Digital technologies like AI and BIM provide an unprecedented opportunity for construction. We can now make unlimited mistakes and failures within a virtual environment where no workers are physically hurt and no materials are put into a landfill. However, taking advantage of this opportunity requires a radical shift in mindset and prioritization.
Think about a new technology (tech) your company has rolled out recently. Is it replacing a legacy workflow typically done on paper, spreadsheet or email? Or, is it a new activity like laser scanning or off-site fabrication that must show a measurable return on investment to survive? To date, how successful have those implementations been? If they fell short of expectations, did you look at other technology options? Did you consider that it might not be the technology that’s broken?
There are so many questions that wall and ceiling contractors, manufacturers and suppliers will face throughout the adoption of the digital tools and systems that will transform processes and people, from the front office to the field. Rather than asking about the best tool for x, y or z, the question you should be asking is, “What problem is that technology out to solve?”
Whether you’re looking to reduce time spent on timesheets or improve productivity by measuring what’s not productive, new technology is merely the tool that helps people improve the process of collaboration between the designers, builders and operators of our built environment.
1. If your technology is not living up to its expectations, it’s likely due to one (or more) of these root causes:
2. The technology isn’t ready yet
3. The individual isn’t motivated (or able) to adopt
4. The business can’t justify the full investment required to implement
Public policy (or client contract) is generating undue conflict
Let’s assess these root causes and how they relate to one another before we align on countermeasures for each. Only then can you cultivate the Industry 4.0 mindset required to deploy digital transformation on your next project and stay relevant in an industry poised for disruption.
1. The Technology Isn’t Ready Yet
Whether we like it or not, new technology is touching every part of your business. So, how do you know if you’ve chosen the right tool? In an industry that’s built a reputation of lagging behind the innovation curve, it can be tough to find the ‘sweet spot’ between lost revenue from betting on technology too early and lost market share when you’re the last of your competitors to adopt.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the most talked about technology of 2024. AI can help you write better emails in less time, it can also review thousands of hours of job-site video feeds looking for worker safety violations and other hazardous activities. But AI is not a flawless tool, and when it inevitably fails to live up to expectations, what (or who) will be to blame?
Step one is to assess whether the technology is ready for utilization. A great way to categorize the maturity of technologies that you are testing or adopting is with the Gartner Hype CycleTM.
Modified from research by Dunning-Krueger on overconfidence bias, the graph in Figure. 1 provides a visual representation of the role that societal “hype” plays in the rise of new technology adoption. The Gartner Hype Cycle has five phases:
- Technology Trigger—when the product launches.
- Peak of Inflated Expectations—when the hype of new technology is peaked above the realistic capabilities of the product.
- Trough of Disillusionment—when the initial excitement is replaced by the reality of performance issues and other shortcomings.
- Slope of Enlightenment—when early adopters begin to outperform competitors using the new tech.
Plateau of Productivity—when the value proposition is clear and the majority have adopted it.
An example of this cycle you may have experienced is the rise of cell phones. It’s been more than 30 years since cellular technology “peaked” in the mid-1980s, before falling into the “trough” in the early 1990s. Arguably, the “slope” began just before the turn of the century, and by 2012 (four years after the first iPhone release) cell phones had officially reached the “plateau.”
Every summer, Gartner releases a new Hype Cycle tracking emerging technologies. Atop the 2024 peak of inflated expectations is “generative AI.” It should be no surprise that when AWCI members were polled during the Industry Leaders Conference (September 2024), the top response was “AI” followed by “ChatGPT” (also a form of AI). Despite the subtle message that you should wait until after the trough to begin testing AI, the reality is that it may already be too late. Gartner predicts that generative AI—despite its current position at the peak—will reach the plateau of productivity in only two to five years!
Now take a moment to consider your technology solutions. Where would you say your technology falls in the cycle?
Having a realistic understanding of where your technology is on the Hype Cycle can be a projection of what to expect with your current technologies, and also a guide as you consider adopting new technologies.
Each phase of the cycle has its own risks that you should consider. Being an early adopter and taking on new technology at the peak of inflated expectations means you’re buying into a product isn’t proven yet. Riding a technology through the trough of disillusionment comes with considerable cost and frustration, but can lead to a “first mover advantage.”
Adopting technology at the slope enlightenment is a less risky option since the product is much more mature and readier to scale. But, if you look around and everyone is using the tech but you… the tech has reached the plateau of productivity. At that point, you might as well look at adopting the next disruptive technology that is likely headed towards the trough.
Evaluate the risk for your technology options, and determine whether it is in line with your risk-taker limits and your overall department or business goals.
