapplications. However, modern construction companies
largely unction and innovate by the quality o theirprocesses, the people operating them and the wayin which they change and adapt to suit the changing
business environment. Developing on Henderson andClark (1990), Slaughter (1998) presented fve modelso construction innovation categorised as incremental,
modular, architectural, system and radical, which canprovide a basis upon which companies can select andimplement the innovations. Incremental innovation is a
small change, based upon current knowledge and expe-rience, whereas a radical innovation is a breakthrough inscience or technology that oten changes the character
and nature o an industry.
Outcomes of innovation Mean
Better company image 4.7
Improvement o services 4.4
Improvement o client satisaction 4.4
Improvement o product quality 4.4
Improvement o processes 4.3
Increase in technical capability 4.3
Increase in organizational eectiveness 4.2
New services 4.1
New products 4.1
New processes 4.1
Market penetration and growth 4.0
Revenue growth due to new products
or services 3.8
Short and long-term proftability 3.8
Improvement o organizational structure 3.6
Improvement o human resources 3.6
Intellectual property (patents,
trademarks, designs) 3.5
Table 9: Innovation benefts/impacts
To what extent does your organisation derive the ollowingoutcomes o innovation (1-5)?
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
20/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
14
4The most signifcant beneft o innovation is seen tobe better company image. As Tatum (1987) suggested
reputation is the most valuable asset or a constructionfrm and is eective in sustaining long term competitiveadvantage. This is ollowed by improvement in
services, client satisaction and product quality whichare grouped together. This is a signifcant fnding whichreinorces that although innovation may be important
or contractors per se it is external actors such asimage, services and satisaction that are seen to provide
the most signifcant beneft to an organisation. The lowsignifcance o intellectual property reinorces the pointmade by NESTA (2007) and BERR (2008), whosuggested that construction companies tend to investless in R&D and rarely create new patents. Hence,
such measurements that relate to outcomes based ontraditional science based indicators o innovation do notreect the ocus o activity o contractors and conse
quently will give a poor indication o actual innovativeactivity.
Innovation perormance:Finally another key integrational point related to measur-
ing the innovative perormance o companies was to as-sess their strategies and processes. The respondents wereasked specifcally to state how good they believed thatthey were in terms o their IVC activities. Based on the
fndings, it would appear that they believe that they areslightly better at generating ideas through collaborationwithin and outside their organization (idea generation
4.2) compared to spreading developed ideas (diusion 3.9) and developing ideas into viable products, services,or businesses (conversion 3.8). The reasons behind the
slightly lower perormance levels at the conversion anddiusion o ideas compared to the generation o ideasare explored in more detail in the next section.
The respondents were also asked to state whether their
organisation has an innovation policy/strategy and aprocedure to monitor the success o innovation or
not, since these two play a signifcant role in theperormance o innovative activities (DTI, 2007). 55% o thecompanies indicated that they have an innovation
strategy, and 62% o them stated that they monitor/mea-sure their innovation processes. The case studies in theollowing section investigate uther how these strategies
and procedures are employed in the organisations. Moredetail on how these activities actually occur and the waythat strategies are implemented will be explored in the
ollowing sections.
Bringing the Survey Findings TogetherThe fndings based on the 30 responses indicate thatthe contractors largely innovate to improve theirprocesses and services. In particular their innovation isdriven by their clients and partners rom whom they learn
the most rom. The main ocus o their innovations isorganization-based and incremental rather than radicalor product based innovations. Slightly more than a hal
o the respondents have an innovation strategy and theirinnovativeness is determined largely by the eectiveness
o leadership, work environment, and collaborationswith partners. They specialize in introducing new wayso doing business more oten than adopting advancedtechnologies. Whilst they can be regarded as success-
ul at generating ideas; they believe that they are lesssuccessul at diusing these ideas and convertingthem into products and services at the same level.