2. The Individual Isn’t Motivated to Adopt
The second reason that your technology may not be meeting your expectations is driven by the people responsible for adopting it. While some team members may get excitement from trying something new, others on the team may have a stronger resistance to change. Recognizing and adapting your approach based on their comfort with change can help you with how best to approach them.
Figure 2 is the Technology Adoption Lifecycle graph made famous by Geoffrey Moore’s, “Crossing the Chasm.” Starting from the left you have the innovators, followed by the early adopters (think of those who stand at the Apple store lines for hours on end just to get the newest launched product as soon as possible), the chasm reflects the gap between the risk-taking early adopters, and the curious but risk-averse early majority. The chart concludes with late majority and laggards that fear change of any kind more than they dislike technology.
Laggards resist change—at all costs—until they simply can’t resist it anymore. Commonly they will resist until they are forced to change, out of necessity. A prime example of this was the project foreman that kept their Sprint Nextel push-to-talk (PTT) until the bitter end.
The importance of individual motivation also depends on how many people in the organization are impacted by it. For example, if you’re looking to adopt an AI tool like DocumentCrunch that can review contract documents and identify high risk clauses, then you only need one motivated risk management leader and a CFO that can justify the investment.
But, if you’re looking to get all projects working from the same project management and document control software, then you are looking to enact change on a large majority of your workforce. The larger the impact on workflow standard operating procedures, the more important it becomes to harness the innovators and nurture the laggards. If dealing with human emotions wasn’t hard enough, let’s layer in the business motivations of construction.
3. The Business Incentive Paradox
Innovation requires a tolerance for testing and learning before any direct return on investment can be measured. There is also an intangible value associated with being perceived in the market as an “innovator.” In reality, a new technology might face the chopping block simply because the business can’t justify the investment past the “learning zone.”
The question isn’t if you fall into the learning zone (see Figure 3), but rather when it will happen and how long you will stay there. If you begin adopting AI at the peak, you’ll spend more time in the learning zone than someone who waits until the trough or slope to adopt it.
It may be tempting to wait on technology to mature. However, if you wait too long, even a shortened delay during the learning zone can cause you to be left behind. The late Clayton Christensen captured this phenomenon in the late 90s with “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” which first coined “disruptive” technology in contrast with incremental changes.
So, is there a “best” time to adopt a new technology? Despite Gartners projections, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when a technology will reach each stage of the Hype Cycle. While It may seem counterintuitive, the optimal time to adopt a new technology is actually at the base of the trough. Any earlier and you’re spending more to market yourself as an innovation leader. Any later puts you at risk of getting left behind the competition.
It can be hard enough to determine if a technology is ready for your organization, or vice versa. At the project level, trade contractors aren’t often asked to weigh in on key technology decisions that impact operational effectiveness. This leads us into the last reason why your technology may not be meeting expectations.
4. The Role of Contracts and Public Policy
Technology adoption on construction projects is largely driven by the same contracts and codes that have left many standard practices in the dark ages. Despite advances in building information modeling (BIM) to improve processes from design coordination to facility operations, adoption has lagged because contracts are not yet designating BIM as the legal document of record. Until project reliance upon 2D drawing output is removed at a project policy level, technologies like BIM will continue to stall on the Slope of Enlightenment.
While some policies can hinder technology adoption, others are driving it forward. Many private health-care (and some public) owners are embracing requirements to perform BIM. Of course, these requirements do not guarantee a direct return on investment (ROI). But, they are an important step in the right direction. A quick review of a BIM requirements exhibit within the prime contract will show examples (see Figure 4) where a project-level policy-maker (i.e., general contractor, owner) is leveraging their influence to drive technology adoption.
Now that we know how technology, individual, business, and policy changes can impact our ability to innovate, let’s look at some strategies to remove those hindrances.
Align: Barrier or Roadblock?
Whether your challenges are technology maturity, individual motivation, business incentive or public policy, the solution begins with a thorough “five whys” analysis of the situation. In the example (Figure 5), the extra $2,000 in reprographics fees boils down to an individual/team culture that did not prioritize communication. By attending the training, they would have learned the importance of the new iPad initiative on the company’s bottom line (and their bonus). That might just be the motivation they need to remember to plug in the device at the end of the day.
It may not be exactly five levels deep, but when you come to a root cause, the next step is to determine if it is a barrier (within your relative control) or a roadblock (outside of your control). Because the root cause was merely a breakdown in communication between operations leaders and the Superintendent, it is classified as a barrier. Similar to a guard station outside a high-security building, barriers can be let down as long as you have the right credentials or know how to “sweet talk” the person manning the gate.