Signifcant issues worthy o urther investigation includethe seeming mismatch between conventional indicators
o innovative activity such as R&D spend and patents andthe locus and nature o innovation within the variousstakeholders within construction projects. Both o these
issues will be investigated in more detail in the ollowingsection.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
21/56
15
5. Case Studies Illustrating a Project Lie Cycle toConstruction Innovation
Gann (2001) suggests that project-based constructionfrms oten struggle to learn between projects, wherePowell (1997) has shown that this is oten the best
time to develop lasting real changes ater reection onexisting practices. Unortunately, such frms otenhave weak internal business processes and rarely en-
gage in activities such as post occupancy evaluation sothey do not know how to continuously improve theirprocesses. Measurement o the dimensions and elements o
construction innovation at the project level should bekey to improving the innovation perormance o suchcompanies. However, analysis o innovation at the
project level shows it is typically ignored by them.Indeed the literature shows this is mostly due to thedifculties in monitoring dierent activities carried out
by dierent parties in each stage o the project (Dulaimiet al., 2002, Blayse and Manley, 2004).
There are several reasons or this. Management oconstruction innovation is complicated by thediscontinuous nature o project-based production in
which, oten, there are broken learning and eedback
loops. Project-based frms need to manage technologi-cal innovation and uncertainty across organisational
boundaries, within networks o interdependentsuppliers, customers and regulatory bodies (Gann andSalter, 2000), but in tight time-spans and with little
eedback on what works well. On the other hand,project-based frms are always innovating at thelocal level; this is because they have to as their work is
always unique, always delivered to bespoke designs,always achieving something new (Keegan and Turner,2002). Studies by Gann and Salter (2000) point out the
need or a better conceptual understanding and newmanagement practices to link project and businessprocesses. Although some strategies are proposedin their studies, they do not address how to track
innovative activities during the liecycle o a constructionproject and how to integrate the new into traditionalways o working.
Relationships and knowledge-ows are important orinnovation at all levels o economic activity, including
internationally, nationally, inter-sectorally, sectorally,inter-frm, intra-frm, inter-project and intra-proj-ect (Manley, 2008). In a complex systems industry
such as construction, frms have to rely on thecapabilities o other frms, and oten sub-contractorswith less understanding o new ways o working, to
produce innovations where this can only be achievedby the cooperation between those concerned with thedevelopment o products, processes and designs (Blayse
and Manley, 2004). In order to understand how
innovations occur throughout the liecycle o aconstruction project, it is necessary to
understand the role o each project stakeholder bothindividually and collectively. It is increasingly accepted thatconstruction innovation encompasses a wide range o
participants within what in manuacturing would be called aproduct system (e.g. Marceau et al., 1999); thedierence in construction that operatives move through
a changing context, as the building rises rom theground, whereas in manuacturing the product movesby the operative.
To carry out the wider study o innovation we envisage, acomprehensive approach o the construction industry is
thereore necessary. One that recognises its uniqueness,but also understands construction as a manuacturingprocess and a service industry. This means speciying
the dierent kinds o frms involved in the constructionand the built environment processes and how they goabout their business. This broad view must incorporateall participants involved in the construction process,
including governments, building materials suppliers,
designers, general contractors, specialist contractors,the labour workorce, owners, proessional associations,
private capital providers, end users o public inra-structure, vendors and distributors, testing servicescompanies, educational institutions, certifcation bodies,
and others (Blayse and Manley, 2004).
From thisperspective, clients can, and do, act as a
catalyst to oster innovation by exerting key pressureon the supply chain partners to improve their overallperormance and by helping them to devise strategies to
cope with unoreseen changes (Gann and Salter, 2000);they can also demand high standards o work (Barlow,2000), and by identiying specifc novel requirements
or their project (Seaden and Manseau, 2001) absorbsome part o the accompanying risk. Knowledge andfnancial provision, eective leadership, and
dissemination o innovations are also among the keyroles which clients could play (Egbu, 2008).
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
22/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
16
4Contractors on the other hand play a mediator role inthe interace between the institutions that develop
many o the new products and processes (materials andcomponents suppliers, specialist consultants and tradecontractors), and those which adopt such innovations
(clients, regulators and proessional institutions seeWinch, 1998). Contractors introduce dierent typeso innovations depending on their specialty areas. It
is thereore suggested that companies operating inbuilding, inrastructure, housing, industrial
construction should be investigated to understand theirinnovation potential, as well as the subsectors o
construction, including architecture, urbanplanning, surveying, consultancy, asset/acilitiesmanagement, and project maage-
ment. Such a more detailedanalysis would reveal better ways o understanding andmeasuring innovation in dierent phases including the
production, construction, and marketing.
Figure 2 shows clearly the innovation value chainpresented or a construction project. Here, theconstruction sector is viewed as a complete system,
which involves clients, contractors, sub-contractorssuppliers, consultants, and designers working togetherin harmony. The link between frm level processes and
innovation at the project level should be explored in thiscontext, to observe and then understand how dier-ent frms contribute to innovation process by develop-
ing and implementing strategies, assigning resources to
create ideas and diuse them.
Figure 2: Innovation value chain in a construction project
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
23/56
17
5.1 The research methodology
Following on rom the questionnaire survey, thissection urther explores the need to link between frm levelprocesses through the analysis o 4 case studies. These
case studies have been produced on award winningprojects at the North West Regional Construction Awards2009. Interviews have been conducted with the key
actors to track the collaborative ways in which thesuccessul innovations have been generated and to
investigate the consequent benefts o innovation at theproject and company level. The ollowing issues wereaddressed during the interviews:
nProject inormation (type and size o theproject, parties involved)
nMain reasons/drivers to innovate (end user,
competition, perormance requirements, technology,etc.)
nMajor innovation introduced within the project (type
o innovation and stage within the project liecycle),outputs o innovation (in terms o new or improvedproduct/process/service)
nInputs o innovation (human, fnancial, technical,and non-technical resources and internal/externalknowledge sources)
nEnablers o innovation (at each level)
nBarriers to innovate (at each level)
nMajor tool/strategy employed to realize innovation
(innovation policy, measurement system, strategies atfrm and project level, solution o problems)
nRoles o each stakeholder in (stimulating/ implement-
ing) the innovation (relations, communication, andcooperation among project participants)
nMajor benefts/impacts o this innovation
(productivity, proftability, image, new markets, etc.)nLessons learned rom the innovation process
(capturing/transerring project knowledge)
The cases highlight the breadth and depth o thecompanies activities to bring innovation into projects.The active measures to drive value rom collaborative
partnerships and community/end user engagementeature as signifcant enablers o innovation. Theindings o these case studies are also published as
individual reports and can be ound atwww.innovationcasestudies.
5.2 Case study 1: CleveleysCoastal Defence andPromenade EnhancementScheme
THE CONCEPTA partnership between Wyre Borough Council, Birse
Coastal and other strategic partners was ormed inMarch 2004 ollowing an extensive, quality-based
tender process compliant with European procurement.The project was designed to improve ood protec-tion to 8700 properties in the Cleveleys area and toupgrade Cleveleys promenade. The Project is Wyre
Borough Councils largest ever civil engineering projectand the frst partnering contract it has let. The schemewith a contract value o 21m was unded by Wyre
Borough Council, DEFRA, Environment Agency, EuropeanRegional Development Fund and delivered in 30 months.The Cleveleys scheme has been delivered in accordance
with the principles o Constructing Excellence, engagedmultiple stakeholders making a real dierence to thelocal environment and the quality o lie. Demonstrating
numerous examples o innovation and best practice, itis considered or the Project o the Year award by CCINorth West.
INNOVATION JOURNEY/STORYInnovation on the ProcurementThe innovative procurement and delivery o this projectwas based on the key tenets o the Latham and EganReports. In particular much emphasis was placed onthe adoption o the partnering approach to achieve
better working relationships and deliver more efcientconstruction in terms o quality, customer satisaction,timeliness in delivery and value or money has been
well documented since publication o these reports.
Partnering provides the conditions that can enable realcost savings, eliminate waste, encourage innovation
and promote learning rom experience. To capitaliseon these benefts, and deliver best value, the Councilreplaced its old price-based competitive tendering with a
quality-driven process using the New EngineeringContract (NEC). Under this system, 26 contractorswere assessed through a 3-stage selection process that
evaluated experience, fnancial stability, commitmentto health & saety, employee skills, and reerences romclients, subcontractors and suppliers.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
24/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
18
4At the start o design, a partnering charter was producedthat committed all partners to deliver a quality scheme
or the public; achieve an exemplary saety record;ensure the achievement o best value or the budget atall times; communicate eectively with all those
involved or aected by the scheme; be considerate tothe community and to the environment; and deliver tothe Council and public without deects.