A roadblock resembles a massive rock in the road that can’t be moved by any single person. In the short term, the only resolution is a less efficient workaround (detour). This occurs when trade contractors using Plexxis or Viewpoint as their project management (PM) system enter projects that require all trades to use the GCs PM system. This contract requirement produces waste through duplicate entries between systems and the risk of lost or corrupted data through the manual entry process, but rarely is there much a trade contractor can do about it.
If you’re looking for pockets of innovation, seek out barriers and avoid roadblocks. Just as barriers can turn to roadblocks when relationships breakdown, roadblocks can change to barriers through empathy and compromise with the stakeholders on either side of the rock that stands between them.
Over time, you can use your voice to build demand horizontally (between AWCI members) or vertically (between AEC stakeholders) to remove the roadblock. If the argument is convincing to a broad audience, it’s easier to build the momentum needed to move the rock out of the road.
Looking back at the four root causes discussed in the previous section, let’s identify how each one can present as either a barrier or a roadblock.
If the technology isn’t ready yet…there’s not much you can say to the technology developers to speed them along any faster. So, this is most often a roadblock. One exception is when your request is not an issue of capability, but rather a priority. Then, you can make a case to raise the priority of your development over competing opportunities. Otherwise, your best strategy is to keep up with the rapid changes in technology so you don’t get left behind.
If the individual isn’t motivated…telling them to, “be motivated” isn’t very effective. These barriers to adoption can be brought down simply by legitimizing their concern. As leaders, it is important to listen to those who are frustrated with technology to understand their why. Are they simply resistant to all change? Or, is there an underlying issue with the new technology or how it was rolled out? To motivate individuals, utilize empathy and vulnerability to build rapport while also listening for potentially legitimate issues with the implementation.
If the business can’t find an ROI…too often we forget that budgets were made subjectively. Thus, we can change them subjectively. How much of your workday is packed with wasted effort, or “Gray Work”1? How would you calculate the ROI of removing waste that you haven’t historically measured? To justify a business case for technology that improves risk management practices and workforce efficiency, look at ditching the ROI calculation for RLP (revenue loss potential).
Figure 6 depicts a hypothetical RLP calculation for the waste caused by redundant request for information (RFI) data entry between GC and trade systems. Having a holistic view of the costs associated with not adopting will help make the business case to break down historical implementation barriers.
If the public or project policy is in conflict…the adversarial nature of construction contracts is a massive innovation roadblock. Trade contractors are too often stuck between conflicting demands to make a profit while maintaining relationships with the other project stakeholders. The best countermeasure for this seemingly insurmountable roadblock is to rally together as trade contractors to diligently measure the true cost impact of legacy contract methods so that GCs and project owners can see the error of their ways.
Advance: Industry 4.0 Mindset
Are you ready to do the impossible and transcend the hype? Start by curbing your enthusiasm at the onset. By suppressing the hype and adjusting your expectations of success, you can also build a culture that changes how we define and treat failure. Rather than looking at failure as a negative that should be avoided at all costs, true innovators recognize that failure is a key component in the recipe for success. The learnings from each failure should be cherished and stored as part of your intellectual property.
Digital technologies like AI and BIM provide an unprecedented opportunity for construction. We can now make unlimited mistakes and failures within a virtual environment where no workers are physically hurt and no materials are put into a landfill. However, taking advantage of this opportunity requires a radical shift in mindset and prioritization.
Project design sequence and delivery schedules will look very different following this fourth industrial revolution of AI and robotics. More human time and energy will be spent in a big room environment (physical or virtual) during design and coordination, while less time and human energy will be spent on the jobsite itself (see Figure 7).
Ultimately, teams must change how they measure the success of the project and their role in it. By coming together as a complete design and construction team to align on project goals that promote collaboration and risk sharing, we can reach that plateau of productivity…at least until the next disruptive technology comes along.
Nathan C. Wood is an innovation influencer across the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. His experience with virtual design and construction (VDC), lean process improvement, and integrated project delivery (IPD) has led him to realize how even proven technology solutions can often result in adoption failure and lost ROI. As executive director of the Construction Progress Coalition (ConstructionProgress.org), Nathan blends his passion for open collaboration with real-world skepticism to produce a pragmatic strategy for adopting digital standards in design and construction. When not fighting for open standards, Nathan also supports the people and process transformation as chief enabling officer of SpectrumAEC. He continues to support industry progress through speaking engagements, collaborative research projects, and workshop facilitation.