The client recognised that Early Contractor
Involvement (ECI) and integrated working were essential indelivering a successul scheme. The construction teaminvolved were brought together as much as a yearprior to work beginning on site and the contractors weregiven the opportunity to input into the design stage o
the project. Support was received rom the unders ateach stage o the project.
Innovation in the Community engagementVisitor experience in the promenade was primeconsideration in the design concept, which incorporates
eatures to entice the visitor along the length o theredeveloped promenade, providing ocal points o
interest, inormation, outlook and experience o thehighest quality. Extensive public consultation was heldrom the very outset o this scheme when the localcommunity were asked what they wanted rom a
seaside rontage. A design competition was undertakenor the selection o the architect/designer to prepare amaster plan. Four designs were subject to consultation
and a joint decision was made to choose the fnal designater they were reviewed by the contractor Birse Coastalor budget compliance and buildability.
To ensure that the community involvementcontinued through the lie o the project, an interest group
Cleveleys Searont Partnership was established. This
was comprised o local residents, community groupsand representatives rom retailers, leisure acilitators,
hotels, restaurants, the police and commercialbodies. Their brie was to work with Wyre BC and BirseCoastal, identiy any potential problems early-on or
resolution and continue input throughout construction.The Searont Partnership worked alongside the construc-tion team to secure additional unding/grants or public
artwork and amenity enhancement eatures tocompliment the scheme and add to the visitorsexperience.
The level o public interest and involvement in
the scheme led to it being ormally brandedas the peoples promenade. The team used avariety o communication methods to keep an open
and inormative dialogue with the public including:
nAn accessible exhibition centre eaturing displays o
the history o the promenade, the design o the newscheme, proposed works, weekly progress reports,a eedback book and an overview o the ollowing
months activities.nActivities and competitions were provided or children.
nReporting progress through video, photographs andartists impressions on a dedicated project web site and
through presentations made throughout work period.
nA visitors opinion book was made available or visitorsto record their comments. Thousands o comments
both positive and negative were assessed and a datarom the eedback book was tabled and executed bythe project board on a monthly basis.
nRegular meetings o the community and constructionteam to resolve issues and take orward good ideas.
nCommunity engagements events at construction
milestones, or example ground breaking andsectional completions.
nThe local press and radio were also engaged to update
the public on the progress and aims o the scheme.
Innovation in the Construction processBecause o the difcult working environment, anycoastal protection scheme carries inherent risks duringconstruction. The construction teams solution to the
potential risks o the project was the innovative use oprecast concrete units as a sae, cost eective, higherquality and more sustainable alternative to traditional
solutions such as rock armour or in-situ concrete. Itshould be noted that the R&D team has worked on
design issues particularly with the precast concrete units.
Precast units were manuactured using a high strengthconcrete (Tarmac Toproc C75) in a purpose-built
acility, just 5 miles away rom site. This allowed theteam to take advantage o traditional manuacturingtechniques such as just-in-time delivery and lean
construction, which resulted in less waste and higherefciency. It also allowed the team to maximise health,saety, quality and environmental benefts associated
with o-site construction, whilst the close location othe acility signifcantly reduced haulage costs o thecompleted units to site. An additional beneft othis solution was that no pollution occurred in the
sensitive coastal environment.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
25/56
19
As concrete is precast o-site, therewas no risk o washout rom unset
concrete and a greatly reduced number o vehiclesrequired on-site.
Peat onsite caused unstable ground conditions whichhad not been identifed by the original site survey,however, Birse were able to identiy an innovative, cost
eective and sustainable solution to stabilize the groundthat saved the project up to 1m; this was absorbed into
the main programme so did not cause a time delay.
Various low energy and renewable technologies wereused on site including wind turbines were installed toprovide power back the national grid, solar panels were
installed to provide power or heating and lighting in theshelter areas, and LED luminaires were used to provideenergy efcient lighting.
Strict zero tolerance targets were set to provide saeworking conditions. Weekly saety meetings meant that
any potential health and saety issues could be identifedand thus prevented at an early stage and responsibility
or project monitoring and continuing saety o workersand public was given to every member o the team. Thisresulted in there being no reportable incidents onsite.
It should be noted that local people were employedwhere possible in areas such as administration, securityand skilled labour. In total 75% o sta on the scheme
lived within approximately 35 miles o the site. Birse alsoendeavoured to employ local suppliers. 76% o supplierswere located within a 25 mile radius.
Innovative methods and toolsThe project included a rigorous perormance monitoring
regime both in terms o efcient delivery o the project
but also in terms o wider community impacts. To thisend, a customer quality plan o works, combined with a
Live Quality Alert System, contributed to the high qualityo the fnished project. All partners were incentivised bya pain/gain share arrangement and used an open-book
and live cost monitoring system which could be reviewedand observed by any partner at any time.
Eective knowledge sharing and then its management
are essential, not only in bringing the right ideas into aproject, but also to ensure that these ideas are knownby the entire project team and are diused to ollowing
projects. This project included a range o hard and sotmechanisms to promote and enable eective knowledgemanagement [ Give examples or clarity]. One central
developmenty in this respect was the web site cleveleys-seawall.co.uk, which was kept updated with all projectinormation, pictures, progress reports.
The diusion o the ideas and best practicethroughout the project was taken beyond the organisationsdirectly involved. The project was a registered Constructing
Excellence demonstration project (project number 2800).As such, the project team actively participated in thecollection and dissemination o key perormance
indicator (KPI) results, which are used to inorm theindustry. The team also contributed to the ConstructingExcellence case study document, providing an insight
into the innovative techniques and best practice adoptedon site.
-
7/31/2019 ME - iNOVAO
26/56
Innovation in construction
A Project Life Cycle Approach
SCRI Research Report
20
4INNOVATION ACHIEVEMENTSThe project is described by the project team as astunning project, the most successul ever (both Birses
and the council) having won 18 awards based aroundactors that include fnancial, saety, construction, andthe relationship side.
Project benefts:Evolving value engineering and design developmentcontinued throughout the scheme leading to:
nDevelopment o an integrated public realm and
coastal deence improvement scheme
nDevelopment o a multi-unctional team basedon trust and mutual understanding o the desiredoutcomes
nUse o robust, high-quality materials or low whole liecost eg: micro silica concrete, natural aggregates orcolour, stainless steel
nIncorporation o innovative ideas eg: ositemanuacture using precast concrete
nImproved understanding o risks and contingencies
valued at 3.8 million
n
Demonstrable savings o 1 million to datenSecuring external unding in excess o 14.5 million
nImproved health and saety through design the teamhas achieved, to date, over 352,000 hours o workswithout a reportable accident or loss in work time.
nProgrammed to meet the defned council
objectives 72 weeks ahead o target. This time saving wascalculated rom the target completion in theoriginal scoping study based on experience rom
previous schemes.
nExcellent public communication routes andconsultation developed
nUnderstanding and meeting the expectations o ourcustomers
Contribution to quality of life:The Cleveleys Searont Scheme transormed a dated anddilapidated 1920s searont into a vibrant, modern 21st
century seaside rontage, comprising coastal protectionand a new promenade accented by seating, shelters,eature lighting, new ca and extensive landscaping.
The new promenade has been developed or ullaccessibility, providing a high quality, sae environment
or the user. The scheme exploits the assets o thenatural coastal heritage, uses them to create and retain
jobs through the development o a sustainable tourismdestination. The scheme has also helped to provide a
saer, more secure environment and promote healthy
activities including walking, cycling, activities on thebeach and use o the fshing clubs.
INNOVATION VALUE CHAINIdea Generation:A principal idea that was brought into the projectwas the use o partnering and associated process
improvement as called or in the Latham and Eganreports. Although these are well established ideas, they
are not always applied successully in traditional wayso working. The project team on this innovative schemeensured that, with the partnering approach in placethrough the procurement route, steps were taken to
establish trust and drive efciency.
The project was very notable or its use o an open
innovation approach to idea generation. Openinnovation recognises that the best ideas can notnecessarily be generated in-house. In response to
this, many organisations now actively pursue strate-gies o outsourcing idea generation, developing meth-ods o bringing ideas in rom widespread, evolving
and diverse networks. The use o extensive publicconsultation should be seen in this regard. Equallyrelevant is the way that solutions such as the pre-
cast acility have been co-developed through an openapproach within the team.
Another key theme in modern inn